November 30, 2010 § Leave a comment
Challenge the dominant narrative – that’s what we’ve learned from smartMeme. Up until now, the coalition government has managed to lay the blame of our economic woes at the door of public spending – even though the recession was caused by the behaviour of the big banks, or more accurately – the structure of our financial system. This slight of hand has allowed for the vicious cuts in public service provision which Cabinet Ministers themselves admit are driven by ideology more than economic sense.
That’s why False Economy is such a strong campaign. Have a look at the video –
It firmly juxtaposes the detrimental impacts of the cuts with the reason why we’re in such a mess – a global deregulated banking system that was too big to fail.
November 30, 2010 § Leave a comment
Democracy Now! is where I find out about news that the mainstream media doesn’t consider important enough to share. They focus on peace, our environment, social movements – everything I enjoy with my early-morning cup of tea.
They must have known yesterday was my birthday, as they filled the hour with two interviews – one with the economist Manfred Max-Neef, and the other with author Derrick Jensen. I hadn’t heard of either before, but both spoke powerfully and are worth sharing.
Part 1 and 2 of Manfred’s interview:
My favourite section of the interview is Manfred Max-Neef laying out the principles of economics:
The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.
One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.
Two, development is about people and not about objects.
Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.
Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.
Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.
And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.
And here are parts 1 and 2 of Derrick’s interview.
One of the problems that I see with the vast majority of so-called solutions to global warming is that they take industrial capitalism as a given and the planet which must conform to industrial capitalism, as opposed to the other way around. And that’s literally insane, in terms of being out of touch with physical reality, because without a real world, you don’t have any social system. You don’t have any social system at all. You don’t have life. You know, we’ve come to believe that our food comes from the grocery store and that our water comes from the tap, and that’s because it does. And that’s an extraordinary thing that the system has done, has been to interpose itself in between us and the real world, because if your experience is that your water comes from the tap and your food comes from the grocery store, you’re going to defend to the death the system that brings those to you, because your life depends on it. If, on the other hand, your water comes from a river and your food comes from a land base, you will defend to the death the river and the land base, because that’s what your life depends on. And so, that’s part of the difficulty, is this culture has inserted itself between, and it’s done that for us and then also happens all over the world.
November 25, 2010 § Leave a comment
This is brilliant.
Your readings this week include Milton Friedman, Rousseau and Mark Fisher – find out more here.
And remember, you will not need your fire extinguishers.
November 24, 2010 § 1 Comment
The student protests have filled the media again today. Here are some brief thoughts for those of us who are thinking about how these exciting developments fit into a larger strategy. Because strategy is fun.
– The student protests have successfully owned the moral high-ground – even amidst incidents of violence. The press is still widely following the ‘they are the future’ narrative, and today’s images of boys and girls in school uniform being kettled by aggressive-looking police in riot gear should push that further. That will change. The story of these protests is ready for the next chapter.
– The thousands of young people taking to the streets for the first time are being radicalised by new ideas they encounter, feeling a sense of power amongst their fellow protestors and media coverage, and witnessing cases of police brutality. These ‘beyond-the-usual-suspects’ youth can become one of the central constituencies of future actions on various different anti-cuts issues. Those protests will, of course, need to include their student identity and concerns.
– Protesters come in three groups – radicals, idealists and realists. Opponents are already marginalising the radicals (focusing on the fire-extinguisher and the damage done to the police van left conveniently inside the area being kettled today – particularly the story of a handful of younger girls in school uniform holding hands around the van to stop further damage being done), and will then turn the idealists into realists. That leads to failure.
– In a wider anti-cuts perspective, the worry is that each issue-group will be taken down one-by-one. First the students, then the NHS, then forests and the environment etc. All of these issues need to be woven into a larger story.
What needs to happen next
The first step already happened today – localising the issue. Up and down the country we’ve seen sit-ins at universities, and classes walking out of school to demonstrate. To get organised, students will need manageable groups – and locality is the best way for that to happen.
– Experienced organisers need to get in the game and share their knowledge. The lack of coordination has certainly played well so far – telling a story of anger bubbling up all over the place, new faces protesting etc – but if this is to have political impact and go beyond November 2010, we need organisers doing their thing. This means some basic activist skills – have a buddy when at a big march, know your rights if police get involved, how to organise a meeting, how does a movement work, strategy 101 etc.
– Other issue groups need to vocally support student protests. This is a great opportunity to build a wider anti-cuts narrative that can weave into financial reform etc later on. Particularly public service providers would do well to build alliances with young people.
– A clear theory of change needs to emerge. Is it focused on Nick Clegg and breaking apart the coalition government? Is it focused on Michael Gove and forcing him to split the Cabinet? Is it focused on George Osborne? Where do students have pressure – perhaps via a secondary target? Headteachers and University Vice-Chancellors?
EDIT: This video is classic – as one young man approaches to further damage the honey-trap police van, students in school uniform ask ‘why are you here if you don’t give a fuck?’
November 23, 2010 § Leave a comment
This is just amazing – I’m tempted to draw all sorts of metaphor about what the West can learn from the rest of the world by looking at things differently…
November 21, 2010 § 4 Comments
Whilst travelling through the US, people were surprised to learn that our Conservative Prime Minister’s big idea for Britain was the concept of the Big Society – surely a naturally progressive idea? Six months into Cameron’s Premiership, I thought I’d put some thoughts down on paper.
It’s been particularly interesting to see how the third sector has dealt with the idea. Some have embraced it with open arms, using it’s language, defining itself as naturally at home within the concept (and funding structures..). Others see it as a linguistic land-grab of their work to fit into a political agenda, and dryly point to the public sector spending cuts (and inevitable increase in private sector service provision) as the wolf underneath the sheep’s clothing.
Before we dive in, let’s clarify what the Big Society is. As Tory Minister Tim Loughton has commented,
“The trouble is that most people don’t know what the Big Society really means, least of all the unfortunate ministers who have to articulate it. What actually is the Big Society, let alone is it good or not? Exactly how big is it now or is it going to be? Is it in fact Ann Widdecombe?”
A good place to start is the Big Society Network website. Or watch it’s CEO Paul Twivy introduce it.
Paul is also the founder of The Big Lunch (which was viciously attacked in a meeting I was in recently by a leading public engagement practitioner and a former employee…). It seems to me he genuinely wants a better society. But listening to him, his vision sounds more like the 1950’s, with milkmen who had electric milk-floats and churches where the Vicar knew your name. Naturally, before The Big Lunch/Society he was in communications (ring any bells anyone?).
From what else I could find online, the team of 15 has precisely one woman on staff and fourteen men (remember – this is a community development network…), and they overwhelmingly come from management consultancy and conservative public policy think-tanks. No doubt in an effort to increase their diversity, they tried to recruit a leading queer, female environmental activist friend of mine. She said no.
So, with such a narrow view of Britain, it’s no wonder that their analysis of why a Big Society message is necessary is so hideously wrong. Take this lovely picture for starters.
Really? The reason why we have record levels of loneliness, of mental health problems, of fear of crime is because we have an over-reaching government? Our monotone-High Streets, our empty community centers, our lack of a British identity all come from a government that tries to do too much? As Shilpa Shah noted to me – surely a critique grounded in the deep and long-established causes for identity-attrition, consumerism and increasing atomisation, the privatisation and sanitisation of public space, family breakdown, rapid demographic changes within fragile communities, the criminalisation of youth, increasing income inequality, the Great Retreat Indoors and a barking steroid-enraged media stoking up fear of difference offer a more convincing understanding of how we’ve got to where we are today?
So even though some policy suggestions (a National Citizenship Service, the Big Society Bank) are things I can get behind, the Big Society doesn’t give us a compelling context of how they will make this country better.
Reading Margaret Wheatley’s Finding Our Way this afternoon pointed out perhaps the greatest flaw in the Big Society idea. If the government wants to put control of public services into the hands of communities, we obviously need communities. But do you feel like you live in one? I don’t. I just happen to live next to people, and work with others. My friends are spread all over the world. No wonder there are worries that the narrative of the Big Society is a slight of hand that’ll allow mass privatisation – just look at NHS reform.
Some other text-book issues;
- calling itself ‘a movement’ when it’s set up by communications professionals
- using partisan language – ‘roll back government’
- astro-turfing – claiming they are an ‘organisation being set up by frustrated citizens for frustrated citizens’
- thinking that involvement (deciding how my child’s school should be run) is the same as control (actually running the school)
Perhaps this debate between Anna Coote of nef (who have a great series of ‘Questions for the Big Society‘) and Jonty Oliff-Cooper of the Big Society Network really gives you the best analysis. (Skip the BBC guy. Dull.)
As Anna says, ‘The Big Society story makes the public spending cuts possible, but the cuts make the best ideals of the Big Society impossible to realise’.
And yet, and yet…. Because of the enormity of the work that lies before us, we have to work with those we’d never usually work with. We have to trust those we have previously deemed untrustworthy and to keep our focus on the potential future, not the painful past.