I've moved!

I'm really poor at blogging. That's a fact. I like WordPress. Another fact.

I've therefore decided that, instead of having a Tumblr blog, Blogger blog and WordPress.com blog that I barely use (to name a few), I will stick to barely using one of them. 

By virtue of my day job, that choice has been made. My WordPress blog has been re-born and I've set myself the challenge of actually using it from now on.

You can find me at https://garymarkfuller.wordpress.com/ from now on.

Wish me luck!

Hiring Quota - Why I disagree with Uncle Bob... I'm sorry.

I don't blog often, because every piece I write ends up being re-drafted at least ten times (which takes entirely too long, and I like sleep too much), but I do read a lot of blogs. Last week I came across the Clean Coder blog, and http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2017/09/29/TheUnscrupulousMeme.html in particular (memetics and coding, I thought, this will be heavenly).

Like anyone attempting to learn code, in my case about 20 years too late, I've heard of Uncle Bob Martin. He seems like a near mythical figure to me. So I'm a little hesitant to start my first ever blog post about coding by disagreeing with him. That said, in for a penny, in for a pound. So I'm going to write this, and also try not to spend the day re-drafting it.

I've not read the Google memo in full recently, so I'm not going to talk about that. Indeed I don't know if I have a hard and fast opinion on the best reaction to said memo (not least because I have no direct frame of reference). My gut reaction in most cases is to spend a lot of time coming up with something that isn't a gut reaction. I suspect we should all do that more, but I digress.

To get to the point, it's on hiring quotas that I disagree with the content of the post. Hiring quotas are, in my view, an unfairly maligned concept. They are maligned for the suggestion that they are a) a form of tokenism, b) they make it harder to get recognition for one's abilities and c) they don't recognise people of equal ability, in that people with lesser ability (but from a specific group) get hired. There is some weight to the first two points, but the third point is where I think the unfairness exists (in fact the third point is why the other two points exists).

I should add a caveat right at this point. Like any tool, they can be misused. They shouldn't, in my view, be used where there isn't empirical evidence to merit their use. But there are situations where they can and should be used. The question for me therefore, is whether the case has been proven in the tech industry. The honest answer being that I don't know, but that I suspect further research is needed.

Anyway, back to being disagreeable. Hiring quotas don't exist in a vacuum. The current experience of women, ethnic minorities, the disabled, various age groups, and people who come from low income families is that they are discriminated against in various fields. As a white, middle aged, man (we'll ignore mental health and parental income for now), I will find it easier to walk into most careers, and to earn more money throughout my lifetime, than other people do.

The reason I will find it easier is because of unconscious bias (I should note here that the post does mention the need to tackle unconscious bias). That unconscious bias means that when competing with someone of equal ability (I hate the word merit, but I've already blogged about that), I will be more likely to be picked for a role than someone who fits into one of the groups above. It is for that reason that hiring quotas exist, and indeed should exist (whilst we tackle unconscious bias).

Hiring quotas don't of necessity result in people with lesser skills being employed, they result in people with equal skills being treated in a different way, a way that seeks to redress the imbalance caused by existing unconscious bias. And that's even before we consider the journey to get to that point. All of the groups I mentioned above, don't just suffer bias in one job interview. To get to the point of equal skills, they will have had to work much harder throughout their lives.

Let's take a woman in tech as a theoretical case in point. To get to the stage of interviewing for a specific tech job, they might have had to overcome pressure to conform to gender stereotypes from friends, family, educators, peers and previous employers. They may well have had to overcome unconscious bias in education (at every single level) and employment. To do so, to get the same recognition and acceptance as male peers, they may have had to work much harder, to have been much more dedicated. 

In fact, it could be argued that the very determination and work ethic that was required to get to the stage of equal ability to a male peer in itself represents greater ability, and that such abilities are perhaps less likely to be part of an interview process (though one would hope that isn't the case). In fact, there's a case for asking any applicant what barriers they had to overcome to get to the stage of interviewing for a role, but I digress again.

Hiring quotas are not just a means of ensuring that the ratio of a specific group within an organisation reflects wider society therefore. They are a means of ensuring that equal ability results in equal outcome, and that those who experience greater barriers within society experience a lowering of those barriers in a way that results in a balanced (or fair) outcome for all.

As long as there is evidence that they are needed in a particular industry, and for as long as the circumstances that require their use exist, I would contend that they are a means very much justified by the ends towards which they are targeted. It is my hope that I am not alone in this view.

Time to talk 2017... Belated

I think one of the themes of Time to Talk day this year is losing friends with relation to mental health difficulties. A day late, I figured it was worth a post to my underutilised blog.

One of the things that affects almost everyone is drift. Over time we lose the closeness we've had with friends of old. When one has experienced mental ill health, this drift can feel more personal, especially in a world with social media.

That said, there are people who react badly to the mental ill health of a friend, to the point of cutting ties or deliberately drifting. This can be especially true where ill health prompts unhealthy or unusual behaviours.

This process can feel very personal when someone is already experiencing poor mental health but ultimately is a sign of weakness in the friendship or, more likely, of unchallenged stigma and a lack of understanding from that friend. That realisation doesn't stop the hurt caused however.

So please, if a friend (or colleague) presents with unusual or unhealthy behaviours, consider that they might need your support. Don't turn your back simply because you may feel uncomfortable. Do whatever you are able to in order to help, and make some time to learn about mental ill health and how you can support those in need.

#Timetotalk Day 2016

Today is #TimetoTalk Day 2016, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to ponder something positive, namely how it feels to be "doing better". I chose the phrase "doing better" because a lot of mental health conditions are essentially lifelong, but with symptoms occurring temporarily under specific circumstances.

When I get up in the morning I feel tired, but not completely drained. I can focus on getting ready for work, and I'm calm in myself (assuming the alarm goes off at the right time). I look forward to the day, be it a day at work, at home, or relaxing with family. I'm not afraid and I look forward to being around other people. I don't feel tension in every muscle.

Simple things like music, or the kids being silly, make me smile. Sound doesn't hurt my ears or make me irritable. I can look people in the eye without feeling an inexplicable shame, without feeling sick. The idea of being outside is pleasant, weather permitting. I have a plan for the day, no matter how vaguely formed it may be. I don't waste it pondering past mistakes.

I don't feel overwhelmed by the washing up, downtrodden by the cleaning, or buried by a mountain of work beyond my capabilities. I relish the idea of a challenge, especially if it means learning something new. You can't shut me up for talking about the latest bit of Tech I've read about, or that new website I've helped build.

I make bad jokes, I'm self-deprecating, and I laugh at silly humour. I read Fantasy for pleasure, not just escapism, and I watch action movies for fun (Marvel mainly, I do like a superhero). I decide to go out at random times, and play at being a chef rather than living on chips. I can even take criticism without it being a personal affront (mostly).

I work at home in the evening, because I'm focussed on getting the latest piece of work just right, rather than because I can't get organised or can't concentrate at work. I want to do things after work, be it moving a room around, gaming, or delivering a few leaflets. I walk to the shops because I'm not in a rush, rather than just driving because I can.

That's what "doing better" feels like for me. Hopefully you'll feel that way today too.

 

How not to handle a grievance - mistakes of an employee

With four years between me and the events that resulted in the end of my ten year career at Canterbury College, it feels like a good time to reflect upon the mistakes I made during my final few months. I'll be referring to documents I still retain copies of where possible (I'm a hoarder).

The period in question is the time between the events of January 12th 2012 and being made redundant on July 6th 2012. For background you can read - http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-worst-day-of-my-life-timetotalk-44564.html

On January 18th 2012, six days after the incident (I'll refer to it as that from now on), the Director of Finance & Corporate Services sent me a letter. The key points of this letter were that:

• The incident would normally have been regarded as a potential gross misconduct were it not for my ill health.
• I would be required to attend an Occupational Health appointment on January 27th 2012.
• The plans to re-deploy me on a temporary basis with a view to potentially making this permanent, which had been put in place by my then Director and Section Manager, would be enacted upon my return.

The assumptions I took away from this letter were that, no blame was being assigned to me and that the College was going to re-deploy me in another teaching role. The first was broadly true I think, the second may have been true at the time (the plans had been discussed with me, but not enacted in time to prevent the incident), but it is not what eventually happened.

Having attended my Occupational Health appointment, I received a copy of my report, which was sent to me on January 31st 2012. My employer also received a copy. The points raised by this report included:

• The presence of an underlying condition affecting my emotional health - a condition that "should be regarded as a disability in employment terms".
• That it appeared a "substantial contributing factor" in my recent ill health was my job role at the time, and that I should not return to that particular role.
• That an alternative role with a different "student group he will be teaching" had formed part of the referral.
• That, as part of my return to work I should
• Receive additional support to ensure I wasn't experiencing stress 
• Have a phased return to work, possibly with training as part of this process
• That a further review take place 2-3 months after my return

Essentially this appeared to imply that I was entitled to "reasonable adjustments", as defined within the Equality Act 2010, and that I would return to teaching with additional support, a phased return, some training, and a review with Occupational Health after a few months. The only one of these things that actually occurred was a phased return to work. I did not return to teaching, I received no additional support and no training, and my health was not reviewed after 2-3 months.

One other outcome of the appointment was a request to contact my GP. I agreed to that request, with the consent form being sent to me on March 6th 2012. A supplementary report was prepared as a result of this request. The report was sent on March 22nd 2012. The supplementary advice from the report reiterated the advice outlined above.

After the initial report, I met with my Director and the Personnel Manager on February 15th 2012. The meeting did not go as I'd hoped, possibly in part because I allowed it to take place without the presence of a representative from my trade union, despite being offered the option. It was at this meeting that I was told I would not be returning to the College in a lecturing role. In an email to the UCU Branch Chair following the meeting I wrote:

"During today's meeting I felt the kind of sentiment described above was somewhat lacking, especially at the point when I was reminded that I could have been sacked for my behaviour. I felt that the underlying assumptions were that I had completely misread the situation on the day that I smashed the window, that I had failed to adequately identify to the College that I was struggling to cope with the role, that it was assumed that my difficulty in this role was due to some extent to an inability to cope with the general stresses of teaching and the wider roles in which I engage and that my experience in the pre-16 department did not constitute bullying."

In this email, I outlined some points I felt should be acknowledged by the College going forward. I failed to fully pursue these specific points, and thus they were never acknowledged. The points I raised were:

1. At points during my period in Pre-16 I was subject to bullying and that this was unacceptable.
2. That the bullying I suffered was a contributory factor to my depression, stress and the eventual resumption of self-harming.
3. That it was inappropriate for me, having specifically removed myself from the classroom due to mental distress and having informed both Personnel and my Line Manager that I was self-harming again, to be encouraged to re-enter the classroom and engage in a discussion with a large group of students about my professionalism, behaviour and classroom management.
4. That the College will do everything practicable to ensure that this kind of situation does not arise again.

Upon my return to work I was placed into a non-teaching role. I never signed the new contract, as I disagreed with the move, but I did fulfil the role. I suspect had I refused to fulfil the role, I might have had more luck in mounting any challenge, though I might also have risked my recovery.

Soon after my return, I ventured into my old department to retrieve some personal items, on a day and time when I expected no teaching to be taking place. I was wrong (the timetables had changed) and, as a result, I received en email from my, now former, Section Manager, which said (names as hash tags):

"Given the current circumstances please could I ask you not to conduct visits to the Pre 16 department, especially when there are students present. I'm led to believe that both ### #### and Personnel have advised you to keep away from the area."

I took exception to this email, and my response was as follows:

"You seem to be labouring under a misconception.

I have been into H block this week to retrieve my property rather than to visit. I've made a point of going outside what I believed to be normal teaching hours, or when I have been told no students were present. There were students up there on one occasion, when I came to retrieve my cup, but as it was on Wednesday afternoon I had expected that they wouldn't be present.

As far as I recall I was not asked to avoid pre-16 by ### or #### as frankly avoiding any area of the College when students can rightly go where they wish, and when you are an elected staff representative, is frankly impractical.

I will, of course, be sure to ensure that any further encounters I have with Pre-16 students (five have spoken to me in the refectory in the past week) are in no way as distressing for them as my recent episode of mental ill health was.

I thank you for raising your concerns." 

I copied my response to individuals outside the organisation, as well as my union representative. I did so because I felt that the initial email was unfair. I did not pursue this, bar forwarding it to another union rep who suggested a "wait and see" policy. In retrospect I might have pursued this further given the potential effects on my return to work.

I did make an attempt to pursue some of my other concerns with the Personnel Manager.  I requested various pieces of information for my records on April 2nd 2012. Apart from an offer letter of sorts, which was sent prior to my email on March 28th 2012, and despite receiving an email saying that "I am in the process of putting this together for you", I did not receive the bulk of the information I requested:

"Could I have in writing an offer letter for my new role with the reasons for withdrawing the role offered in ###### ########'s letter dated 18-01-12 and also for removing me from my first aid contract?

Could I have copies of the relevant notes taken and actions agreed during the two meetings between us and ###? 

### mentioned in our first meeting that an investigation had taken place into events surrounding my ill health. For obvious reasons he was unable to contact me for a statement. Please find attached a statement I produced for #####. Could I also have a letter outlining the outcome of his investigation as it pertains to my circumstances?" 

One outcome of my new role was that I was prevented from carrying out a secondary job role for which the College employed me, that of on-call first aider. I did follow this up by emailing my new Director specifically requesting the time to carry out the role. This time was refused, I thus was unable to complete the role. In retrospect, I should have pursued this further.

In the end I requested voluntary redundancy. I did so on the basis that my wages had been protected for six months, but that this was extremely unlikely to continue (my contract was changed from permanent to fixed term in September 2011) as I fully expected to be excluded from consideration for a lecturer's role. I never confirmed this by participating in the normal processes that occur at the end of a fixed term contract.

Just prior to leaving the College, I briefly explored taking matters further via my trade union. I produced a statement for them, on June 30th 2012, which read:

"I feel that Canterbury College has failed in its duty of care to me as a staff member, has discriminated against me by failing to make reasonable adjustments for my severe depression/self-harm and has constructively dismissed me through demoting me and allowing me to believe that I could not reasonably be redeployed to a lecturing role and thus could not survive financially. I have outlined details below and have documentary evidence for the majority of what I have stated.

Pre-16 Events:

• Raised concerns about class sizes (contract was one staff member per four students)
• Suffered homophobic bullying, verbal abuse and repeated implications of paedophilia
• Two students who had committed acts of threatening behaviour, criminal damage, and verbal abuse were not expelled despite assurances (This resulted in medication with anti-depressants)
• Duty officer was repeatedly called, numerous suspensions and disciplinary actions but no improvement in behaviour
• Manager requested that I hide my self-harm scars at all times
• I resumed self-harming and was hospitalised
• I raised concerns about my ability to cope with ##### ##### in Personnel and #####  ########
• I was told I would be redeployed after the Christmas holidays
• On 12-01-12 I refused to continue teaching, ###### ###### intervened and cajoled me into a classroom discussion, three students raised concerns in front of multiple staff and students which I was expected to answer, I became so distressed I disclosed my mental health issues and smashed a window after walking out
• 13-01-12 I was signed off for two months suffering work related stress and depression

Post Pre-16 Events:

• I received a letter from ###### ######## stating there wouldn’t be disciplinary and that I would be returning as a lecturer
• I attended an OH appointment which concluded I might well be able to teach again with appropriate support and that my condition was covered by the Equality Act
• I had a return to work meeting during which I was told I would not be returning as a Lecturer, as the College felt I could not cope in the roles, but as an LSP, I raised concerns about my ability to survive financially, I was told by ### #### that I was lucky to have a job but that salary protection would be explored
• I was offered salary protection for the remainder of my contract
• I received an e-mail from ###### ###### requesting that I not visit the Pre-16 unit, even when students weren’t present
• My self-harming and high levels of sickness continued
• Aware that the College custom was to redeploy staff at the same or a lower role, having been prevented from applying for redeployment in more senior roles in both 2003 and 2011, and my inability to survive financially on an LSP role, I requested voluntary redundancy
• Due to a lack of detail in my sickness reports, resulting from my continued depression and self-harm, I received an e-mail from ### ####### requesting a retrospective Doctor’s note, I pointed out this was not possible but did offer to let her see my self-certificates and my mental health appointment letter, I also e-mailed her with details of exactly how I’d self-harmed during this period and offered her photos of my scars
• I requested permission from ### ####### to wear short sleeves which was agreed
• I was made aware that an LSP in Pre-16 who had previously been a lecturer was being refused permission to be considered for redeployment as lecturer which confirmed my reason for seeking redundancy, I later confirmed that this is not a legal requirement and that emails from the Personnel Manager contradicted this, if I’d known this I would have sought redeployment"

Their response was to ask if I had taken matters up internally, which I had in the somewhat ineffectual way outlined above - though I had failed to raise a specific grievance, and also whether I was subject to a compromise agreement, which I was not. They also sent me paperwork for their legal scheme, which I received on July 5th 2012 - the day before I left the College. I never completed the paperwork.

So where did I go wrong? I suspect that the rambling description above manages to make it abundantly clear. However, having gone through the documentation, and experienced the situation, I think the points of caution for anyone who believes they have a grievance, especially in a redeployment/redundancy scenario, are:   

• Don't leave it until the last minute - I never formally raised a grievance, and didn't consider doing so until it was effectively too late to do so.
• Unions are there for a reason - I should never have attended a meeting without a union rep present and, whilst in some cases I did, all formal correspondence between being signed off and leaving the College should have been copied to my union rep.
• Keep it simple - I raised multiple different issues with a variety of different people at numerous different points. Some were justified, others perhaps not. Instead though, I should have stuck to a specific list of grievances and should have referenced those when raising supplementary issues.
• Follow things up - Instead of pursuing each issue to its resolution I sat back and allowed the College to effectively ignore me until I went away. Grievance procedures have stages for a reason. 
• Dot the Is and cross the Ts - I failed to follow specific processes and complete requisite paperwork. The procedures that appear to protect employers can be used by employees too, and paperwork is never a good reason to fail to act. 
• Experience beats hearsay - I made a lot of assumptions about what would happen. Had I participated in any of the formal processes available, I might have achieved the outcomes I desired.

It's entirely possible that, had I pursued a specific grievance with the appropriate support, in the appropriate way, I would not have achieved a satisfactory outcome (and that I would not have been justified in pursuing it). No degree of retrospective insight will give me a truly objective view on that period of my life - I will always believe that the College failed me. But I do think it serves as a cautionary tale nevertheless, and that the points I've raised are worthy of consideration by those experiencing similar circumstances in the future.

 

What's the point of a stronger economy?

I've seen some Lib Dems pointing out that if Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour Party leadership contest, then Labour progressives (chuckles) may well jump ship for our Party. I've also seen the point raised that said progressives will not be Social Liberals, though they may well be Economic Liberals. I've also seen it mooted that Corbyn is in no way a Liberal, and that he lacks in the area of creating a Stronger Economy.

When Tim Farron was elected leader, I had the possibly naive view that the Party might be swinging back towards me, but perhaps there's further to go than I thought. It may well be true that Corbyn is not a Liberal by nature, that he doesn't approach the world from a mindset of "do what you like, if you don't hurt anybody else". The thing is though, being a Liberal seems for a lot of people to be about policy rather than mindset.

If Corbyn doesn't want to keep the economic status quo, and carry on regardless with austerity, I salute him. As a Liberal, I have come to the view that concentrations of wealth and power are inherently harmful to large swathes of society, and that the free market in its current form fails to address that issue. If Corbyn can't be a Liberal because he is anti-austerity, or is not focused on the economic arms race, then neither can I.

For me, the fairer society is infinitely more important than the stronger economy. For me the stronger economy is a myth. I don't exist to benefit the economy, and the economy doesn't exist to benefit me. The economy for me is as much a product of natural selection as is the size of the human brain. It's sufficient to ensure that large numbers of people survive to breed, but beyond that has absolutely no moral or practical efficacy.

For too long we've bought into a myth that natural selection and market economics create merit, be that merit in organisms, or merit in organisations. But just as knocking someone over the head and dragging them off to a cave served for procreation in the distant past, so did allowing small numbers of individuals to accrue enormous power and wealth serve when we were hunter gatherers, dragging ourselves towards industrialisation.

We made it. We can grow enough food to feed the entire world. We can produce enough green energy to power the world, if we have the will to do so. We can create a society where everyone can experience greatness, where there are no true barriers to experience as well as making a contribution to human wellbeing and knowledge. All we really need to do is free ourselves of the assumption that the status quo has any inherent merit.

So I say, forget the stronger economy. Let's educate people about the myths surrounding the supposed merit of the free market, and concentrate on building a fairer society. We have, no... we are, the resources, we are the tools, and we are the drivers of change. How we divide up the tasks, and the rewards, of improving the human experience should be as fair as our society, and as equal as all human beings are. 



 

Windows 10: Day one, so far.... and too much reflection on my ongoing go slow

So it's day one working with Windows 10 on my main work laptop. I've used the preview on a very old desktop machine, but now it's time to get in some power use. Plus I'm doing so off the background of a new (under 6 months old) Toshiba laptop that has become incredibly unresponsive (despite 16GB RAM, having added and extra 8GB, and a 4th Gen i7 under the hood).

So, firstly, Windows 10 hasn't resolved my speed problems. The HDD (a mere 5400RPM SATA) is still bottle-necking my system with remarkable regularity. I still can't communicate properly with SMB on our development server, though that may not be entirely down to Windows, and running Netbeans, FireFox and Thunderbird at the same time results in fairly regular episodes of "Not responding". 

I've tried playing with power plans, disabling indexing, switching browsers (Chrome/FireFox), switching virus checkers (Avast/AVG), switching malware scanners (MalwareBytes/Spybot), and even running then switching personal firewalls (ZoneAlarm/PrivateFirewall). I've also disabled the evil that is the Mail App, and have scanned my drive to within an inch of its life.

My slow down seems to have begun when Flash Player was installed on Chrome a few weeks ago, and despite running a "Refresh" on the machine and switching all of the above software, as well as wiping Flash and removing all files (excluding Windows and App required ones) from said machine, I still can't get to the bottom of my slow downs. Other than establishing that it seems to be related to my hard drive, and adversely affects applications using the network (despite no evidence of excessive network usage), I'm at a loss.

I was therefore clinging to the vain hope that it was something to do with reserving and upgrading to Windows 10, or even something to do with having my user account spread across five machines (one running Windows 10 Technical Preview, four running Windows 8.1). It is still possible that the latter is the cause, so I intend to upgrade everything I have as soon as humanely possible, but I know I'm basically clutching at straws because I don't want the pain of going through a full reinstall from recovery media (possibly followed by having to re-upgrade).

Anyway, seeing as it is day one with Windows 10, what do I think of it? So far it has been pretty smooth. The process of upgrading took about two hours and once done my Apps worked as well as before, bar a couple of go slows (which may have nothing to do with Windows itself). The new icons look great and the layout and feel are a huge improvement in my view. The only bum note on the layout is that I miss being able to fill my screen with a list of all apps within two clicks but, as I used Windows Phone 7 (on an HTC Titan), I'll quickly get used to the all apps layout in Windows 10. 

My favourite innovation so far is the action centre, which makes me feel like Windows has finally started to get what makes Android and iOS so great. I really hope that Windows will use this as a full notifications centre for quickly scanning through things like social media and app updates, though I suspect a lot of those will come form the Start menu. I don't mind if the duplicate the notifications in both places to be honest, because sometimes I want to skim (action centre) and other times I want to peruse (Start menu). We'll see how it goes on that score.

Until I resolve the issues with my laptop (is it poor hard drive or poor security on my part, who knows) or get to install it on another machine, I won't be able to reflect on the speed of Windows 10, beyond the fact that everything is working at least as well as it did on Windows 8.1, but I think Microsoft may have pulled their proverbials off of the coals with Windows 10. I may still end up dual booting Linux on my work laptop to try to resolve the go slows, but it will be with less glee than I would have yesterday...
 



  



 

Consultants vs Wealth Creators - Stick vs Carrot

Ok, so the Government is telling us that they want a 7 day a week NHS, and they're not afraid to use force to get it. And, while they're at it, they're going to make striking all but impossible... a bit like finding an MP that fulfilled the conditions they're going to set on the unions to get elected, but we'll leave that one for another day.

With this show of force to get consultants to tow the proverbial line and give the people what they want (allegedly), we see in interesting difference of approach. Let's, for fun have a little comparison with the erstwhile mentioned wealth creators, those helpful millionaires and billionaires that make everything in our economy possible (whilst workers merely look pretty).

Wealth Creators can't be forced to pay more tax (or pay tax at all) because:

• It will cost jobs and money as they will move their businesses abroad.
• They will move to other countries in order to maintain their quality of life.
• We'll lose the best talent to countries where they can make more money.
• There isn't a huge pool of talent that can do what they do.
• Lives will be ruined by a lack of jobs.

Seems fair enough, so let's move on...

Consultants can be forced to work weekends because:

• It will create jobs and save money because everyone will take up new contracts working more hours.
• They won't move into a different career or to another employer that lets them maintain their quality of life.
• The best talent won't be enticed to other countries where pay and conditions may be better.
• There is a huge pool of talented consultants just waiting to fill any gaps... we're knee deep in them.
• Lives won't be ruined by a lack of consultants, or by overworked consultants making errors. 

But... wait a minute... that's the opposite of what we said for wealth creators. Is somebody in Government telling (or at least perpetuating) porkies? Heaven forfend!!!
 

Windows 10: A chance to change the scenery? UPDATED

I'm possibly a rare beast in the world of Tech. I find Windows 8.1 easier to use than Windows 7. I got to this point by taking an early upgrade on much of my plethora of tech. I have rarely used Windows 7 since and, for all its strengths, I now prefer to stick with Windows 8.1 as my default Windows installation.

I'm not saying I think it is better than Linux or OSX mind you. Though, again, I find it easier to use than both these excellent OSs. Some of this will be down to simple lack of practice with anything else, bar Ubuntu. Either way though, I hate to admit it, but Windows 10 has a hard act to follow in terms of ease of use.

Now I've got that out the way though, I do have a few questions about Windows 10 that I think everyone should be asking. That's especially true of early upgraders looking to get a free copy out of Microsoft, who have remained somewhat tight lipped on the process. I like upgrades, but iOS and Android have gotten me used to getting a good deal.

So, my questions are:

1) Is Microsoft only handing out one free copy per email address registered with them, is it one per person, or is it one per valid Windows key? I have multiple copies of Windows, and they tend to cycle through from machine to machine. If they're only offering the single free copy option, that means paying for seven additional copies in my case. That could very well slow down my upgrade process, especially as my habit of reinstalling means a couple of my keys aren't working.

A) It's one upgrade per installed device folks.

2) If Microsoft is offering key based upgrades, will they be allowing people to register their Windows keys rather than using the within OS process? As I alluded to above, I have eight perfectly legal Windows keys. Two are Windows 8 OEM keys linked to the originating machine, but six of them are not. I'd find it much easier to simply register my Windows keys and receive the corresponding number of Windows 10 keys in return.

A) It's one upgrade per installed device folks.

3) Will Microsoft be offering the option to buy DVD backups like they did for Windows 8? Strange though it may be, I bought a backup for every copy of Windows 8 I could get my hands on. When I tried to reinstall Windows 7 on an older laptop last night, I came to realise just how useful such backups can be. I have a backup of the 32 bit version, but not the 64 bit. I therefore have a key that I can't use unless Microsoft reinstate Windows 7 downloads.

A) Yes, alongside the ability to create recovery media.

4) Is a copy of Windows 7 that was replaced by Windows 8 still eligible for a free upgrade? I'm an early adopter by nature, and only one of the machines related to my Windows 7 keys wasn't rocking Windows 8 from day one. Should I therefore assume that two of my OS keys aren't eligible for an upgrade? I may not have the tech to use them currently, but I collect PC like other people collect stamps, so I will want to use those keys at some point.

A) No. The keys for such copies aren't valid anyway.

5) Do Microsoft have a plan for competing with iOS and Android on upgrades, whilst still keeping PC users happy? PCs may be dying a slow death among most consumers, but they still have a place. With Android and iOS offering free upgrades on qualifying tech, and fully open source OSs beginning to edge into mobile, Windows 10 risks disappointing everyone by charging where it should be free, and refusing upgrades to older tech that can eminently handle it.

A) We'll see.

Ok, so these probably aren't my only questions about Windows 10. I work in web design, so I'll be interested to see what it has to offer for coders and graphic designers. Efficiency and responsiveness will be the watch words here. Also, I want it to have finally find a way to deal with 5400rpm drives and how much they bottleneck things like startup when you have lots of apps to load, especially cloud sharing ones. But I'll be pondering the five questions above before and during the upgrade process, and so should everyone.

I told you so: Or how to dust yourself off and not look conceited.

It shouldn't feel so good to be a Lib Dem at the moment. The electorate has just given us an almighty kicking, almost every bit of good we did in the Coalition is about to be undone, and it's probably going to take at least a generation for us to recover (assuming we do so at all).

Yet I do feel good. Not because I don't feel obliged to defend the complete and utter disaster that was our "reining in" of the Tories. Not because Nick Clegg, who in all honesty had achieved a level of toxicity that Tony Blair would envy, has resigned. Not even because we can no longer be blamed for there being a Tory Government, though some may well disagree with that sentiment.

I feel good being a Lib Dem because, instead of a continuing deluge of the punch drunk and bitter, I'm surrounded by positive vibes. Instead of bemoaning the events of May 7th, not to mention the Coalition, and clinging desperately to the "I told you so" reality of a Tory Government with the brakes off, the Party and it's activists have come out fighting. That's exactly what we all need, and it makes me feel great.

That isn't to say that we should try to ignore our mistakes, like Labour have for the past five years. If our MPs can't bring themselves to say that the Coalition hurt far more people than it helped then we're still doomed I'm afraid. This is true despite the Party managing to bring Mental Health into the limelight, to improve the life chances of lower income kids, to take those on very low incomes out of tax, and to free everyone to marry for love. 

In the end it wasn't enough. IDS has made inordinate numbers of people suffer for no other reason than an accident of birth or of personal circumstance. The NHS has had yet another pointless shakeup at the expense of staff and patients alike. Students are doomed to a life of enormous debt, that is only mitigated somewhat by being time and income limited. The housing market is still in a complete unholy mess that benefits no-one bar the super rich. And all of this on a backdrop of deficit reduction targets missed completely.

In terms of liberal principles, we achieved some success in Government, overturning some of the War on Terror related erosion of freedoms perpetuated by Labour for starters. But to do so at the expense of so many is a shame we will have to bear with honesty and humility if we are to truly rebuild. The current bounce in membership needs to continue, and it will only do so if we show we've accepted and learnt the lessons of Coalition. Most importantly we need to show that we understand the importance of trust and competence.

But that particular task will be in the hands of our new leader and our much smaller contingent of MPs. What the rest of us need to do is dust ourselves off, fight the temptation to say "I told you so", get in touch with our new members, get them involved and active, and give them a reason to stay that way. And looking at social media, and my local party for that matter, I know I'm totally preaching to the converted.

So, it does feel great to be a Lib Dem today. I know we messed up big time, and paid the price for it, but we're not wallowing in or bemoaning our situation, and that's a really great start.

The hypocrisy of the great "betrayal"

Reading the Lib Dems hashtag on Twitter is a great way to self-medicate for euphoria at the moment. The false claims of the Conservatives, the hypocritical moralising from Labour, the narrow-minded xenophobia of UKIP, and the smug superiority of the Greens and the SNP (I know, we were just as bad before 2010) are enough to turn anyone's stomach.

None of these actually bother me though. In fact they often lead to interesting discussions, a useful test of my beliefs as often as not. It's the consistent crowing over the great "betrayal" and the coming "just desserts" that stick in the proverbial craw. It transcends party membership, and demonstrates a wanton ignorance that beggars belief.

Since at least my birth, in 1979, every single Government has failed to deliver its full manifesto. Every manifesto by a Government party has contained at least one pledge that they have deliberately broken. Every Government party has fallen over itself to claim the centre (right) ground in British politics. But, in all this time only one coalition has occurred.

Yet, for all of this, the big story of #GE2015 isn't coalitions as a means to stop the big two parties from continuing to say one thing and do another. The story isn't the delivery of genuinely progressive policies because the Tories weren't left completely to their own devices. The story instead is how much fun it will be to watch Lib Dems lose.

Part of the problem is that this is only the second General Election since the advent of Twitter of course. It's a fantastic social network, but it totally lends itself to bullying, harassment and schadenfreude. On this particular occasion, it's a case of schadenfreude coupled with unholy levels of righteous indignation, and very little logic.

The very reason that a coalition was formed in 2010 is the same reason that, on the face of it, the Lib Dems deserve to be "destroyed" in 2015. Since at least 1979 every Government has ignored its promises to the electorate in favour of, often dubious, expediency. The coalition was, in a way, the first manifesto led Government in at least 30 years.

The very act of negotiating an agreement between two parties required a starting point, that starting point being the manifestos of those same parties. Neither party could hope to deliver all of its manifesto, but the scrutiny of negotiating an agreement meant that both had to at least make the effort. The big mistake was not pinning more down to begin with.

In less than two weeks I expect to be in a party that has received another battering at the hands of the electorate, but that hopefully will still have a role in forming the Government. Despite my distaste for them, since the removal of Clause 4 and their erosion of freedom in response to 9/11, I hope that Labour will be the party we get to negotiate with.

Most of all though, I hope that every party that is involved in forming the next Government will be doing so having fought for every pledge in their manifesto. I hope that the British public will recognise that this is the case, and I hope that in 2020 the manifestos, the parties, and the voting public will be that much more honest and progressive as a result.

If not, the outcome of both 2010 and 2015 will have been for naught.

A message from Lynne

I don't want accountability, I want results!

BBC Breakfast were talking about the NHS this morning. It was fascinating to hear the talk of the lack of protection for whistle-blowers and the need for "accountability". Well I don't give two figs about accountability, I want results.

In fact, I hate the whole concept of accountability. For me accountability is the root cause of the problems in almost every industry, even banking. For me accountability is synonymous with blame, and blame is only useful to victims.

"Whoa, that's a bit uncaring" I hear you cry. And on the face of it, yes it is. After all, the victims of a lack of accountability in the NHS are patients, and the victims of a lack of accountability in banking are... pretty much everyone. 

The problem is, the victims of accountability exist too, in huge numbers. They are patients, they are everyone, and they exist because no-one in their right mind wants to be blamed. In a system of accountability though, someone has to be blamed.

Don't get me wrong, accountability doesn't preclude blaming the system, but the process of getting to that stage almost invariably goes via individual blame, and usually the process of individual blame is levied against people with power.

People with power, also happen to be people with a lot to lose. That's because, if you are found to be accountable, there almost always has to be a punishment. That punishment usually impinges upon your quality of life, and that of your family.

The reason for this is often cited as natural justice. The victim has a right to some form of redress, some salve for the suffering inflicted upon them by the accountable. It's a compelling argument, but one that actually causes more harm than good.

The fear of redress, of blame, of personal suffering as a result, is what makes accountability such an anathema to those with power. At least those who are likely to be held accountable that is. And those people will naturally seek to avoid its harsh glare.

In doing so, the people seeking to avoid accountability create ever more victims. The fear of justice creates ever greater crimes, as it were. Especially in a system where many can see its flaws, but only a few are likely to have to pay for highlighting them.

This is particularly true where the accountable are called upon to strike a balance between competing objectives. In the public sector these competing objectives almost invariably involve targets, quality, and delivering value for money.

So, I don't really want to see accountability in the NHS, I want to see results. If someone is getting the balance wrong between targets, quality, and value for money, I want them to fix it. I don't need them to be punished, and I don't want them to fear redress.

The victims of their mistakes may disagree with me, but the victims of them hiding those mistakes to avoid accountability should totally agree.

END

Why am I so poor?

Ok, so I'm not that poor. In fact I'd say I'm doing ok despite about £10k of unsecured debt I can't pay off. The question though is a more general one, especially given the suggestion that the so-called 1% will have more wealth than the rest of us in a year. 

I've always had a pretty relaxed idea about how wealthy I'd like to be. I dream of owning a little cottage in the middle of nowhere. A kind of rustic affair that is self-sufficient and, apart from an awesome internet connection and being warm & clean, is pretty basic.

As dreams go it's quite boring. It should, on the face of it, be pretty darn easy to achieve too. Of course in this particular scenario the only work I have to do involves the garden and maybe making the odd website if I want to. In fact, it's not that dissimilar to my brother's life.

The thing is though, I have some debt. I also have kids and a partner. I like to own various toys as well, which need paying for. I need to get around, which requires funds. I enjoy watching US shows, which aren't that cheap. In other words, money makes my lifestyle.

The thing is though, it isn't money that makes my lifestyle. It's actually decisions that do so. A lot of these decisions were made centuries ago, when societies were first being set up based upon a system of exchange involving coinage and bits of paper.

Unfortunately that particular system of exchange has led us to where we are now. Global inequality is falling according to some, yet figures have been published by Oxfam suggesting that 1% of people will own more than the other 99% of people by next year.

The system we live in, the global economy, requires our labour to exist. We contribute to the whole, so that wealth can be created. We pay our taxes, so that we can be supported when we need it, and so that others can be supported besides ourselves when they need it.

We may resent supporting others to the extent that we do. We may wish we had more. It may seem unfair that we work 40, 50, 60 or 100 hours a week at jobs we hate just to let someone else contribute less. But if we want the great house, or the cool toys, we do it.

But there is a big lie in all this. The system we work for only exists because we allow it to. The 1% have what they have because we let them keep it. Our focus on the everyday lets them focus on their everyday, accruing more and more wealth as we quibble over crumbs.

Well I don't want a big slice of the pie. I want a roof over my head and a few toys to relax with of an evening. Is that too much to ask? Not in my view it isn't. If money disappeared tomorrow, I reckon there would be enough resources and enough work to go round.

Maybe that's the solution, we scrap it all and start over. We put everything in a great big pile and everyone gets an equal share. Then we all keep working and keep sharing it all and see where we go from there. It's an interesting idea. For now though, I'm working for the 1%.

I'm offended... what's new?

One aspect of the current debate around freedom of speech is totally offensive to me. For me, the debate lacks nuance and it lacks for any attempt at empathy or understanding. It feels like an all or nothing affair, where interpreting the statements of others to fit a perceived offense has become the norm, eclipsing any form of informed debate.

Stuff offends me. I'm a human being. I have beliefs and values like anyone else. They matter to me. When somebody says something that challenges these things it can make me feel pretty darn angry and hurt, as well as make me think. If I'm challenged in the right, or wrong, way it can actually cause me mental anguish and harm. That's not a good thing.

I support freedom of speech. It's a really important value in society. It gives everyone the opportunity to be heard and it helps prevent tyranny of the majority as well as tyranny of the prevailing elite. It gives oversight to the prevailing opinions of the day, challenging orthodoxy and subjecting even the most obvious seeming truisms to much deserved scrutiny.

I am allowed to have these views. They are my right. As much as it is the right of anyone else to have their own views, irrespective of what they are. I am stating that these are my views. I don't have anyone else's views, and I certainly have bugger all right to tell someone else what their views are, no matter that doing so may confirm my prejudices. 

So I say to everyone involved in debating freedom of speech, tell me your views if you feel the need to, ask me what my views are should you wish to, challenge my views as I state them if you like, denigrate my views and ridicule me if you must, but please don't tell me what my views are. Please also show the same courtesy to everyone else.

The Power of Psychology

I completed a Psychology degree almost 14 years ago now. I really enjoyed some of it, and could have happily ignored a lot of it. It taught me some things about myself, and left me woefully unprepared for some other things. I got a 2:2, which is to say I coasted through with the minimum of effort.

I am really grateful for my studies of Psychology however. It's a gratitude based upon one very simple thing though. It's a concept taught to me by accident that I often fail to apply, but that I've come to believe is the most fundamental concept of the human condition. The concept is "always be inconclusive".

It's probably not a concept actually, more a guiding principle. In fact I hesitate to suggest it should be the guiding principle taught to everyone as soon as they learn language. Why? Because I believe almost every issue in society could be solved by the clever use of inconclusive language and thought processes.

The principle itself was part of the technique for writing essays. In writing a Psychology essay, the writer is expected to only ever refer to themselves in the third person (ideally not at all), and is also expected to refer to their conclusions in a manner that cannot be interpreted as definitive.

To say "the evidence proves" is essentially unforgivable in a Psychology essay. To say "the evidence appears to suggest" is the expected form. It is also, from the point of view of a personal belief system (and its application), a great way to avoid the trap of dogma. How can one ever be completely right if the evidence only suggests a thing?

For me this is the true power of Psychology. It is also where it trumps Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and all of the organised religions (as I understand/interpret them at least). They may all be looking for, or claim to have found, universal truisms, but Psychology specifically doesn't allow one to assume success in such a search.  

If you can never assume success in finding universal truisms, you can never stop questioning, and you can never close you mind to new ideas and viewpoints. You are also inherently encouraged to see the multiple interpretations available to you in every situation. In this way you can never be fooled by the emotive conclusion.

Of course I'm sure many scientists would say the same of their chosen field on the grounds of objectivity. Objectivity though isn't a guarantee against coming to false truisms because, in my view, objectivity is simply a denial of the truth of subjectivity. That is to say that Psychology is, potentially, unique in accepting the universal truism of subjectivity.

The astute will perhaps accuse me of boxing myself into hypocrisy. How can one state that it's a bad idea to assume success in finding universal truisms, and then state that subjectivity is a universal truism? That though is the wonder of being inconclusive. I believe that everything is subjective, but I don't believe I have, or ever will, prove it consclusively.

Thus through the guiding principle of being inconclusive I can come to a conclusion safe in the knowledge that it is my conclusion alone and is open to both challenge and change. In this way I can always revise my conclusions based upon whatever evidence, arguments and moral imperatives most grab me. Most importantly I can do so knowing I'm probably wrong.

So the power of Psychology is in fact... knowing that no matter how right I think I am, I'm still wrong.

 

 

Clegg Vs Omar - A couple of thoughts

I've just read about the exchange between Nick Clegg on LBC and a caller named Omar.

It's an emotional time, and people are seeking to explain the seemingly inexplicable, with words such as evil. The individual that called into the show appeared to be taking the "straw that broke the camel's back" approach, while Nick seemed to be very much pointing to individual responsibility, alongside the right to be offended.

I happen to agree with Nick's stance on this, but in a qualified way. We can no further understand the motivations of any other individual than we can at times understand our own. Nick assumed that Omar was seeking to justify the actions of those involved, which may well have been his intent, but also may not have been.

I've not heard the entire show, so I'm not going to comment either way on that score. I do believe however that in seeking individual responsibility we must also seek understanding. No matter how unjustified the motivation for these killings was, if we don't seek to understand them at some level, we cannot prevent recurrences.

For me the tendency to use the word evil is dangerous, as is the tendency to assign blame. Blame is the lazy way to deal with crime, punishment, and security in general. It is a process that justifies prison as a punishment, yet ignores the importance of rehabilitation, as well as prevention. It sees poverty as a personal circumstance rather than a societal failure, for example.

So, whilst I agree with Nick about the right to offend, and about the fact that murder is never justified, I don't see any point in blame. If anything I see the need for a potentially much colder, and even darker, analysis. Now is a time to ask, what is society willing to do to ensure this type of act becomes completely unpalatable, no matter the potential reasoning behind it?

Such an approach to thinking about this can go two ways though. One is authoritarian, surveillance based and involves the restriction of freedom to the point that fear serves to prevent a recurrence. Another route, perhaps harder on those with the most to lose, is to put some serious effort into reforming humanity as a whole, to the point that our very humanity prevents recurrence. 

I personally hope for the latter, but I am sure plenty will be happy with the former. 

Lying in a pool of blood... (metaphorically speaking)

As part of an invite by LDV Editors for comments from people not prone to commenting on their excellent blog posts, I wrote today that:

"The problem I have is that, despite some pretty significant manifesto wins in Government, the economy doesn’t feel the slightest bit stronger and society doesn’t feel in any small way fairer than in 2010 (to me). If I’m saying that as a Party member, how do we convince the public that a) I’m wrong about where we’re at now and b) we’re capable of delivering even small progress in that direction through a future coalition?

I get that things like the Pupil Premium will achieve a huge amount in the long run, as will moves on removing the stigma around mental health and improving social care, but I can’t convince myself that the balance of cuts in the public sector, as against increases in taxation of the wealthy, since 2010 has been anything but completely unfair. If I can’t convince myself of that, how do I convince anyone else to vote for us this year?"

This comment (I have a habit or re-reading my own comments on things for some bizarre reason) got me to thinking about a suitable analogy for the Coalition. Specifically one claim, which has always stuck in my proverbial craw, that we've successfully prevented the potential evils of a Conservative majority. 

So I offer up for your delectation:

"When Mike Tyson is punching you in the head, it's difficult to feel grateful that he's been forced to do so wearing a boxing glove on his weaker hand (with the other hand tied behind his back as well), as you are pummeled into the ground by an infinitely stronger opponent." 

And that, my friends is my summation of the Coalition - make of it what you will...

Dichotomy of Honesty

I just saw a post on Facebook from an anxiety sufferer. It was shared by Time to Change, and the headline quote mentioned that despite years of living with mental health issues the individual still worried about the reaction of other people.

It made me think about my own experience, as it relates to explaining my giving up alcohol. When I focused fully on getting well, after allowing myself a year to recover from working at Canterbury College and making very little headway, I was told to give up drinking.

The reason for this, aside from the fact that you're not really meant to drink with Sertraline, was a flippant remark made during a consultation. The person asking the questions asked me if I could do various things, including not drink for a period. I flippantly said, "I dunno about that".

I'm not sure if it was a get out clause for them, but within minutes I'd been bumped from the mental health team to a substance misuse support charity. Realising that this could be a barrier to me getting future support I promptly gave up drinking completely.

After this I had various meetings with the charity in question, who were very helpful, but ultimately they referred me on to another group, which I never quite got round to contacting, and I eventually disappeared from the mental health radar altogether (bar repeat prescriptions).

Leaving aside the fact that somebody with mental ill health probably should be chased up somewhat more aggressively by the support services, and the fact that I am broadly coping these days, my somewhat rambling point here relates to my reactions to other people.

I met up with some former colleagues on Friday, and a number commented on my not drinking. Despite the fact that I've been pretty honest about my situation online, I found myself dissembling when it came to explaining my new found sobriety.

I don't know if it was a residual need to be liked by my former colleagues or just general embarrassment, but I only really told the truth to one person, and he already knew my circumstances. In retrospect this was a somewhat strange stance.

Admittedly a Christmas party is probably not the place to hold a mental health support group, but feeling like I had to hide a part of myself in such a public setting when I feel able to open up online is pretty nonsensical really.

It does make me think though. Part of the difficulty in breaking the stigma around mental health is going to be getting people to feel comfortable in opening up about their circumstance, as well as doing so in the right ways of course.

When I worked in FE for example I became so stressed that, when put in a totally inappropriate situation by a manager, I actually opened up in the worst way possible (in front of students whilst extremely angry). The result was a demotion and redundancy.

That's a far from ideal experience and was probably totally preventable, but on the plus side it did eventually get me out of a situation that was causing me a great deal of harm. That said though, it certainly was not something that should have happened in the way it did.

In retrospect I often wonder if I could have changed that situation for the better, not least by leaving the room earlier (when I was told to leave the room I did so and promptly smashed a window and got ten stitches for my troubles).

Anyway, I'll get back to my point. Ending the stigma around mental health is going to require changing the mindset of the sufferer as well as everyone else. It can no longer be acceptable to keep things bottled up to the point of being a danger.

I do wonder how many people keep quiet about their mental ill health, even when being treated, to the point that they do eventually explode with the truth in a way that doesn't help them. Maybe an end to stigma will have a knock on effect in this scenario too.

Letter: Lib Dems hail Thatcher’s EU destiny - My Comment

So I cleverly added my name to a letter about the positives of Europe, which you can read at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/11268820/Letter-Lib-Dems-hail-Thatchers-EU-destiny.html#disqus_thread

As you'd expect, it got a few comments (mostly taking the mick), but I decided to throw in my comment for good measure:

"Interesting way of putting it by the Telegraph. I read it as, "even a PM as damaging as Maggie saw the importance of Europe", hence signing the letter. Yeah I'm one of those Limp Dims or whatever other nickname you want to use.

It's a nice little attempt at myth busting, but there is a wider issue. People are pissed off about a lot of things, most of which involve being or feeling poorer or feeling threatened. I don't take any issue with that. I feel it too.

My wages have literally halved since 2010 and I come from a family of carpenters, taxi drivers, handy men and teachers, so I know what hard graft is. I know what being skint is too. I know we are being dumped on by the rich as well.

I also know that arguing about crumbs while some fat cat gets to stuff his face full of cake is just plain stupid. Europe has problems, immigration may not be the cure for all our ills, but it's the rich that are really shafting us, through our own MPs.

So yeah, I want my fellow human beings to be able to move to where they like and get paid. I want some stuff handled locally, and some handled by the EU or the UN. But most of all I want people to recognise that they're attacking the wrong target.

So I say get a grip of your humanity people and stop letting the media and UKIP trick you with some fake boogeyman in Europe or Asia. Recognise that the Devil is already on your doorstep, and he's already taken almost everything you have."

Update: After a response that actually sort to engage in a debate I posted this follow up.

"We're facing the biggest threat to the wellbeing of the whole world since World War 2, and you're completely off about the source.

The undercutting you talk about is only possible because of big business, poor Government, and the acceptance of greed as a creed in the 80's. It has nothing to do with where someone was lucky/unlucky enough to be born and whether they get to move.

The 1% have got rich off the back of every workforce in the world, and our "fair working conditions" are a cosy little myth. What's fair in anyone earning hundreds of times what their employees do? Absolutely nothing! And it didn't start with New Labour.

We can sit here and argue over whether we want to share the ever smaller crumbs we get, or we can deal with the actual problem. The world needs to recognise that everyone has the right to a decent living, and it won't happen while we turn out backs on people.

Having a history of shooting first and handing back the slaves later doesn't give us divine right. The fact that the West invented a game involving trading bits of paper and stacked the odds against everyone else doesn't make us better people.

We can fight to keep what little we have from those who have even less than we do through a simple trick of fate, or we can fight to make sure everyone has their fair share. I choose the latter."