In the early months of the Second World War, even after the so called phoney war, there wasn't much hatred of the Germans, my father says. They were clearly the enemy, or at least the opponents, but people had yet to develop a passionate loathing for the Nazis. That came later.
At the time my dad was about 12 or 13 years old and living in West Norwood, south London. He says that even when the Luftwaffe bombed the area people bore it with resignation. That was just what happened in wars.
All that changed when they killed Electric Liz.
My dad happened to be there at the time when the German plane appeared over Norwood High Street. He jumped over a wall and hid. Liz did not.
When the plane had gone her dead body was lying in the street.
Electric Liz was something like a street person. My dad doesn't know how she got her name but it might have been through begging for small change for the meter.
In those days most people had to put a coin in the slot to get both gas and electricity.
However she got the name, Electric Liz was a street person, not exactly homeless but as close to it as may be. She looked like a tramp, a destitute person.
Clearly she was also a character. Everyone in West Norwood knew her.
If she had survived the war, the National Health Service, would probably have done its best to help her. Today, of course, we are far more enlightened than in those post war years, and there are again thousands of street people all over the country (though I believe they have been cleared away for the duration of the Olympics where I live in north east London).
The death of Electric Liz really brought home the horrors of war to Norwood High Street and from then on my dad says, people really hated the Nazis.
They must have known before that war is always about killing and being killed, but the English are a soft lot and it takes the death of an innocent to raise their passions.
Sunday 22 July 2012
Wednesday 11 July 2012
Baby booomers
The boomers. Millions of them aren't there? All the soldiers went home and started families after the war.
Actually it's all a load of nonsense and the truth is that in the key decade (1951-1961) the population hardly grew at all!
The increase in population of England and Wales in that decade was about 2 million. Even if you take 1939 to 1961 it was only 4 million. Between the 1951 and 1961 censuses there were 7,121,000 live births, rather less than in any decade between 1871 and 1921. In fact the population increase was on the low side in the 1951/1961 decade.
And right now there's a wave of immigration, mostly young East Europeans. Net migration to the UK is running at about a quarter of a million a year (according to the latest statistics).
In the so called boomer years the net increase in population was about 200,000 a year.
So according to the statistics there might be an extra 200,000 pensioners each year, but there's also 250,000 mostly young, economically active people to take their place.
According to the latest statistics there are 29.13 million economically active people http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/february-2012/statistical-bulletin.html in employment. I can't find the statistics but thanks to the increase in female employment, improved health and the fact that many jobs are now less physically demanding, I believe this is a far higher percentage of the population than in the 1950s.
Right now there's mass unemployment and many people who want to get a job are unable to do so. There may be feckless and idle people out there but not all the unemployed are like that. Many are absolutely desperate to get work.
The idea of making it harder for younger people to get jobs by forcing older people to work when they would prefer to retire, is plain evil. It also makes no economic sense.
The wealthy and those with extreme right wing views want to reduce public services because they don't use these services and they want to cut taxes (since even the wealthiest person has to pay some tax, VAT for example).
In the 1960s and 1970s (when they knew all about the baby boomers story) we were promised a reducing retirement age, as automation took over and we moved into a leisure society.
But in those days there were fewer billionaires and their ability to manipulate the public agenda was not so profound.
One thing should be retired (permanently) and that's this story about the baby boomers.
Actually it's all a load of nonsense and the truth is that in the key decade (1951-1961) the population hardly grew at all!
The increase in population of England and Wales in that decade was about 2 million. Even if you take 1939 to 1961 it was only 4 million. Between the 1951 and 1961 censuses there were 7,121,000 live births, rather less than in any decade between 1871 and 1921. In fact the population increase was on the low side in the 1951/1961 decade.
And right now there's a wave of immigration, mostly young East Europeans. Net migration to the UK is running at about a quarter of a million a year (according to the latest statistics).
In the so called boomer years the net increase in population was about 200,000 a year.
So according to the statistics there might be an extra 200,000 pensioners each year, but there's also 250,000 mostly young, economically active people to take their place.
According to the latest statistics there are 29.13 million economically active people http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/february-2012/statistical-bulletin.html in employment. I can't find the statistics but thanks to the increase in female employment, improved health and the fact that many jobs are now less physically demanding, I believe this is a far higher percentage of the population than in the 1950s.
Right now there's mass unemployment and many people who want to get a job are unable to do so. There may be feckless and idle people out there but not all the unemployed are like that. Many are absolutely desperate to get work.
The idea of making it harder for younger people to get jobs by forcing older people to work when they would prefer to retire, is plain evil. It also makes no economic sense.
The wealthy and those with extreme right wing views want to reduce public services because they don't use these services and they want to cut taxes (since even the wealthiest person has to pay some tax, VAT for example).
In the 1960s and 1970s (when they knew all about the baby boomers story) we were promised a reducing retirement age, as automation took over and we moved into a leisure society.
But in those days there were fewer billionaires and their ability to manipulate the public agenda was not so profound.
One thing should be retired (permanently) and that's this story about the baby boomers.
Monday 2 July 2012
John Massey
I was John the video maker, then there was John the author and John the murderer. Of the three of us, I thought John the murderer was by far the nicest.
I wasn't quite sure what John the murderer was doing there. Once he cleaned my car for me and did a very good job. John the murderer likes clean cars.
Many people say driving with me is exciting (code for terrifying). John the murderer was kind enough to say he thought I could be quite a good get away driver.
He didn't tell me his second name and I didn't ask. It was none of my business and I'm rotten at remembering names anyway. I'd probably have forgotten even if he had told me.
It was only some time later when I discovered John was really John Massey, an escaped convict, Britain's longest serving prisoner. By that time he'd been captured and was back in prison.
John Massey is an amazingly talented craftsman and fixer. He can fix anything even his escape from almost any prison.
He created a widgit for my tripod that made it work in an emergency but as well as the practical he has an artistic side: he showed me amazing, intricate art works he had produced.
At the time he was on the run having walked out of Ford open prison. It was not the first time he'd absconded from jail.
Escape is a serious crime (from the perspective of the jailers who don't like prisoners who slip the leash). So when he was recaptured instead of returning to an open prison he was sent to Pentonville.
I've never been to prison but I have tried to video the outside walls of Pentonville and that scared me. But John worked out a way of making a rope and then used it to scale the frighteningly high walls.
John Massey's crime was unforgivable. He used a sawn off shotgun to kill Hackney bouncer Charlie Higgins. If there is any justice in this world this will still haunt his conscience when he goes to his grave.
But the legal system in this country has laid down that a life sentence for murder usually means 14 years in prison. If John Massey had been a model prisoner he'd have been out by 1990 (22 years ago).
How is it possible that a man convicted in 1976 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment is still in prison in 2012, more than 35 years later?
John Massey's downfall is a strange combination of heroic virtues. He is intensely loyal to his friends and his family. When he's escaped it's always been a last ditch attempt to see a close member of his family who was dying or seriously ill. Most people wouldn't be able to climb the walls of Pentonville (something like 20 feet high). But 64-year-old John Massey is incredibly fit for someone of any age. Then, few fit men would have the ability to construct a rope capable of taking their weight from bits of rubbish lying about a prison.
He was the wrong person, in the wrong place at the wrong time,
When he escaped from Pentonville, police warned the public that he was dangerous. This was so absurd that it did not damage John's reputation but just made the police look like a lot of shifty, lying bastards. Let's be kind to them and say they simply didn't know, after all John was in the prison authorities care.
In reality John Massey is a very kind, gentle, talented, warm and friendly old man. He shouldn't be in jail. If the prison authorities had any sense they'd offer him a job helping to make British prisons less leaky, making escape more difficult.
I'm not the only one who thinks John Massey should not be in prison. He has some powerful allies as Eric Allison reported in the Guardian. But my guess is that John's going to be in prison for several more years until everyone forgets the fuss. He will be in prison not because he needs to be but because the authorities have egg on their face and want to pretend that justice is on their side.
They are wrong.
I wasn't quite sure what John the murderer was doing there. Once he cleaned my car for me and did a very good job. John the murderer likes clean cars.
Many people say driving with me is exciting (code for terrifying). John the murderer was kind enough to say he thought I could be quite a good get away driver.
He didn't tell me his second name and I didn't ask. It was none of my business and I'm rotten at remembering names anyway. I'd probably have forgotten even if he had told me.
It was only some time later when I discovered John was really John Massey, an escaped convict, Britain's longest serving prisoner. By that time he'd been captured and was back in prison.
John Massey is an amazingly talented craftsman and fixer. He can fix anything even his escape from almost any prison.
He created a widgit for my tripod that made it work in an emergency but as well as the practical he has an artistic side: he showed me amazing, intricate art works he had produced.
At the time he was on the run having walked out of Ford open prison. It was not the first time he'd absconded from jail.
Escape is a serious crime (from the perspective of the jailers who don't like prisoners who slip the leash). So when he was recaptured instead of returning to an open prison he was sent to Pentonville.
I've never been to prison but I have tried to video the outside walls of Pentonville and that scared me. But John worked out a way of making a rope and then used it to scale the frighteningly high walls.
John Massey's crime was unforgivable. He used a sawn off shotgun to kill Hackney bouncer Charlie Higgins. If there is any justice in this world this will still haunt his conscience when he goes to his grave.
But the legal system in this country has laid down that a life sentence for murder usually means 14 years in prison. If John Massey had been a model prisoner he'd have been out by 1990 (22 years ago).
How is it possible that a man convicted in 1976 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment is still in prison in 2012, more than 35 years later?
John Massey's downfall is a strange combination of heroic virtues. He is intensely loyal to his friends and his family. When he's escaped it's always been a last ditch attempt to see a close member of his family who was dying or seriously ill. Most people wouldn't be able to climb the walls of Pentonville (something like 20 feet high). But 64-year-old John Massey is incredibly fit for someone of any age. Then, few fit men would have the ability to construct a rope capable of taking their weight from bits of rubbish lying about a prison.
He was the wrong person, in the wrong place at the wrong time,
When he escaped from Pentonville, police warned the public that he was dangerous. This was so absurd that it did not damage John's reputation but just made the police look like a lot of shifty, lying bastards. Let's be kind to them and say they simply didn't know, after all John was in the prison authorities care.
In reality John Massey is a very kind, gentle, talented, warm and friendly old man. He shouldn't be in jail. If the prison authorities had any sense they'd offer him a job helping to make British prisons less leaky, making escape more difficult.
I'm not the only one who thinks John Massey should not be in prison. He has some powerful allies as Eric Allison reported in the Guardian. But my guess is that John's going to be in prison for several more years until everyone forgets the fuss. He will be in prison not because he needs to be but because the authorities have egg on their face and want to pretend that justice is on their side.
They are wrong.
Monday 25 June 2012
The madness of archivia
Archives are a good thing aren't they? The British Library, county archives, Kew and the many other, all fantastic organisations whose only purpose is to serve the historians and the curious. What could be better than that? True altruism?
Well up to a point, Lord Popper, to quote Evelyn Waugh's Scoop.
There used to be a sort of deal with public records (wills, birth, marriage and death certificates, census records, etc.) that the people would provide the information, park it in a central registry and then have access to it in perpetuity.
No-one minds a small administrative charge being levied in order to allow the archive to continue to exist. Well, that's an exaggeration (perhaps). In these days of the internet, in which it is said information wants to be free, people do mind but they put up with it.
What is really galling is that these organisations have started to claim copyright over the documents, as if they own them rather than the original creators (or their heirs and successors).
But surely, you object, copyright only lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator of the object (whatever it is)? How can wills, for example, be the copyright of anyone if they are more than 70 years old? Most people only start to get interested in wills when they were issued a century or more ago, so what's the problem?
Well, the archives make it as difficult as possible for you to copy the things they hold. You can not wander into a gallery and photograph an old master. It may be hundreds of years old but it is effectively the copyright of the gallery because photographic copies of it are tightly controlled by the gallery.
Many archives refuse to allow you to copy the documents they hold. Copies will usually be available but you have to pay an extortionate fee to get the copy. This fee will be something like £5. It didn't seem like a lot in the days when photography was expensive (you needed negatives and paper), but in these digital days, it's possible to create thousands, perhaps millions of photos for a fiver.
But a fiver (you protest) that's not much! Well, first of all you don't know how poor I am. Second, it isn't just one fiver if you are searching for something it can be quite a lot of fivers.
I run a kind of mini archive myself. I am one of the GOONS, a member of the Guild of One Name Studies. I have registered the name Brind and I am supposed to get an index of all the basic information relating to Brind births, marriages and deaths. Up until recently I could buy a single copy of a document and then provide it to any Brind family history researcher.
Up until recently I could pay the fivers, get the documents and copy them, even posting them online. Of course the archive would know I had breached its copyright (the copy of the copy, if you see what I mean), but since I was giving it away for free there would be little point in the archive pursuing me.
I can't do this any more. Archives have discovered a new technology that prevents, or makes difficult, the copying of documents. Since the originals are usually pretty awful, this additional level of obstruction makes the whole process more or less pointless. The archives have won. They control the documents. They own them.
The purpose of copyright is supposed to be to give the author of the piece, the due rewards of his or her work. Edward Munch created four versions of The Scream. I could imagine each being hung in a gallery and that gallery having the right to control access to the physical object. That makes sense. But when it comes to making copies of the The Scream, I think it belongs not to any one of those galleries but to Edward Munch (or his heirs and successors), if it belongs to anyone. To buy an object is not to buy the copyright. If you buy a copy of one of the Harry Potter books, believe me, you do not own the copyright.
People often donate things to archives because they believe they are providing a public good or they are putting something important on record. Think of the photographer who hands over an archive to the local library so that the pictures will be available for the local community. Such altruism is not uncommon.
If the archive then exerts copyright over those photographs isn't that a kind of artistic theft: wrong on two levels? It is wrong because the archive doesn't own the copyright (the originator still owns that), but it is also wrong because on many levels, it subverts the whole purpose of copyright.
Firstly, there's the 70 year issue. No one owns the copyright of something produced in antiquity. It is a public good. Anyone can use it. Secondly, what is happening is that copyright is being changed from something belonging to artists or creators to an organisational or corporate right.
Big business rules or big business sets the rules.
Well up to a point, Lord Popper, to quote Evelyn Waugh's Scoop.
There used to be a sort of deal with public records (wills, birth, marriage and death certificates, census records, etc.) that the people would provide the information, park it in a central registry and then have access to it in perpetuity.
No-one minds a small administrative charge being levied in order to allow the archive to continue to exist. Well, that's an exaggeration (perhaps). In these days of the internet, in which it is said information wants to be free, people do mind but they put up with it.
What is really galling is that these organisations have started to claim copyright over the documents, as if they own them rather than the original creators (or their heirs and successors).
But surely, you object, copyright only lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator of the object (whatever it is)? How can wills, for example, be the copyright of anyone if they are more than 70 years old? Most people only start to get interested in wills when they were issued a century or more ago, so what's the problem?
Well, the archives make it as difficult as possible for you to copy the things they hold. You can not wander into a gallery and photograph an old master. It may be hundreds of years old but it is effectively the copyright of the gallery because photographic copies of it are tightly controlled by the gallery.
Many archives refuse to allow you to copy the documents they hold. Copies will usually be available but you have to pay an extortionate fee to get the copy. This fee will be something like £5. It didn't seem like a lot in the days when photography was expensive (you needed negatives and paper), but in these digital days, it's possible to create thousands, perhaps millions of photos for a fiver.
But a fiver (you protest) that's not much! Well, first of all you don't know how poor I am. Second, it isn't just one fiver if you are searching for something it can be quite a lot of fivers.
I run a kind of mini archive myself. I am one of the GOONS, a member of the Guild of One Name Studies. I have registered the name Brind and I am supposed to get an index of all the basic information relating to Brind births, marriages and deaths. Up until recently I could buy a single copy of a document and then provide it to any Brind family history researcher.
Up until recently I could pay the fivers, get the documents and copy them, even posting them online. Of course the archive would know I had breached its copyright (the copy of the copy, if you see what I mean), but since I was giving it away for free there would be little point in the archive pursuing me.
I can't do this any more. Archives have discovered a new technology that prevents, or makes difficult, the copying of documents. Since the originals are usually pretty awful, this additional level of obstruction makes the whole process more or less pointless. The archives have won. They control the documents. They own them.
The purpose of copyright is supposed to be to give the author of the piece, the due rewards of his or her work. Edward Munch created four versions of The Scream. I could imagine each being hung in a gallery and that gallery having the right to control access to the physical object. That makes sense. But when it comes to making copies of the The Scream, I think it belongs not to any one of those galleries but to Edward Munch (or his heirs and successors), if it belongs to anyone. To buy an object is not to buy the copyright. If you buy a copy of one of the Harry Potter books, believe me, you do not own the copyright.
People often donate things to archives because they believe they are providing a public good or they are putting something important on record. Think of the photographer who hands over an archive to the local library so that the pictures will be available for the local community. Such altruism is not uncommon.
If the archive then exerts copyright over those photographs isn't that a kind of artistic theft: wrong on two levels? It is wrong because the archive doesn't own the copyright (the originator still owns that), but it is also wrong because on many levels, it subverts the whole purpose of copyright.
Firstly, there's the 70 year issue. No one owns the copyright of something produced in antiquity. It is a public good. Anyone can use it. Secondly, what is happening is that copyright is being changed from something belonging to artists or creators to an organisational or corporate right.
Big business rules or big business sets the rules.
Wednesday 30 May 2012
A thousand lines
Who would you prefer to do business with, a giant faceless international corporation or your friendly local craftsman, a person you know and can get hold of if something goes wrong?
Well it turns out that in almost all circumstances it's the faceless corporation. Yes, you prefer to do business with organisations that have huge profit margins, who will despoil the Earth's resources, exploit child labour, prop up dodgy regimes and worst of all contribute to one of the political parties in America!
You like brands. You like high street shops and impressive web sites.
There are so many things you could buy (or even better barter) from people in your community, but apart from a few specialist services (like plumbing) you will almost always choose the corporation to do business with.
Somehow you just don't trust those locals. They aren't up market enough, they might be unable to do what they claim or it might make the whole process more difficult.
In Germany there are loads of mum and pop businesses. It is the heart of their economy. In Britain they usually have to duck and dive to survive. You don't want to know about that ducking and diving.
So why is that? When they become popular everyone beats a path to their door and they can quickly become mega businesses (defeating the object, you might say). But it seems impossible to run a very small business serving your community (providing help with computers, growing vegetables, repairing shoes, making curtains, designing and installing electronic systems, making furniture, whatever).
It's hard to think of anything that can not be done better by the small, local business: banking services and insurance might be examples but it's pretty obvious to anyone who's followed the eonomy over the last few years that these enterprises should be run on a co-operative basis. Profit making banking in a world where people gamble trillions on invented financial instruments every hour, is obviously lunacy.
So be a revolutionary or stick up for Adam Smith (the big corporations do everything they can to avoid market disciplines, that is what branding is all about) buy or barter local. Take a thousand lines from your community. You will regret it, lots of times, but as you pick up experience as a local trader you will also empower both yourself and your community.
The excuse used for sticking with the brand is "no-one ever got sacked for specifying Big Blue". Big Blue is (or was) IBM the huge American computer giant parodied in 2001: A Space Odyssey. But Big Blue racked up some of the biggest losses in financial history because it was unable to understand what was happening to the market (Apple, Microsoft etc.). And as a consumer who's going to sack you?
Well it turns out that in almost all circumstances it's the faceless corporation. Yes, you prefer to do business with organisations that have huge profit margins, who will despoil the Earth's resources, exploit child labour, prop up dodgy regimes and worst of all contribute to one of the political parties in America!
You like brands. You like high street shops and impressive web sites.
There are so many things you could buy (or even better barter) from people in your community, but apart from a few specialist services (like plumbing) you will almost always choose the corporation to do business with.
Somehow you just don't trust those locals. They aren't up market enough, they might be unable to do what they claim or it might make the whole process more difficult.
In Germany there are loads of mum and pop businesses. It is the heart of their economy. In Britain they usually have to duck and dive to survive. You don't want to know about that ducking and diving.
So why is that? When they become popular everyone beats a path to their door and they can quickly become mega businesses (defeating the object, you might say). But it seems impossible to run a very small business serving your community (providing help with computers, growing vegetables, repairing shoes, making curtains, designing and installing electronic systems, making furniture, whatever).
It's hard to think of anything that can not be done better by the small, local business: banking services and insurance might be examples but it's pretty obvious to anyone who's followed the eonomy over the last few years that these enterprises should be run on a co-operative basis. Profit making banking in a world where people gamble trillions on invented financial instruments every hour, is obviously lunacy.
So be a revolutionary or stick up for Adam Smith (the big corporations do everything they can to avoid market disciplines, that is what branding is all about) buy or barter local. Take a thousand lines from your community. You will regret it, lots of times, but as you pick up experience as a local trader you will also empower both yourself and your community.
The excuse used for sticking with the brand is "no-one ever got sacked for specifying Big Blue". Big Blue is (or was) IBM the huge American computer giant parodied in 2001: A Space Odyssey. But Big Blue racked up some of the biggest losses in financial history because it was unable to understand what was happening to the market (Apple, Microsoft etc.). And as a consumer who's going to sack you?
Sunday 29 April 2012
Police demonstrate outside anarchist film show
End:Civ
I went to see End:Civ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--FsPMKkt9c) with director Franklin López in Whitechapel last night. It was like entering into a science fiction world, Children of Men, perhaps. End:Civ preaches deep green environmentalism and is as hostile to light green groups like Greenpeace as it is to the oil companies. Frank is a self avowed anarchist and I took it that the premises the video was shown in was run by an anarchist group. In the street, the forces of law and order, police officers who I took by their uniforms to be from outside the London area, massed in some numbers. I don't think they were too bothered about us, it seemed to be just another pre-Olympics show of strength. These police demonstrations are becoming quite common in north east London right now as the forces of law and order seek to exert control over the streets, signalling that no repeat of last summer's rioting will be tolerated in 2012. Frank explained how his video was made for about $20,000. Some bits were simply stolen, most of the very impressive interviews were shot at an environmental conference, and other sections were shot while Frank was attending events. One model of 21st century video making, perhaps. If the distributors are not going to distribute and the tv companies are not going to broadcast, what difference does it make if you rip off a few giant corporations by stealing their video? It's a point of view. The basic message of End:Civ is that the system is so rotten that it has to be overturned in order to save the planet. If the corrupt governments and the over mighty corporations threaten the world then you have to do whatever is necessary to topple them. Reform is simply not possible. A bleak message. Malthusianism with a 21st century twist.
Sunday 25 March 2012
Zen Management
This is both a handbook to help you succeed in the modern world of work and a survival guide for those unfortunates who have no desire to climb the greasy pole but would prefer not to get on the wrong side of the powers that be in the organisation in which they work.
It introduces the idea of Zen Management. This sounds like a highly exotic technique but is actually the commonest form of corporate organisation in the workplace today.
Zen management is by its nature chaotic and destructive. It is one of the most profound reasons why the corporation is likely to be replaced by a loose network of individual contracts, with people working together on a freelance basis on individual projects, connected only by the internet.
In a world where roads are permanently jammed by crawling traffic, it makes no sense for people to spend perhaps ten hours a week getting to an office that has worse equipment (computers, phones, faxes, broadband etc.) than they could afford to buy for their own home.
Ten hours a week is about the same as 1.2 working days. The average person goes to an office about 45 weeks a year. That means the total travelling time is about 54 working days or nearly 11 weeks. That is the equivalent of working from January until the last fortnight of March! Apart from the damage done to the planet, this wastes an awful lot of resources. It is not uncommon for people to spend £2,000, £3,000 perhaps even £5,000 a year commuting. There are parts of the world where an income of £5,000 a year would be regarded as wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. In the age of the internet people who live in these areas may be able to compete against some of the commuters for their jobs. Call centres have already started to do this. Quite clearly the current level of commuting is not sustainable.
Right now the corporation seems stronger than it has ever been. It is the dominant form of social organisation and thrives while other social systems (churches, voluntary organisations, cinemas, clubs and societies, even pubs and drinking clubs) languish. It is likely to remain that way for at least the next decade. It wouldn't be worth writing the book if it was any other way.
But all forms of organisation wax and wane. They have a natural life span. And when an organisation seems to be most powerful it is a likely sign it is about to decline. Has the corporation reached its apogy! Probably not just yet. But it will at some time. Probably some time in the 21st century.
Zen Management conjures up the image of Tibetan priests in spartan temples ringing bellls annd using prayer wheels. But these are not the signs of Zen Management. The most obvious sign is that when you deal with an organisation the first thing junior staff tell you about the middle management is that they do nothing.
If you then talk to the managers themselves they will usually tell you they are fiendishly busy and have to work incredibly long hours.
Both groups are often guilty of a degree of self delusion (managers may still be in the office three hours after the end of working time, but they may also slope off at other times when they believe no one is looking--- workers come to believe that everything they do is entirely their own idea and forget that the job has been set up for them). But to some extent both groups are right in what they say. Middle managers do work hard and they do appear to do nothing. This is the nature of Zen.
The Zen Master causes things to happen without appearing to do anything. And the Zen Master has to spend a lot of time in contemplation in order to reach enlightenment. From the outside this meditation looks an awful lot like doing nothing.
Many who have read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance will be reluctant to believe this. ZAMM, as its fans call it, made Zen appear to be a bullshit free zone. Engineers doing things because they were the right things to do rather than to impress anyone.
Zen is like that but there are many forms of Zen. You could have a Zen of military force, perhaps even a Zen of thieving or contract killing.
Zen management is unpleasant and inefficient but it is nowhere near as immoral as the Zen of contract killing, if such a thing exists.
It introduces the idea of Zen Management. This sounds like a highly exotic technique but is actually the commonest form of corporate organisation in the workplace today.
Zen management is by its nature chaotic and destructive. It is one of the most profound reasons why the corporation is likely to be replaced by a loose network of individual contracts, with people working together on a freelance basis on individual projects, connected only by the internet.
In a world where roads are permanently jammed by crawling traffic, it makes no sense for people to spend perhaps ten hours a week getting to an office that has worse equipment (computers, phones, faxes, broadband etc.) than they could afford to buy for their own home.
Ten hours a week is about the same as 1.2 working days. The average person goes to an office about 45 weeks a year. That means the total travelling time is about 54 working days or nearly 11 weeks. That is the equivalent of working from January until the last fortnight of March! Apart from the damage done to the planet, this wastes an awful lot of resources. It is not uncommon for people to spend £2,000, £3,000 perhaps even £5,000 a year commuting. There are parts of the world where an income of £5,000 a year would be regarded as wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. In the age of the internet people who live in these areas may be able to compete against some of the commuters for their jobs. Call centres have already started to do this. Quite clearly the current level of commuting is not sustainable.
Right now the corporation seems stronger than it has ever been. It is the dominant form of social organisation and thrives while other social systems (churches, voluntary organisations, cinemas, clubs and societies, even pubs and drinking clubs) languish. It is likely to remain that way for at least the next decade. It wouldn't be worth writing the book if it was any other way.
But all forms of organisation wax and wane. They have a natural life span. And when an organisation seems to be most powerful it is a likely sign it is about to decline. Has the corporation reached its apogy! Probably not just yet. But it will at some time. Probably some time in the 21st century.
Zen Management conjures up the image of Tibetan priests in spartan temples ringing bellls annd using prayer wheels. But these are not the signs of Zen Management. The most obvious sign is that when you deal with an organisation the first thing junior staff tell you about the middle management is that they do nothing.
If you then talk to the managers themselves they will usually tell you they are fiendishly busy and have to work incredibly long hours.
Both groups are often guilty of a degree of self delusion (managers may still be in the office three hours after the end of working time, but they may also slope off at other times when they believe no one is looking--- workers come to believe that everything they do is entirely their own idea and forget that the job has been set up for them). But to some extent both groups are right in what they say. Middle managers do work hard and they do appear to do nothing. This is the nature of Zen.
The Zen Master causes things to happen without appearing to do anything. And the Zen Master has to spend a lot of time in contemplation in order to reach enlightenment. From the outside this meditation looks an awful lot like doing nothing.
Many who have read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance will be reluctant to believe this. ZAMM, as its fans call it, made Zen appear to be a bullshit free zone. Engineers doing things because they were the right things to do rather than to impress anyone.
Zen is like that but there are many forms of Zen. You could have a Zen of military force, perhaps even a Zen of thieving or contract killing.
Zen management is unpleasant and inefficient but it is nowhere near as immoral as the Zen of contract killing, if such a thing exists.
Wednesday 7 March 2012
Droughts
There's a long standing tradition in Britain that just before a lengthy rainy spell, the authorities announce that we are in the middle of a terrible drought and there will need to be a hose ban pipe in the summer.
This, of course, is excessively optimistic, because we don't always get summers in Britain. But what is even more extraordinary is that the powers that be have an uncanny knack for announcing droughts shortly before the heavens open and we are all drenched in a downpour.
No Native American witch doctor ever performed a more effective rain dance than do the weather experts when shuffling uneasily (even on radio you can tell they are shuffling) as they threaten us with the dreaded hose pipe ban.
I don't own a hose pipe and if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it since I live in a flat and have no garden. Hose pipes are effectively banned from the Brind household, come rain or shine.
Even so I took notice when I heard the drought warnings because it was clear what was to come. As expected it has rained more or less continually. It's amazing! How do they know it's about to rain? If they do have a sixth sense for these matters, why when they see the signs of coming rain, does it suddenly make them fixate on the poor hose pipe?
After the drought warnings, after the flood, the next step is usually the imposition of a hose pipe ban anyway. A lot of rain doesn't mean we don't have a drought. Oh no, we just have a very wet drought.
The usual excuse is that the rain happened at the wrong time, or it was the wrong kind of rain. Despite the whole country being a sodden mess, it's still officially a drought.
We haven't reached that stage yet but watch out for it. I'm confident it will happen. I can't predict the weather, but I can predict the weathermen!
This, of course, is excessively optimistic, because we don't always get summers in Britain. But what is even more extraordinary is that the powers that be have an uncanny knack for announcing droughts shortly before the heavens open and we are all drenched in a downpour.
No Native American witch doctor ever performed a more effective rain dance than do the weather experts when shuffling uneasily (even on radio you can tell they are shuffling) as they threaten us with the dreaded hose pipe ban.
I don't own a hose pipe and if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it since I live in a flat and have no garden. Hose pipes are effectively banned from the Brind household, come rain or shine.
Even so I took notice when I heard the drought warnings because it was clear what was to come. As expected it has rained more or less continually. It's amazing! How do they know it's about to rain? If they do have a sixth sense for these matters, why when they see the signs of coming rain, does it suddenly make them fixate on the poor hose pipe?
After the drought warnings, after the flood, the next step is usually the imposition of a hose pipe ban anyway. A lot of rain doesn't mean we don't have a drought. Oh no, we just have a very wet drought.
The usual excuse is that the rain happened at the wrong time, or it was the wrong kind of rain. Despite the whole country being a sodden mess, it's still officially a drought.
We haven't reached that stage yet but watch out for it. I'm confident it will happen. I can't predict the weather, but I can predict the weathermen!
Saturday 4 February 2012
Ken Dodd
Years ago I was the editor of a coal industry magazine called Solid Fuel. Late one night I was sitting in the office when I received a call from a very angry Ken Dodd. My assistant at the time, David Cusworth (who subsequently went to Perth in Australia and long monopolised the state press awards for his headline writing), had been causing Ken grief.
David had been pursuing Ken's brother Arthur, a coal merchant who (from memory and as unlikely as it may seem this is how I remember it), was based in Knotty Ash, Merseyside. For those who don't know Ken Dodd's act, Knotty Ash is an almost mythical place he refers to, the home of the Diddymen. The Diddymen, who definitely are mythical, are Pinky and Perky type characters.
Anyway, David had been ringing Arthur Dodd's business phone line, asking him to get in touch with the magazine. We thought a bit of publicity might do him some good and it would certainly make interesting reading for our coal merchant audience.
So back to the call. There I was working on something (in those pre-email days the phones seemed to ring all day so sometimes the evening was the only time you could actually get anything done) when the phone rang.
I could tell immediately Ken Dodd was angry. This was not the loveable character he mostly portrays in his stage act. The conversation went something like.
"I'm Ken Dodd,"KD
"Oh, hello Ken," me.
"Why are you ringing my brother?"KD
"Oh that's not me, that's my assistant David," me.
"Why is he ringing my brother?" KD
"We wanted to do a feature about him," me. "We thought it would be interesting."
"Well don't." KD.
"He's a coal merchant and we write about coal merchants in Solid Fuel,"me
"He doesn't want to talk to you,"KD.
"But why, Ken?" me. "It would be good for his business and a positive, interesting story."
"If you have to do something write about me," KD.
"But I can't Ken you're not a coal merchant," me. "We write about coal merchants."
"Well leave my brother alone!," KD.
"Ok Ken, I'll tell David to drop the story," me.
The next morning I told David that Arthur wasn't going to talk to him so he should drop the story.
A shame really. The story I'd heard was that the Dodd coal business used to be owned by Ken and Arthur's father. When one of the sons had to take over it turned out that Arthur was a first rate comedian but also a great coal merchant. Ken was not a bad comedian but he was certainly a worse coal merchant. So Arthur got the business and Ken took to the stage.
Rubbish, of course, you don't get to be as good a comedian as Ken Dodd through natural talent. It's practice, practice, practice, practice. It takes years of heart break and failure to make a great comedian.
But all the same it's a good story and it would have been great to have some photographs of the Knotty Ash coal business.
David had been pursuing Ken's brother Arthur, a coal merchant who (from memory and as unlikely as it may seem this is how I remember it), was based in Knotty Ash, Merseyside. For those who don't know Ken Dodd's act, Knotty Ash is an almost mythical place he refers to, the home of the Diddymen. The Diddymen, who definitely are mythical, are Pinky and Perky type characters.
Anyway, David had been ringing Arthur Dodd's business phone line, asking him to get in touch with the magazine. We thought a bit of publicity might do him some good and it would certainly make interesting reading for our coal merchant audience.
So back to the call. There I was working on something (in those pre-email days the phones seemed to ring all day so sometimes the evening was the only time you could actually get anything done) when the phone rang.
I could tell immediately Ken Dodd was angry. This was not the loveable character he mostly portrays in his stage act. The conversation went something like.
"I'm Ken Dodd,"KD
"Oh, hello Ken," me.
"Why are you ringing my brother?"KD
"Oh that's not me, that's my assistant David," me.
"Why is he ringing my brother?" KD
"We wanted to do a feature about him," me. "We thought it would be interesting."
"Well don't." KD.
"He's a coal merchant and we write about coal merchants in Solid Fuel,"me
"He doesn't want to talk to you,"KD.
"But why, Ken?" me. "It would be good for his business and a positive, interesting story."
"If you have to do something write about me," KD.
"But I can't Ken you're not a coal merchant," me. "We write about coal merchants."
"Well leave my brother alone!," KD.
"Ok Ken, I'll tell David to drop the story," me.
The next morning I told David that Arthur wasn't going to talk to him so he should drop the story.
A shame really. The story I'd heard was that the Dodd coal business used to be owned by Ken and Arthur's father. When one of the sons had to take over it turned out that Arthur was a first rate comedian but also a great coal merchant. Ken was not a bad comedian but he was certainly a worse coal merchant. So Arthur got the business and Ken took to the stage.
Rubbish, of course, you don't get to be as good a comedian as Ken Dodd through natural talent. It's practice, practice, practice, practice. It takes years of heart break and failure to make a great comedian.
But all the same it's a good story and it would have been great to have some photographs of the Knotty Ash coal business.
Monday 30 January 2012
Sarkie
Nicolas Sarkozy's last ditch attempt to win re-election to the French presidency by promising a 0.1% share transaction tax could be a sign that the tide is turning. Those who like me believe in kondratiev waves and have long been waiting for the economic nadir to be reached, may find this encouraging. This may be the sign.
After the Second World War people in Europe and across the world rejected the rapacious capitalism of the 1930s that had caused so much human misery and destruction to the fabric of society. In Britain a Labour Government introduced the modern welfare state, nationalised the basic industries that were seen as the backbone of society at the time and Conservative and Labour governments competed with each other to see how many council houses they could build!
This social confidence petered out in the 1960s with the so called individualism of flower power and drug culture. We had rooms full of students, each expressing their individuality but from a distance looking exactly the same as each other.
In the 1970s and 1980s with Thatcherism and Reganism there was the emergence of the lunatic assertion that there is no such thing as society and the creation of a world fit for small shopkeepers and B movie leading men. Labour and Conservative parties competed with each other to see how many industries could be de-nationalised.
The nineties and the noughties were decades of excess and unprecedented collapse: boom and bust on a previously unimaginable scale.
Inequalities multiplied with the richest taking an ever greater share of the pie, while the majority in America and Europe, got poorer. This was very much the story of the 1920s and 1930s.
A financial transaction tax will not damage investment, since long term investors like Warren Buffet will scarcely be affected. If you don't make transactions you don't have to pay the tax!
What it will do is tax churn, by that I mean the relentless speculation and financial manipulation carried out by banks and other cowboy outfits. Banking should be boring.
Tax the transactions enough and all the credit default swaps and financial derivatives become transparently a mugs game. Even the people who believed they could make a killing out of trillion dollar zero sum games, come to realise the process is fundamentally flawed.
And when you think about it every other transaction is taxed. When you buy a packet of baby food, or a house or pretty much anything else there is a sales tax. The only major exemptions are some forms of gambling and the stock market.
Tax all the transactions and you strike at the heart of the giant machine that has been grinding wealth and prosperity away from the mass of the people to an unelected elite. A tax on share transactions is a first step.
Britain, of course, has much to fear from a financial transaction tax. Much of the British economy is devoted to the City and finance. A British transaction tax could cost the economy dear if the city upped stumps and moved elsewhere. But the City is hardly going to move to Paris and if Sarkozy starts a trend it may be that there are fewer and fewer bolt holes for speculators who don't want to live in the Cayman Isles or Lichenstein.
And Britain also has much to gain. While a 0.1% transaction tax won't raise much in France (a billion euros perhaps), it would raise quite a lot in Britain and might make the current Government's doomed attempt to balance the financial books, a little more plausible.
After the Second World War people in Europe and across the world rejected the rapacious capitalism of the 1930s that had caused so much human misery and destruction to the fabric of society. In Britain a Labour Government introduced the modern welfare state, nationalised the basic industries that were seen as the backbone of society at the time and Conservative and Labour governments competed with each other to see how many council houses they could build!
This social confidence petered out in the 1960s with the so called individualism of flower power and drug culture. We had rooms full of students, each expressing their individuality but from a distance looking exactly the same as each other.
In the 1970s and 1980s with Thatcherism and Reganism there was the emergence of the lunatic assertion that there is no such thing as society and the creation of a world fit for small shopkeepers and B movie leading men. Labour and Conservative parties competed with each other to see how many industries could be de-nationalised.
The nineties and the noughties were decades of excess and unprecedented collapse: boom and bust on a previously unimaginable scale.
Inequalities multiplied with the richest taking an ever greater share of the pie, while the majority in America and Europe, got poorer. This was very much the story of the 1920s and 1930s.
A financial transaction tax will not damage investment, since long term investors like Warren Buffet will scarcely be affected. If you don't make transactions you don't have to pay the tax!
What it will do is tax churn, by that I mean the relentless speculation and financial manipulation carried out by banks and other cowboy outfits. Banking should be boring.
Tax the transactions enough and all the credit default swaps and financial derivatives become transparently a mugs game. Even the people who believed they could make a killing out of trillion dollar zero sum games, come to realise the process is fundamentally flawed.
And when you think about it every other transaction is taxed. When you buy a packet of baby food, or a house or pretty much anything else there is a sales tax. The only major exemptions are some forms of gambling and the stock market.
Tax all the transactions and you strike at the heart of the giant machine that has been grinding wealth and prosperity away from the mass of the people to an unelected elite. A tax on share transactions is a first step.
Britain, of course, has much to fear from a financial transaction tax. Much of the British economy is devoted to the City and finance. A British transaction tax could cost the economy dear if the city upped stumps and moved elsewhere. But the City is hardly going to move to Paris and if Sarkozy starts a trend it may be that there are fewer and fewer bolt holes for speculators who don't want to live in the Cayman Isles or Lichenstein.
And Britain also has much to gain. While a 0.1% transaction tax won't raise much in France (a billion euros perhaps), it would raise quite a lot in Britain and might make the current Government's doomed attempt to balance the financial books, a little more plausible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)