Political scheming

A short post this time - just to flag up a very good article from Owen Jones in The Guardian about the  various ways that the Tories have successfully manipulated the truth in various issues over recent years.

My favourite quote from the article is below:

"Illusions are what the Tories excel at. They back Labour’s spending – down to the last penny – when in opposition, then in government claim that it was financial extravagance that plunged the country into economic chaos. The crash may have originated in Britain’s financial hub, a sector whose lavish donations keep the Conservatives financially afloat, but Cameron and Osborne skilfully transformed a crisis of the market into a crisis caused by state spending. A failing of laissez-faire economics was spun into a historic opportunity to scale back the state."

For me, this is the key fact about the last few years of Conservative (including the coalition) government, and I find it almost unbelievable that the media and the general public in the UK have swallowed whole the Tories' narrative about austerity and why the cuts were needed, when it is so obviously a none-too-subtle smokescreen to enable them to push through the ideological cuts and further dismantling of the state that they had so yearned to complete after Thatcherism.

We need to make more noise about this false narrative, as everyone has been mislead, and the country is suffering for it.

Where's the fight?

The General Election result in May 2015 was a shock for anyone of a vaguely progressive bent.  It was more than just a shock though – it brought about a sense of profound dread as to what this group of Conservatives would do to our country and society once they had disentangled themselves from the shackles of a coalition government.

This Government (and the powerful array of mainstream media that support them) appears driven by a fervent ideological desire to bring about a market society – to treat every aspect of human life as a function of economics – under the assumption that every person is naturally just interested in furthering their own needs, and that anything that gets in the way of this should be attacked or dismantled.

The current breed of Tories at the top of this government also want to use this opportunity to aggressively pursue a range of other traditionalist conservative prejudices – from the promotion of fox hunting through to the destruction of the BBC.

As I write this, proposals are being discussed to dismantle some of our most cherished and respected institutions – including the NHS, education system, welfare state and BBC. 

The scale of these attacks is unprecedented since the war.  They attempt to do things that even Thatcher at her most bullish thought were a bit much.

And once these things are gone, we’re unlikely to get them back.  It took two world wars for some of the countries of Europe (including Britain) to realise that there was such a thing as society, that life for everyone would be better if we looked after each other and to make the investment in creating institutions that would achieve this, like the welfare state.   So, without another epoch-defining event, we are unlikely to get to that point of ‘a society fit for people’ again – so this truly is a battle of life and death for some of these institutions.

Needless to say, what’s happening under this current Government makes me dismayed and angry. But what annoys (and mystifies) me most about these developments is the terrifying lack of dissenting voices or, heaven forbid, action in response to them. 

Is it because everyone is happy with what’s happening here?  Surely not.  Is the lack of action due to ignorance of what’s being done in our name (on a paper thin mandate based on a tiny majority)?  Is it because the dominant voices of the mainstream media and the state make it difficult for any dissenting voices to cut through to the public to challenge their views?  Or have we been battered into submission by the steady barrage of attacks on progressive society that took place during the 5 years of the coalition?

It is of course a mixture of these things, plus another potent overarching influence – the fact that, over several decades, we have already slipped into a society where the emphasis is on pursuing our own individual needs (and lambasting any groups, institutions and individuals that could compromise them in any way), rather than seeing ourselves as part of a mutually supportive group, in which an important aspect of living a good life is to contribute towards the common good.

Perhaps we simply aren’t shocked about this stuff anymore as we’ve stopped questioning or resisting the overall narrative that’s being offered to us.

But we must resist it – and this may be our final chance before the things that we hold dear vanish before our eyes.   So, who’s prepared to fight for them – and for each other?

Where next for progressive politics?

I've just caught up with a very interesting post by Neal Lawson on OpenDemocracy today. 

The article asks how the Labour Party should  move forward in the light of it's devastating defeat in the 2015 General Election - not simply as a votewinning machine but as a true political force that can deliver a progressive, fair future within the transformed political and cultural landscape of Britain in 2015.

The article provides a useful, credible analysis of the situation and of the best way forward for the party and progressive politics in general.   It also supported my own overall sense that politics has changed and that it makes no sense for progressives (the term 'the left' is redundant now) to build themselves around a party any more.  Rather, it needs to work the other way round - we need a political entity (a party) to represent the vision of a diverse progressive movement (from online platforms such as 38 Degrees to members of the well-being movement). 

And this representative 'big tent' role could be the best future for the Labour Party.

Read the article here.

Change is hard

Change can be difficult to achieve.  Change on a global scale can be very difficult to achieve - perhaps even impossible.  And, despite what we may want to think as campaigners, we may not be in control of all the levers that need to be pulled to achieve the change we want - in fact, we may have no influence over some of them at all.

I think these are important realities for campaigners to face up to - particularly those battling certain global issues, like climate change - as they could help them to set more realistic expectations, communicate better and prioritise their activities better.  

Click on this link to see how this applies to the prospects for change on the issue of climate change and energy consumption - as developed in 'The Story of Energy' for Life Squared.

The commodification of wisdom

I like what the School of Life is trying to do - bringing philosophy, wisdom and broader thought into our daily lives.  Indeed, Life Squared shares a similar aim in much of its work. 

Where we differ (apart from size, finances etc!) is that Life Squared is a not-for-profit organisation that aims to offer its ideas and output to anyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay - whereas the School of Life is a business, offering its wisdom only to those who can afford it.  This is not a criticism in itself - it's a business with a positive social outcome. 

But I worry that the finance-generating side of the business could be diluting the credibility of their content. 

It was seeing some of their new products in a local shop that made me feel sufficiently queasy to write a post on it.  These products include 6 pencils, each embossed with a 'key word' (such as 'tragedy') from psychoanalysis, literature and visual art - all for the sum of £12.  Or a set of 3 essentially blank note books for £15. 

Not only does this seem like a lot to pay for very little, but surely it also contradicts some of the wisdom and ideas that they are trying to spread to people?  And also by commodifying these ideas in a rather throw-away manner like this it feels like the SOL leaves itself open to accusations of being inauthentic, which may reduce its credibility as a source of wisdom and stimulating, challenging ideas.  Just a thought.

Consuming experiences, not stuff, is still consumerism

I went to an interesting talk at the RSA today by James Wallman who has just published a book called 'Stuffocation'. His basic argument was that in the society of scarcity of around a generation ago, what mattered in life was having more stuff – i.e. in a society of scarcity, materialism is not a dirty word.

But as we have moved into a society of plenty, materialism and 'more stuff' are no longer the answer to the question of 'What will make us happy?'. So far, so good.

He goes on to suggest that, in our society of plenty, what we do is now more important than what we have in terms of its contribution to our happiness. He therefore advocates the idea of 'experientialism' – of seeking experiences rather than new stuff.

He made some interesting arguments but the trouble is he didn't go far enough. He was careful to state that he didn't want his ideas to be seen as anti-consumerist – but why not? The only way they would have any real value is if they were anti-consumerist. Otherwise, he is simply shifting the problem of consumption from stuff to experiences. We'll be on a treadmill seeking the next new experience and trying to find the money and lifestyles to enable these experiences to happen, and rather than enjoying our experiences our lives will become a list of experiences to try and tick off. It'll be no different to our attitudes towards stuff today. And in fact we already have this attitude towards experiences! See the forthcoming Life Squared booklet 'How to achieve less' – out at the end of the year – for more details on this issue.

The problem we have in the modern world is about much more than having too much stuff and the fact that this doesn't make us happy. The broader problem is the fact that our lives are focussed on acquiring this stuff and of chasing a particular vision of 'the good life' that seeks us to acquire more. The point is that we're making too many sacrifices in terms of our personal identities, autonomy, stress levels and fulfilment in order to chase this pointless acquisition.

We live in a bubble in the modern world. We need to help people burst this bubble and live truly autonomous lives. That is the only way we'll lead the fulfilled lives we really want – and sadly just changing our consumption from stuff to experiences won't do this.

Listen, don't change

I was at the Compass Change:How? conference today and was struck by a few things in a discussion we had about 'why it's so hard getting people to change'.  By this it meant getting members of the public to take action for a more progressive, sustainable (etc.) world.

The first thing that struck me was the way that many people seeking change on progressive issues seem to believe there are two sets of people - first, us - the people seeking a better world, who are ethical, intelligent, well-informed and see the world for how it really is, and them - the general public that we are trying to influence - who aren't so enlightened and don't care so much.  This assumption is deeply condescending to other people and completely untrue.  And is perhaps at the root of our problem of why we find it so hard to gain social change.

The second thing that interested me directly follows from this point - it was the assumption we have as 'change seekers' that other people need to be 'changed' in some way - in other words, the idea that we need to shift them from their current position to another one, because we don't approve of their current position.  When we articulate it like this, it's not hard to see why we're having problems gaining social change on key issues - because we're trying to herd people into opinions and actions that they're not currently prepared to take, and we're doing so in a way that pays little attention or respect to what they think.

These observations gained greater credibility in my mind as one member of the conference suggested that the best way he had found to gain change was to actually ask people what matters to them and then to listen to their views properly and respectfully - and then try to find a course of action that takes account of these.  It's really no surprise that this should be one of the most successful ways of gaining change as it doesn't try to change people - it tries to change issues by focussing on the things that people care about.

But this idea of 'listening to people' has its risks for the progressive change makers.  I hear many progressive voices saying that we must become more democratic and let people have a voice - but at the same time they want people to hold particular views and behave in particular ways.  These two aims are conflicting - it's one or the other.

As people seeking change, we've got to work out what we want from people.  If democracy matters to us and we want to let people have a voice we have to do this whilst understanding that people may choose some things we don't like as progressives. 

These are just thoughts I'm chewing over at the moment, and I've not formed a definitive opinion on them but they do provide food for thought....

No means no

We've been doing a bit of 'secret shopping' with some charities - making donations to them and seeing how they communicate with us as a result.  It's a real eye-opener and shows that lots of organisations have work to do on their communication plans - one charity has already sent us 3 identical emails since we donated just over a week ago!

Our secret shopping experience led us to a conversation in the office about emails from organisations (not just charities) and how counterproductive their efforts to gather names and email us can be.  Two main points came up in our conversation:

1. Some organisations still seem unable to take 'no' for an answer when sending their communications, and also fail to see the negative effects this is having on people's participation.   By saying 'no' I mean failing to take people off mailing or email lists when asked to do so.  Not only does this annoy people, it may well also make them (I speak from personal experience) less likely to use the media concerned,  deal with the organisation concerned or sign up for any similar transactions in the future.

2. Some organisations seem to be seeking quantity over quality of email addresses - and this can be counter-productive for them.  For example, we signed a petition on a campaigning site and gave our email address. When we left our email address there was no opportunity to unsubscribe from future communications - which is very annoying.  Once we'd completed the petition, we got the inevitable emails from the organisation, which annoyed us further.  This has put us off taking such action with this organisation in the future - and reduces our motivation to participate with others, as we see the likelihood of this happening again.

One of the key principles of online fundraising and campaigning is to make it as easy as possible for people to undertake the transaction.  By failing to include opt outs, or just not listening to our contacts, we actually place another obstacle in front of people to responding to our cause.  Let's make sure we remove it.

The moral footballer

A report in The Guardian today notes that a Newcastle United footballer has got into hot water with his club for refusing to wear the club shirt bearing the name of the club sponsor Wonga.

He's apparently "refusing to promote the money-lending company on religious grounds and has offered to wear an unbranded shirt or one bearing the name of a charity".  And I think you have to applaud him for taking a stand like this - he's done it on religious grounds, but I think anyone could do it on moral grounds in promoting this sort of money lender - and we don't see enough of people taking a stand like this against something that would be inconsistent with their values.

It's not the easiest step to take - particularly in a world like that of football - but it sets a good example to all of us to stand by our principles (and do it in a reasonable way).  

Update 26th July 2013
It looks like a few other people feel the same way about this issue - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/justin-welby-war-on-wonga

Life versus adverts

I had a much-needed day off recently and decided to visit a few places in London - like the London Library (wonderful) and Westminster Abbey (claustrophobic in its conservativism).

I ended up at the Westfield shopping centre at Shepherd's Bush to meet a friend for dinner before going to a gig, and I had to write a blog entry for it because I've never seen anything like it.  It's a cathederal to consumerism - a building on such a massive scale that it seems to go on forvever. 

All the shops and ads surrounding them are of course glossy, but the place (like most shopping centres) feels fake; a place that sucks meaning out of one's life rather than adds it.

All of the pictures in the shops and adverts are of people doing real things - from walking in the country to laughing with friends - yet almost none of the products they are advertising are actually essential for undertaking these activities.  It is as if the retailers know very well that buying their wares won't make anyone happy, so they have to sell them by associating them with the simple, authentic activities that actually do give us fulfilment - like walking in nature or having fun with friends - in order to sell them to you.  Yet their wares won't contribute at all to your enjoyment of these activities - so in the end they are simply void, vacuous, worthless.  It's worth remembering this when you're feeling yourself being sucked in by an advert!

Overall, the experience leaves one with a sense of emptiness and a desire to get back to the real things in life that actually do matter!

The joy of advertising

My dislike of advertising grows stronger by the day - partly because of the corrosive and limiting effect it can have on people's lives, worldviews and aspirations, but also partly because of the insulting, manipulative rubbish that the industry continues to pump out.

Take this new McDonald's ad for example - peddling the idea that burgers can mend bridges between families.  It's so obviously revolting as an idea I really don't understand why more people don't complain more about adverts like these - I know lots of people get annoyed by them but maybe there's just no outlet for complaining about them.  Hopefully that will change soon with an idea we're working on...

As a final treat in this post - and when you thought things couldn't get more absurd, Justin Timberlake has joined the ranks of celebs becoming 'Creative Directors' for big brands, as he is unveiled as the 'Creative Director' of Bud Light Platinum.  This is of course nonsense in itself, but the real fun is in the press releases. Says Paul Chibe, vp U.S. marketing, Anheuser-Busch:

 "Justin Timberlake is one of the greatest creative minds in the entertainment industry, and his insights will help us further define Bud Light Platinum’s identity in the lifestyle space."

Lifestyle space.  Ahem.

Time management - some caveats

I'm now a couple of weeks into my new time management regime (as are one or two others who are trying it out) and I'm quite pleased with how it's going!  A few caveats have occurred to me over the last few days on the advice in the previous post though:

• It's all about discipline - you could read a million 'how to manage your time' blogs but you'll never  do any of them properly unless you exercise discipline over your time (like stopping yourself browsing the web when you need to focus on a task) - as that's what they all involve; 
• The effects of implementing this time management plan may not come as a sudden, obvious 'wow - everything works!' but as a longer term sense of calm and satisfaction that you're getting a bit more done 
• Some of the advice may seem counterintuitive, time-wasting and boring when you're doing it - like spending 10 mins sorting out your priorities and to-do list at the start of each week/day but the time it saves over the course of the day could be huge!

Time management

One of the most challenging things to deal with in my work life is the number of things there are to do - from the mundane but important stuff to the meaty, interesting and fulfilling stuff. It can be a real challenge to make sure that I'm getting to do a bit of the interesting stuff regularly, and to not get swallowed up by the endless mundane but important stuff.

So, I've made myself a plan of how to manage my time each day and I thought I'd share it in case it's useful, as I know loads of people have similar time management issues!

Here are the principles I've set out for how to manage my time in the new year:

1. Each year/month/week/day - stand back for a bit at the start/end of previous one and set out a few big things I want to achieve in each - and amid all the detailed cack do them. 

2. Note these in diary. Note detailed action points as they come up on another piece of paper. 

3. Allocate good chunks of time each day to do priority tasks - and focus on them properly (get immersed) when you do them. Enjoy and focus on this meaty stuff whilst acknowledging you have to do the other stuff. 

4. Only 3 email review sessions a day (and tell others I'm doing this - if they need a quick reply, call me) 

5. Only 3 web browses a day (really important) - and only in spare time. 

6. Be disciplined (inc say no, don't do things immediately to please people or because they're easy - do them when they fit for you) and don't get distracted. Then your priorities will be clearer, work will be more enjoyable and you'll get more of the important stuff done. If a call comes in during your 'priority' time, answer it if you need to, but add more priority time at the end of the session to make it up. And allocate any action points to after your priority session if you can - only rarely will things be so urgent that they can't wait. 

7. Above all - stay calm and remember you're in control of all of this - it doesn't have to control you. 

Two days into the year and this arrangement seems to be working - we'll see how it's going in another month's time! Let me know how you get on with it if you try it!

The religion-shaped hole

I've just been to see AC Grayling talk about Humanism at the Lewes Speakers Festival. It's reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while. As religion becomes less of a central force in people's lives (in the UK at least) there is, for many people, a 'religion-shaped hole' in their lives. Not that they miss religion, but that, for many people there are very few other places in modern society where they can get opportunities to think about the meaning of their lives, their values or have the chance to reflect generally. As the founder of Life Squared I naturally think these things are very important, but so far nothing (apart from consumer capitalism) has really come in to fill this religion-shaped hole for most people, and I think the movement best suited to filling it it humanism. It is not yet however in a position where it can assume this position, as it is still on the defensive - seeking to argue against religion and protect the secular state from religious excess. It needs to move into a position where it is also taking a more constructive role - helping people to think about these bigger questions and supporting them in this journey - as there is a great need for this role now, and it would be of benefit to millions of people.

One planet living?

I'm in the process of writing a booklet for our forthcoming 'Story of Energy' project at Life Squared, and my suspicions are proving correct - it's almost impossible to find a simple description of what a real 1 planet lifestyle would look like for the ordinary individual. Fill in a footprint calculator (like Bioregional's) and even if you give answers that show the minimum level of impact, it still tells you you're using over 2 planets' resources. This may well be true (given the resource-hungry infrastructure around our lives) but even so, we need to know what a real one-planet lifestyle would look like. Otherwise how can anyone know what the green movement is aiming for? I get hugely frustrated with the good-intentioned but vague and fluffy resources and advice coming from even the biggest and best environmental organisations. Enjoinders to fly less and grow your own veg are fine, but until we build a more detailed and meaningful picture of what each person would need to do in order to live within their share of the planet, even the people with the best intentions are going to be living 2 planet lifestyles - and why bother doing this if you're not going to do it properly? It really is time to define our goals and vision better as a movement - even if the reality of what we're suggesting (a real one planet lifestyle) isn't palatable to some people. We need to get real. And this might even encourage people to take more action now while we can.

The value of reflection

Good to see this interesting post by Matthew Taylor, Director of the RSA, outlining the value of reflection in our rational decision making processes. One paragraph in particular caught my eye:

Instead of ‘nudging’, which seeks to change choice architecture (for example, putting healthier food more easily in reach than unhealthy in canteens), the RSA’s ‘steer’ approach aims to give people the understanding and tools they need to change their own behaviour.

This is exactly the approach we are pioneering in a range of areas of people's lives at Life Squared - from our consumption of resources to the way we approach our lives in the first place. We'll soon be applying these principles to another important topic, which I can't announce yet, but hopefully can in a couple of weeks!

For now though, check out Matthew's post as well as Jonathan Haidt's book he refers to, as his previous book 'The happiness hypothesis' was very good.

Ghastly xmas ads

It's bad form I'm sure to put a second consecutive post from the same person but Charlie Brooker does know how to skewer the shallowness and depressing nature of advertising with some humour - certainly better than me ranting angrily about it for several lines! Here is his article about the glut of 'emotional' xmas TV ads currently being chucked out by the large chains.

Check out Life Squared's free publication Xmas² for ideas on how to avoid too much commercial nonsense at Christmas.

Evil Weetabix

Great article by Charlie Brooker in today's Guardian about the repugnant practice of advertising to kids, and how consumerism is finding new ways to enter our lives.

How to change the world

This interesting article in the New York Times got me thinking again about something I'd been working on a few years ago - the question of how to we can gain the level of change needed to tackle big global issues like global warming and just what role we as individuals can play in this.

The article made me wonder whether we're getting it the wrong way round when we take things like the carbon footprint of the world and divide responsibility for it between individuals, as individuals are often not the agents whose actions and decisions will produce the level of change that is needed - it's companies, countries and other institutions and groups of people.

So, if we want to seek change on big issues, perhaps we need to redistribute the level of responsibility for these things - and assign more responsibility to those agents with the level of influence and power to make the big changes . This doesn't diminish our responsibility to live good lives as individuals - but simply rebalances the burden of responsibility for change to those agents that have the power to make it happen on a big scale.

This also affects the way we might go about seeking change in the world as individuals. It doesn't mean we should stop 'doing our bit' or stop leading planet-friendly and compassionate lives - as these are part of living in line with our everyday values as individuals, and this is a vital part of what it means to live a good, dignified, fulfilled human life. But what it does mean that if we're seriously looking to change the world as individuals we should be prioritising something else - and that is to do everything we can to influence the real agents for change on these issues.

So, if each of us is serious about getting a better world, let's separate the actions we can take to live in line with our values as individuals (like planet-friendly living) from the actions we can take to gain real change (like lobbying companies, voting, becoming politically active) - and then do both of these things.

Consumerism for babies - part 2

A few months ago I wrote about the highly questionable presence of Bounty packs in maternity wards (see this post for a reminder) and the unpleasant form of 'captive consumerism' they seem to enforce on new parents.

In the last week the Independent has also covered this issue in an article that explains more of the commercial workings behind the scheme - and the evidence they present makes the whole idea even more unpalatable.

Both the National Childbirth Trust and the Royal College of Midwives object to this practice, so it's about time we saw it stopped. Contact the NHS Confederation to tell them you want to see an end to it.