Here's something that's worth an hour of anyone's time: an intelligent(ish) interview with the super-intelligent Martin Wolf, FT, doyen of economics commentators and billed here as the World's Top Financial Journalist (a title he disowns, BTW, claiming only tangential knowledge of finance).
Mostly, it's a case of listen, learn, reflect: Wolf is impressively thoughtful, not least on the matter of what's genuinely uncertain in our present stressed circumstances. But there were a couple of things he expresses serious interest in, which I'd push back on:
- Citizen's assemblies. Yeah, but who gets to run them? You know perfectly well that a cleverly framed set-up will get any answer that's wanted by the establishment that commissions them**. I mean, seriously, this is bonkers.
- Workers' representatives on Boards: he thinks Germany has done well with this. Hmm. I have some experience, via a lengthy consultancy gig I undertook in Germany, with an archetypal large German co. The workers' board member was given a nice office, and frequent, carefully curated 'briefings' on all manner of topics. He was a nice enough cove, completely out of his depth. Those carefully selected mangers giving him the briefings said he barely understood any but the most basic topics, and was a pushover. Maybe that was exceptionally helpful to the co in question! But I doubt it's what Wolf means.
Enjoy.
ND
_________
** Fair enough, I once reviewed in detail the output of a CA on use of biomass, which was (I consider) fairly well set-up with balanced opening presentations, and which clearly surprised the organisers as to how strongly the majority was against tree-burning (which as not the answer they wanted). HOWEVER, the official take on it mis-used the actual voting data. Having failed to rig it, they still tried to bias the one-liner takeways. And you know they'd have rigged it even more determinedly for a sequel. You'll all keep voting until you give the right answer.
3 comments:
He also seems to be warming to proportional representation..........
Funny that. The chatterati/political classes have swung from laughing & deriding Reform not 18 months ago, to presently running scared, clearly aware that their internal polling gives confirmation that their tenure at the Big Trough is drawing to a close.
What to do ?
Ditch FPTP & bring in Prop Representation as a means to scupper Reform at the next GE. Will it work ? Who cares.......we're way beyond the point of believing voting will change anything
The Post Office board, following the disastrous wrecking of itself and its brand, via the cover up of the Horizon System, now has representatives on the board.
Or
A representative
Appointed by the postmasters and the board.
In effect, the board puts up some candidates. The 11,000 postmasters choose one.
The fact they have no knowledge of who they are choosing is probably deemed a good thing by the board.
As far as I know having a Rep on the board has made zero difference in any way, to any thing.
Contracts are still secret.
Changes are implemented without consultation
Pay is set by PO as before.
The postmasters ‘union’ is still paid from the finances of the post office.
It seems only the most minor of issues are actively addressed.
I.T. Problems. H.R. issues. Advertising.
There IS less of a Do as We Say culture. To a more, Please Do As We Say.
Overall, very minor stuff. A poll that asks ‘ what’s changed since you were all driven to despair?’ Would likely discover, not too much.
You can’t be sent to prison. Even if you are guilty. That’s the main one. But that came in before the man on the board.
When I was young a favourite intellectual for telly people to interview was Bertrand Russell, who had been a genuinely distinguished mathematician and philosopher in his day. He was a clever-clogs: everyone who'd met him said so. He was capable of recounting and interpreting all sorts of historical phenomena in a fascinating way, and doing so in language comprehensible to wee laddies. Look at some of his interview performances on youtube: seriously good stuff.
Well, "good stuff" until he is asked for his recommendations for policy, for actions. Then he immediately becomes a dullard, urging vacuous tosh on a nation that must have been tempted to giggle at the daft old bugger.
I inferred even then that policy must be harder than analysis.
Post a Comment