The problem with the public sector is…

There are a number of issues. First comes indecision and lack of urgency about anything. Projects run on for ever; no one knows how they are going. Meanwhile, we spend money, time and effort duplicating whatever the project is trying to achieve. Sometimes there are similar projects, running at the same time, uncoordinated and pulling in different directions.

Another malady is change for change’s sake, often packaged and sold as a brand spanking new approach to doing things that will revolutionise work practices. In reality it is nothing of the sort. Bureaucrats and quangocrats get bored easily with doing the same thing over and again. So they make a ‘business case’ for a new way of doing things. After many meetings, train journeys and lunches, the new way is approved and those lower down the order are rescued from ennui for another year by the order to start implementing the new way.

But then a problem arises. The higher ups, having written, discussed and approved the new way of doing things, begin to feel bored just sitting there monitoring the lower downs. Some of them move onto newer pastures, which are ripe for new ‘initiatives.’ Others stay and come up with more new ways of doing things; and so the bureaucratic merry-go-round of initiatives continues. If it ain’t broke, fix it any way!

Then there is the empire building and backyard protecting. Quangocrats forget that they are publicly funded, with a moral duty, if not always a clear legal one, to the taxpayers. If something can be done more efficiently if delivered centrally (e.g. a software package to automate administration), why argue against it? We have to be careful here. Often there is no direct arguing against. Instead, there are vague distinctions made to show how we are different, how the solution being offered centrally will not meet our needs. The sky will fall in if a central solution is imposed.

Crowning all this is the perpetual existential threat, particularly to Quangos. They make easy picking when HM Opposition is shouting waste and bureaucracy. When there is a problem, create a quango to deal with it; when bloated bureaucracy is the problem, chop the quango. Politicians win both ways.

All this arises, I think, because much of the daily work of bureaucrats and quangocrats lacks a convincing raison de etre. Doctors and nurses tend the sick, teachers impart knowledge and firemen extinguish fires. Factory workers make things that are sold. There is dignity and gratification in that. Quangocrats don’t do anything that makes one jot of a difference to people. Some work extremely hard, travel the length and breadth of the country and develop vast networks (always useful when turbulence strikes). But to most people, they make no difference.

The educational divide

As of 15 January of this year, 221,523 females had applied for full-time university undergraduate courses, as against 173,784 males. We do not yet know how many of these have been accepted on the courses, but for the purposes of this blog I want to assume that the male-female ratio will remain the same. The trend of recent years is certainly a growing gulf between the number of male and female applicants.

What does this mean? It means the future is feminine:

• On the assumption that graduates earn more than non-graduates, the divide between the rich and the poor, between the well off and the less well off, could in future reflect a sex divide.
• If intellectual compatibility and equality is necessary for a happy marriage, then women could be short of suitable partners to marry. Similarly, if people in general marry from the same social class as themselves, then the sex-cum-class divide described above will further restrict the choice of marriage partners. Settling down mellows people; with all those unmarried and unattached men, there will be a lot unchecked testosterone around, which could quite easily channel into other areas, like crime, alcohol, drugs and even terrorism.
• More women will come to occupy positions of influence. Will that mean that what have traditionally been regarded as feminine values- such as receptiveness, warmth, understanding, collegiality, cooperation, ‘motherliness’- become the dominant values in society? If so, the problem above about unchecked testosterone can be avoided.
• I wonder what will happen to the birth rate and population level. Will more and more women come to delay or postpone starting families, as they progress with their careers?

State of language

In a refreshing change from the text-speak led attrition of language, the nation’s vocabulary has increased by one in recent days. ‘Mastication for the nation’ is the catchline of an advert for a new chewing gum. It is another thing, of course, that the nation’s vocabulary should increase as a result of such trivial activity as munching on chewing gum. Surely the nation has better things to do and learn from?

The point of my blog today is to bemoan the state of language. Two things have happened to language. First, any hint of using posh or long words is shunned, on grounds of arrogance, snobbery or inaccessibility. This is related to the general trend of the decline of learning for learning’s sake, and its replacement with such instrumentalism as widening participation (in itself a good thing), ‘bite-sized learning’, the dominance of easy, marketing speak-words over heavy text ones and the general preference for imagery, where words play only a supporting role. Yet life is complex: only a rich variety of words can capture the nuances of life. There is also a complex relationship between words and thoughts: it’s not a one way process of thoughts issuing in words. The ready availability of words helps to shape thoughts.

Another modern phenomenon is the rise of pre-packaged words. Indeed, there are templates for communicating anything: you just fill in the blanks. Related to this is the consultant-speak pap that keeps reappearing in different forms: enhance, diversity, ‘going forward’, value-added, knowledge management, customers (to describe taxpayers and students), etc.

Happiness

We tend in general to experience pain and discomfort more than their opposites, intense, orgasmic pleasure, that pervades everything in our being. Whether derived from sexual fusion or some other pleasure enhancing intervention, such experiences are inevitably short lived. On the other hand, the sense of general happiness of circumstances, where life, family, career, etc, are in equilibrium, is very often not on the surface and requires some reflection to bring it out.

So what does this mean? It means we become used to an easy existence and take it for granted. Our threshold for enduring minor inconveniences is thereby lowered. That, primarily, for me explains why a huge increase in living standards has not translated into an equally huge increase in happiness. It never will- we adapt.

One reason why we are not happy is because we compare ourselves to others who are better off, financially or in other ways, than us. Once we have achieved what those others have, we begin to compare ourselves to yet others who have yet more. We may start off by comparing our situation with the person down the road who lives in a semi-detached and has a two-year old car, as against our terraced and jalopy. We begin to earn more and move to a semi and buy a better car, but then another person down the road has a sports car and lives in a detached house. And so on it continues- a constant state of anxiety and restlessness.

Dress and liberty

There has been a lot of talk about how we Muslims dress. Perhaps we are being loosened up for some legislative intervention. Perhaps wearing the veil will be banned in education and, in the long term, in other public buildings. Perhaps it will also be banned while driving, on the health and safety pretext that it can interfere with the peripheral vision. We will just have to wait and see- by turning up the heat in the debate, perhaps some people hope that they will be able to influence behaviour and avoid the need for intervention.

I know at least 3 people who changed how they dressed after July 2005. A number of others altered their sartorial preference after Straw’s anti-veil outburst last year. The debate has focussed on the veil, but many men have also donned their shirts and trousers and discreetly retired their shalwar kameez suits. Some have also trimmed their beards; others, torn between cultures, are trimming their beards in stages, so that eventually it will cease to exist, by which time they hope no one will notice.

All this is a far cry from the case for liberty presented in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Mill argued that the only reason society should intervene in regulating behaviour is to prevent ‘harm’ to others. Over their own bodies, individuals are sovereign. As long as the harm to others principle is borne in mind, people could be as eccentric and offbeat as they wished. In fact, Mill argues, eccentricity is a good thing. A vibrantly liberal society depends on such difference.

Now Mill’s essay is elegant and powerful. But the word ‘harm’ is slippery It can be applied to whatever you like. Politicians can argue that the shalwar kameez, or the veil, ‘harms’ integration (just as in some traditional societies conservatives argue that westernisation harms society). Anything that goes against your idea of how society should be organised can be regarded as ‘harmful’. Yet the whole idea of liberty is to keep the concept of harm limited. If harm is continuously expanded- for example to include how you dress- then liberty becomes an empty phrase. It no longer becomes the default position, but whatever can be saved from the ever expanding domain of regulation. For Mill, liberty was definitely a default position.

Law and psychology: creating needs

Figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service show that after law, psychology is the most popular subject. As of 15 January, 77,040 people had applied to study psychology later in the year- an increase of 3.9% from last year. Perhaps that explains why we are becoming an increasingly litigious and therapeutic society. The lawyers and psychologist coming from the universities need something to do.

There is more than a modicum of truth in this apparently simplistic link. Two examples will suffice to show what I mean.

An acquaintance was recently stopped in the street by a clever ‘personal injury claims’ salesman from a law firm. My acquaintance has never had an industrial accident, but, after a long discussion, was persuaded by the salesman to attend a private medical examination. The examination would test things like hearing, sight, agility etc. If anything was found lacking, an attempt would be made to link the deficit with the various jobs this person had done in his life by putting in a personal injury claim. My acquaintance cancelled the appointment, but you can see my point- lawyers putting in dubious claims to create work and money for themselves.

The second example is less dramatic, but real enough. In every job I have started, the induction has included a bit about the availability of counselling. This may sound innocuous enough, but the omnipresence of counselling does suggest that, by default, we are now being considered as weak and unable to cope. After all, the induction said nothing about the local cancer specialist.

Integration and language

The Commission on Integration and Cohesion has rightly identified lack of language as the single biggest barrier to integration. It is easy to see why this is the case- not being able to speak the language of your host country is an obvious disadvantage. Your career prospects are limited. In many cases, you become permanently locked into low paid jobs and you are less aware of your rights. Integration is further hampered because your colleagues are unlikely to speak English as well. You have minimum contact with the majority community.

So it is perfectly reasonable that migrants, whether here for work or to join a spouse, should be required to learn English. That means quality courses in English should be provided free of charge and at flexible times to cater for working patterns. Migrants should commit to learning the language. The government’s side of the bargain should be to provide quality learning and training.

To be frank, things have been a little too easy for migrants for too long. The easy availability of translation has removed any motivation to learn English. Yet the problem with translation is that although it gets you through a particular transaction, in the longer term it does not help your position in the host country. Many public sector organisations have been particularly over-zealous in their approach to translation, making available a large number of leaflets and documents in various languages. It is a concrete indicator of the duty to be ‘inclusive’. At the end of the year, when reporting on the performance indicators relating to inclusion, organisations can count the minority language leaflets and pat themselves on the back. This misguided approach to inclusion actually perpetuates exclusion.

Dumbing down

For some years a change has been going on in education at all levels. Universities, traditionally centres of learning and intrepid scholarship, fiercely independent, are at the forefront of this change. The change involves emphasising process of learning over substance. It involves different pedagogies and learning styles. E-learning, portfolios, student-centred learning, problem-based learning, collaborative learning: these are just some of the words in the vast lexicon of learning processes. A recent addition is ‘sustainability literacy’, which looks at how concern about the environment can be incorporated into your discipline.

What is the driving force behind this obsession with teaching process over substance? There are several reasons, but I think the main force is the wish to be inclusive. Sitting in a library studying bulky tomes and writing essays is considered elitist and old fashioned. So in an attempt to open up, new learning processes are introduced that are less taxing, like e-learning, with its drag and drop and copy paste exercises; or portfolio-based learning, with its emphasis on crediting prior experience and knowledge. By thus opening up with bite-sized learning, all can have prizes. But it comes at the expense of intellectual rigour.

Generation gap

A report recently claimed that young Muslims, born and bred in the UK, are being more radicalised than the older generation, some of whom barely speak English. I think this makes sense; the experiences of the different generations are different.

The elders, especially those in their 70s, arrived in the UK when they were teenagers or older. They therefore still have memories of what life was like in Pakistan, or Mirpur, before large numbers of people started coming to the UK. And the memories they have are not all pleasant. Many elders recall the extreme poverty. Extreme poverty, as distinct from relative poverty, is where you do not have enough food to eat. It is where what you do have to eat is very basic. Many people recall the days when all they had to eat were corn chapattis and water. Meat was a luxury.

For people of that generation, arriving in the UK has been a life changer for which they thank their lucky stars. Here there were plenty of jobs and a good wage. And frankly, if you fall on hard times, the state looks after you anyway. What harm could a few racist taunts do compared to the hardships and struggles of existence left behind in the motherland, for which they still have an affection?

The experiences of the generation born here are different. They have not suffered extreme poverty. They do not know what it is like not to have enough to eat or to go bare foot to school. Their problems are problems of life here- poor educational attainment, ignorance, lack of job opportunities, drugs, crime and welfare dependency. It is this void in their lives which forms a breeding ground for extremism for a tiny minority, as it does for crime and anti-social behaviour in the wider community.

Therapy culture

As I browsed through the new books section at my local library recently, I was struck by the number that were about therapy and counselling. There were books about anxiety and stress, and about various phobias, including social phobia, otherwise known as shyness. There was a chunky hardback on how to be happy and contented. The library now has a large number of popular therapeutic books. What can be the reason for this? At the superficial level, the reason is that more such books are being written, therefore it makes sense that more are being bought.

There is, however, a cultural reason why more and more popular therapy books are being churned out. The prevailing culture encourages us to feel vulnerable and delicate, unable to cope with life without help and support. Even life’s everyday challenges are pathologised. Notice how fortitude and bravery are words very little heard these days. Even in the army, a profession that should represent the ne plus ultra of fortitude and bravery, we have Gulf war syndrome and post traumatic stress disorder.

Given this trend, it is not surprising that self therapeutic books have become so popular. I am not interested in the chicken and egg question, whether the books created the culture or the culture created the books. It’s fair to say that the more such books are written, the more the culture of vulnerability becomes entrenched. A quick search on Amazon and ebay confirms just how popular these books are.

A quick browse through several of the books at the library confirmed my prejudice- they are full of pap. Much of the advice is repetitive and commonsense dressed up as something better and original. There is no analytical or critical perspective of any sort. Books of this genre make no addition to accumulated knowledge. I suspect they do not make people happier either, as they fork out more money to buy the ‘Also available’ titles listed at the back, about a condition they were hitherto unaware they had.

Raids in Brum

My city and local area is abuzz with activity following yesterday’s anti-terror raids. All day, journalists, cameramen, politicians, police officers and curious members of the public could be seen along the Stratford Rd. By the time I got home from work, the only people around were the police in fluorescent jackets and the Newsnight team, with the intrepid Richard Watson presenting from outside a barber shop.

The two policemen guarding the mobile phone shop looked bored. A man passed by and asked them whether it will re-open, as he had given the shop a ‘very expensive’ handset for repairing. He was assured it would. Whereas the police had finished with the bookshop down the road when I went for a stroll in the evening, the policemen in fluorescent continued to guard the phone shop at 6:30 am when I drove by to work today.

It is difficult to gauge what local people think. People are clearly scared and concerned, but there is a hint of scepticism that anything will come out of this. Friends and relatives of some of those arrested have fiercely protested their innocence. We will just have to wait and see what comes out of it.

If no charges are brought and this turns out to be another Forest Gate, then, alas, I fear the media will not return with the same force and damage to the reputation of the area would have been done.

Are supermarkets good things?

It has become customary and clichéd to moan about the death of the bustling high street market at the hands of the supermarket behemoths. There is no doubt the quality of local life and community spirit does suffer if the local shops are all boarded up. Yet there is an element of elitism in the moans.

The reasons why people shop at supermarkets are simple: they offer value for money and variety of products. Many products they sell come in premium and cheaper own-brand versions. There is something for everyone. At the local shop, everything costs a lot more. The local shop does not have the same power of bulk buying and direct link with manufacturers. It cannot afford to have its own label stuck on things.

Problems at the Big Brother house

What is all this furore over Big Brother and the treatment of Shilpa, the Bollywood actress? Big Brother is a morally redundant and culturally banausic format. The realisation that this is the case is beginning to dawn on the viewing public. In the short term, the controversy has been like manna from heaven for the programme makers, because viewing figures have shot up. In the longer term, this could be the beginning of the end for BB in the UK.

Mirpuri ignorance

Today the Independent reports a depressing story of how a young bride, from Palak, Mirpur, was tortured to death by her British husband for, among other things, failing in her domestic duties. Palak is in fact within the Dadyal district, from which I also hail. So it’s a story that interests me.

As I read the Independent report, it became clear that the case bears all the hallmarks of ignorance and hypocrisy that blight our community and which I have discussed in previous blogs. There appears to be the hypocrisy and arrogance of a westernised family failing to understand and support a girl whose life had hitherto been spent in a village. As I have said on previous occasions, a little humility is in order from British Mirpuris. Then the there is the ignorance and philistinism of seeking the advice of a ‘holy man', who diagnosed 'problems' by looking at an item of the girl's clothing.

The horror of the case speaks for itself. I just want to say a word about relying on 'holy men'. This practice is common throughout South Asia for dealing with emotional and mental problems. Clearly cultivating spirituality has a role to play in helping to deal with these sorts of problems. However, in recent years things have gone too far- the spiritual element is in fact completely lacking, as money, power and fame take over and as the 'holy men' increasingly intrude into territory that should be the domain of professionals.

A number of satellite channels now invite these 'holy men', who you can call using a premium number. In one programme, a practice similar to the one described in the Independent story takes place. The 'holy man' asks the caller to measure an item of clothing of the person with a 'problem'. Then he recites something and blows at the camera. The caller is again asked to measure the item of clothing- a different diagnosis is offered depending on whether the item has shrunk or increased in size. Of course nothing of the sort has happened; but if you measure something in haste over the phone, using your fingers, you are bound to get different 'measurements' each time.

The point, however, is that rather than offering spiritual reassurance, these 'holy men' are offering diagnosis. That is clearly a wrong turn; in fact one that should possibly be investigated. Reliance on quacks means genuine diagnosis, and hence proper treatment, is delayed.

Myth of 'return' and 'expulsion'?

The myth of return among some immigrant communities, particularly Mirpuris, is now on the wane, as reality dawns that we are here to stay. This even as Mirpuris pour huge amounts of wealth into Mirpur, especially for constructing large residences with the Grecian pillars. Another, more ominous belief, discussed sotto voce by elders who arrived in the 40s and 50s and which has fluctuated over the years but was revived after 7/7, is that at some point we will be expelled.

It's a nasty thought that first took root after Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech and was commonly held in the days of National Front marches during the 1970s. It subsided somewhat during the 1980s, but has seen a resurgence recently in the days of 7/7, an upturn in BNP fortunes and the new wave of immigration during the late 90s and the first few years of this century.

So what is my own take on this view? Is it totally unreasonable? At one level it is; the culture of human rights is so deep in western Europe that it would be impossible to expel people. But that misses another point. If there is ever expulsion, it would be preceded by serious deterioration in the social and economic health of the country. Rising unemployment, precipitated by the drainage of jobs to low wage economies, could provide the spark for such instability. We are nowhere near that stage at the moment.

There have been reports that the BNP is ready to exploit the next recession as part of its electoral strategy. My fear is that it may also be helped by the current trend, whereby we are becoming an unequal economy, with a large number of people working in low-wage mc-jobs and a minority of super-rich people. Those in the middle are the most vulnerable to the drainage of jobs to low wage economies. Again, we are nowhere near reaching this point, but in the long term, this could provide a new pool of support for the likes of the BNP.

Execution of Saddam

What can be said about the execution of Saddam? So much has been written and much will be written. Here are just some random thoughts.

1. Whatever your view of Saddam, his last moments were, in the circumstances, dignified. He died with courage and fortitude. Others would have cracked. This contrasts with the attitude of his executors, whose appalling behaviour- reminiscent more of those who torment Western hostages than servants of the state carrying out due process- could have far reaching consequences. The tyrant has, in his last moments, won many admirers- which could make him more dangerous in death than he was in jail.
2. The hasty execution will strengthen sectarianism. Those who think that the execution will mark a new beginning for Iraq are clearly deluded. To Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere, this was an act of sectarian vengeance, not justice, made possible by the US. It will strengthen sectarianism and anti-Americanism.
3. Why wasn’t there a fuller enquiry into Saddam’s crimes? How about because it would have disinterred some uncomfortable truths about the days when relations with the US were cosier?
4. What message did the Iraqi government wish to send to Sunnis everywhere by executing him on the day they were celebrating Eid?
5. There is, finally, a thought about what moral and logical principle can be derived from Saddam’s execution. Perhaps that those who kill innocent people should be executed? Surely he was not just killed because he was a dictator- but because he was a brutal one? What is the decisive factor, that he was a dictator or that he killed innocent people? These are actually more difficult questions than you think (from the point of view of the US and its acolytes), because if you start to generalise, then the net may be cast wider than you want, as the US has killed many innocent people and some of its closest allies are tyrannies (and have also killed many people). How to devise a principle which captures only those who harm US interests? But then you move away from conventional morality into the dubious territory of neo-con/ New Labour morality.

Democracy in the Middle East

Do Bush and Blair really want democracy in the Middle East? You would have to be naïve, or more Blairite than Blair, to believe so. In Palestine, democracy delivered Hamas. In various Gulf states, limited exercises in democracy have seen religious parties victorious. Then there is Iraq, meant to be a beacon of democracy that was to shine in the region, it’s powerful rays throwing asunder neighbouring tyrannies and alighting a new phase of freedom. Alas there elections have only accentuated sectarian divisions.

What Bush and Blair really want are compliant tyrannies willing and happy to do the West’s bidding. I have seen no convincing argument against this view. Every word these leaders utter confirms this. How else can you explain the differential treatment of Palestine and Lebanon. In the latter, there is a precariously balanced (pro-Western) government from which the largest minority has withdrawn. In the former, the governing (independent-minded) party won an outright victory barely a year ago. Which of these two is the strongest candidate for a re-election? Blair and Bush’s choice isn’t the one based on what logic and rationality would suggest.

Christmas

Once again this year there is debate about how 'do-gooders' are eroding the spirit of Christmas by banning any reference to religion or the religious character of Christmas. The Telegraph reading- and writing- types who are up in arms are quite right. They are also generous enough to realise that it is not the potential recipients of 'do-goodery', the minorities, who are demanding the removal of any reference to Christmas. Quite the contrary- minorities are conscious that these ridiculous gestures only embolden the far right.

A bigger debate needs to be had about the commercialisation of Christmas. Even in the absence of 'do-goodery', Christmas is losing it's religious and spiritual character to the forces of materialism. About this the Telegraph reading and writing types say much less.

Season's greetings!

Iraq

The Iraq Study Group's report, which has dominated the news this week, is an irrelevance. What matters are the ground realities in Iraq and those look irretrievable. Iraq is heading towards disintegration along ethnic and sectarian lines. Much has been made of Iraq's 'democratically elected government'. Even if an election, under the watchful eye of an invading army, can be free and fair, the result hasn't done much to inculcate democratic values and culture. It merely fortified sectarianism.

On another note, Kofi Anan was condemned by some for saying things were now worse than under Saddam. Such visceral condemnation is totally unreasonable. Iraq is an extremely dangerous place to be in. Hundreds of people are being killed every month. There is no law and order. You literally have to worry sick about any family members who need to venture significantly away from home.

Under Saddam, you were not killed while out shopping. You were not killed for turning up to work. There should be no embarrassment in admitting that things were better under Saddam. A corollary of suggesting otherwise is that people living in other tyrannies, whether pro-Western like Saudi, or decidedly anti-Western like Iran, would be better off blowing each other up than they are now. It doesn't make sense.

Veil wars

Jack Straw’s comments about the veil are interesting not for what they say about the subject of the veil, but what may have motivated them. Straw is an extremely intelligent politician who does not make blunders. His every sentence is calculated, lucid and logical.

My own guess is that he is positioning himself for a shot at leadership. Blair’s days are numbered- and now is the time for positioning. So why the veil? Some time ago, there was speculation that he may have been demoted because certain US Neocons were alarmed by his dependence on Muslims. What better way for a revival than to engage in some Muslim-bashing?

As for the substance of the attack on the veil, there is some merit in it. He is right to say that effective communication and bridge-building depends on being able to see the other person. Talking to a person covered in black, with even the eyes scarcely visible, can be uncomfortable. But then so can many other things, including images of scantily clad women staring at us from billboards.

A more alarming development, which politicians should ponder, is why the use of the veil and other religious symbols- e.g. long bushy beards- has increased. It has increased most among young people, born and bred here. The idea that religious compulsion is behind the trend does not pass muster. When the parents and grandparents of these young people arrived in 50s and 60s, they did not go out of their way to make a religious statement. The women mostly wore colourful, silky headscarves rather than the black niqab.