Category Archives: Politics, Policies And Process
Liverpool, Capital Of Culture 2008? Or Of Chaos 2006?
Liverpool as a city is claiming much for the forthcoming celebratory years of 2007 and 2008, but concerns exist on many fronts about the present. There is more to serious development of cultural involvement than simply ‘community programmes’, admirable though that is. So what sorts of models of citizen and ‘stakeholder’ integration are being developed, building on the experience of other cities which have managed to engage people at all levels? And will these work?
Oh dear. We don’t seem to have got off to a very good start in Liverpool this year.
The end of 2005 saw the demise of several large-scale Liverpool projects, such as the trams project, and before that, in 2004, the embarrassment of the so-called ‘Fourth Grace’ (possibly a vainglorious misnomer? nobody I know thought there were even three ‘Graces’ until someone made that name up, not long ago). And in the Summer we had the debacle of the Mersey River Festival, only now being reported…
Then, to round off 2005, there was the extraordinary fuss over the shifts at the top of our political and administrative power base.
Capital of Culture 2008 now under scrutiny
And now questions are being asked about our preparations for Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture celebrations in 2008. These have been becoming more urgent over the past few weeks – there were concerns expressed when Liam Fogarty decided to raise the issue of an elected mayor once more – but since the New Year the story hasn’t really been off the front page.
Well, that there are questions is unsurprising, both for particular reasons and because there is always a period before these huge events, as far as I can see, when Questions Are Asked. What is more worrying, however, is the difficulty some actual citizens and ‘stakeholders’ have experienced in learning what’s happening and / or in getting answers.
Who takes day-to-day responsibilty for ‘stakeholders’?
I leave it to others to pursue the specifics of this alarming situation; my own concerns are quite complex, though I do have to say it would be helpful if they were being addressed at the practical day-to-day level… one problem seems to be identifying anyone who can take on issues of normal operational accountability. But there you go.
For me, and I suspect numbers of others, the real issue is, where do we go from here? As a long-time resident of Liverpool with strong roots in the city I know it’s really important that we make a big success of 2007 and 2008, the 800th anniversary of our City Charter, and then our European Capital of Culture Year.
What some people haven’t the foggiest inkling about, however, even after serious attempts to find out, is how they can bring their ideas to bear to help this to happen. And that perhaps has occured also in other European Capital of Culture locations, which begs a question about what models of social and artistic inclusion work best, and where.
The EDGE Of The Year…. And The Edge Foundation Inc.
The Annual EDGE Question is something which deserves sharing with as many as possible of those who’d enjoy challenging scientific-style ‘mind gym’.
This is the part of the annual calendar when people set themselves puzzles to solve and quizzes to answer, so perhaps it’s a good time to share a world-wide ‘quiz’ which was set twelve months ago.
The non-profit Edge Foundation Inc. sets an annual EDGE Question, published on the first day of the year. The 2005 Question was
What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?
Answers to this question, as given by some of the most well-known ‘science thinkers’ in the world, were published by EDGE on 1st January 2005; and with subsequent contributions – 120 in all – the responses constituted 60,000 very challenging and absorbing words. (They have subsequently been edited by the novelist Ian McEwan and published by the Free Press (UK) as a book entitled What We Believe But Cannot Prove.)
The next question
So, mull over the 2005 Question today, the last day of that year – it’ll be a fascinating exercise! – and then begin to ask yourself, what will the Edge Annual Question 2006 look like?
By this evening we should know, as the 2006 Question is imminently to be published online at Edge … the responses from (I quote) a ‘”who’s who” of third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers’ should be very well worth a good read – and then the debate can begin all over again.
Perhaps you’ve been blowing away the cobwebs already, or perhaps you haven’t. Whatever, here’s an opportunity to do a bit of mind gym, no matter if you’re striding purposefully up a hill against the icy blast, or sitting snugly in your favourite chair at home. Enjoy!
Distinctive Economics And U.K. People Migration Between The North And South
Making housing even cheaper than at present is not the way to keep professional workers in the north, whatever the short term arguments about attracting inward investment and skills. Professional workers in the north as much as the south need easy mobility, if they are to increase their experience and value both to themselves and to their employers.
An arfticle in this Wednesday’s Business Week has business writer Bill Gleeson pondering the demise of a well-known Liverpool restaurant.
From this Bill Gleeson moves on to consider the need for ‘policies that will allow real points of difference to emerge between the north and the south, the sorts of difference that can work in our [the north’s] favour.’ One of these ways, it is proposed, might be for the Government to introduce policies which make the cost of housing up north fall.
This move would, it is suggested, attract more workers from the south because the quality of life would be better. But how, I wonder, would it make the quality of life of those currently in the north better as well?
Internal U.K. migration needs to be more, not less, equitable
For those of us who live in the north, but have interests and skills which are applicable across most parts of the nation, anything which restricts our mobility is definitely a minus, not a plus. It would be difficult to persuade me that lessening even further the value of my northern (and only) property would be for the common good, let alone in my own financial interests.
On several occasions in the past year or two I have heard speakers say that it’s imperative to keep wages and prices down in the north ‘to attract investment’.
In the short-term there may be an argument of sorts for this position; but as a rule of thumb for inward business it’s surely not only a weak position, but also in many ways downright against the interests of the employment economy and directly antagonistic to those of go-ahead workers already in the north.
Skilled workers need to be mobile
If anyone is serious about developing their skills they need to operate in a free market, at least within their own country. Experience and connections across the nation are invaluable, both to the people directly concerned and to their employers.
Seeking to reduce the mobility of those already in the north is not only detrimental to their personal interests, but will also act as a longer-term deterent to workers from the south who might otherwise be willing to consider northern migration.
English Regions or City-Regions?
Protagonists for City-Regions are often much less sympathetic to the rationale for the English Regions as such. But perhaps it’s all a matter of differential scales. City Regions could well choose, to their mutual benefit and that of their hinter-lands, to collaborate on some of the much bigger strategic things without fear of damage to historic and local identities.
The debate about City-Regions vs. English Regions shows no signs of resolving. The recent launch of a campaign for an Elected Mayor in Liverpool (and some other towns and cities) has if anything exacerbated the differences between those who support regionalism as such, and those who support city-regions within England, or presumably, come to that, anywhere else.
Whilst there are obviously some areas where people may not ever agree, I do however believe there are a number of areas of common cause between the protagonists for each ‘side’, if the issues are looked at in a particular light.
The meaning of ‘regionalism’
For those who take a strongly anti-regional line the main problem seems to be that they perceive this as inevitably favouring one stronger city over other cities in the region… indeed, they may even take the view that there is no such thing as a region, as a way to circumvent such a perspective entirely.
In this view the real issue is the power of one place over others, and the expectation that, given half a chance, this place will take unfair advantage, at significant cost to other towns and cities nearby.
On the other hand, to at least some people who would support a regional persepctive alongside a city-focused one (and there are few regionalists who don’t also favour the healthy growth of cities per se), the underlying issue is connectivity. Who will make the case for, e.g., good road and rail connections between different cities within the region and, even more importantly, the way that very large centres of population – especially the metropolis – connect with the region at all?
Taking this perspective, there may be surprising commonalities even with towns and cities in other regions. For instance, Birmingham shares with the northern cities the issue of getting traffic up and down the country – and has in fact begun exploring solutions to this problem with them.
Size is the basic issue
Evidence elsewhere in Europe suggests that a population of between 7 and 10 million can be effectively self-sustaining in terms of producing all the requirements for modern society. But no U.K. city outside London is of this size – which means that English cities must necessarily be inter-dependent in some respects. For instance, (genuinely) Big Science can never happen just with the resources of one city, any more than can ‘Big Medicine / Technology’ and so forth. There are plenty of win-wins in inter-city collaboration for science and industry, just as there are endless reasons why the more ambitious aspects of tourism are often best promoted on at least a regional basis (see quote in New Start magazine from the English Regional Development Agencies).
But what the size issue doesn’t mean is that cities have to lose their identities, or that there must be ‘regional centre’ cities wicih will effectively dictate to all the other places in a region what they may and may not do. This maintenance of identity and self-determination provides one of the strongest cases for elected mayors or similar – provided always (a big proviso) that such leaders are well-informed, brave and sensible….
Unique identities, shared strengths
This is a rather optimistic view, but maybe there will come a time when people generally can see that there is indeed strength in commonality when it comes to the big things (massive inward investment, the knowledge economy, large-scale infrastructure etc.), but that with this does not need to come loss of identity for individual places and smaller areas within a geographical location such as a ‘region’ of England. Rather the opposite.
Perhaps it’s a matter of confidence. When we, smaller-city citizens across the nation, are confident that our own patch is well-recognised and well-defined, it will be easier to agree with our neighbours on shared strategies for the bigger things. But how to develop that confidence from where we’re at now is, however you look at it, a challenge and a half.
An Elected Mayor for Liverpool?
A new campaign has been launched by local figure Liam Fogarty today for an Elected Mayor in Liverpool. If nothing else, such a move will perhaps encourage a healthy debate about the democratic process and accountability, and perhaps more.
Today has seen the emergence of a campaign for Liverpool to have an Elected Mayor. The first step if this campaign is to succeed is to obtain enough signatures to trigger a referendum on the matter – no small challenge in itself.
The campaign, headed by ex-BBC presenter Liam Fogarty, claims that in Liverpool ‘too many decisions are taken by invisible committees and un-elected officials. Important projects fail to materialise, yet no-one takes responsibility.’
‘Only an Elected Mayor can provide the vision and leadership needs at this crucial time in the City’s history,’ we are told. This, of course, is a reference to the much-trumpeted events in Liverpool of 2007 and 2008, which certainly require great cultural leadership, skill and planning if they are to succeed.
The democratic deficit
But it is also claimed that an Elected Mayor would re-involve people in democratic process. They would be more likely to vote and become engaged in local decision-making if there were such a person. Perhaps this is true.
Whatever, there is a serious case for any sort of initiative which takes local political involvement more into the community. It would probably be worth a try – though interestingly, so far only 12 towns and cities of those which have considered having an Elected Mayor have actually gone along that option in the end.
Previous mayoral campaigns
This is not however the first time that there has been a campaign for an Elected Mayor. In 2000 the media group Aurora took up the cudgels, publishing with other organisations a book entitled Manifesto for a New Liverpool [see also ‘cultural leadership’, above], in which the case was made for such a civic leader.
Only time will tell whether this is an enduring and positive initiative. This time as far as I can see there is a strong pro-cities but anti-regional sentiment there too, and that second position (pro-cities is fine, anti-region in my books isn’t) convinces me less than does the case for democracy at grass roots.
But for the time being I suppose it’s enough to feel heartened that people are energised to do what they believe is best for Liverpool, putting heads above parapets and saying what they think. Now that really is democarcy in action.
Ideas Need People to Happen
Bright ideas are an essential part of adaptation and change; but failing to think empathetically through how and by whom the ideas will be implemented, and what personal impact of the ideas will have on all concerned, is almost guaranteed to produce problems.
It’s hardly a new concept, but sometimes it needs to be said: the inspiration behind change may be how it all (anything) starts, but if the people involved don’t buy in, it won’t happen as it was supposed to.
I’ve been thinking about this quite a lot, as I observe the many changes currently taking shape at national and local level. The ‘people’ bit is so obvious, that surely it must be the first consideration when the bright ideas folk get together to decide what’s to happen. But often it’s not.
Human beings, not ‘agents’
Say, for the sake of argument, that the local authorities decide to take forward an environmental, health or housing proposal. Firstly, there will be discussion amongst a small group of officials or other movers and shakers, then there will be a public phase where posters or leaflets are put about inviting involvement, and perhaps modifications to the plans are made; and then there will be the implementation.
But by the time implementation arrives the ideas will have taken on a life of their own. Many folk will have no idea why the proposals arose in the first place, and all they will see are problems – some of these identified at the consultation stage, and some of them more directly about the personal issues which have since arisen. And, more often than not, some of these problems will affect those, theoretically the agents of change, who are supposed to be taking the idea forward.
Unexplained actions and unanticipated consequences
The classic of course is, as part of the process, to threaten the employment or other security / safety of those who will have to effect or experience the change. It might be supposed that this will have been considered, but often it appears not to have been.
Rearguard action is almost guaranteed if jobs, homes or other deeply familiar / personal experience is under threat; and whilst compliance may be possible if enough cash or other incentive is on the table, many of those who are least receptive may also be least well informed… or else they do understand very well, but feel they have no stakehold in what’s happening. This is the recipe for a pretty rough ride all round.
Empathy
Change is never easy, but I often think it would be easier – and probably more accurately focused – if those who produce the ideas could empathise more with those who will encounter, or will have to deliver, the consequences. Empathy is not the same as sympathy, it’s just a way of imagining how others may perceive or feel about something, and then managing that well for everyone.
There are very few areas of human activity where empathy or emotional intelligence, properly used, will not help things along. It’s a shame, therefore, that more emphasis isn’t put on this important aspect of human experience right from the first glimmer of any significant people-involved idea. The development of empathy as a professional skill is much undervalued.
The Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission
The launch of the final Report of the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission this morning has thrown up some interesting facts, some challenging ideas and a number of practical ‘can do’s’. The big question now is, where do we go next?
This morning I went to the launch of the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission‘s final Report. It was a well attended meeting; and I gather there are to be events throughout the week to exemplify the core messge, that enterprise is doing, not talking about it.
Is Merseyside different?
It would I think be difficult to claim that Merseyside is really different from other similar areas of Britain in terms of the need to bring the entrepreneurial message into focus. But it may be that the particular context of European Objective 1 funding makes the situation a little more striking. It’s not unusual for areas such as this to have about 60% dependency in one way or another on public funding, but perhaps the huge plethora of agencies purporting to offer ‘advice’ is fuelled by the availability of this funding stream.
Whatever, I have to agree wholeheartedly that there are too many agencies, and that they are insufficiently monitored in respect of the quality of what they have on offer. I do wonder, however, what impact there might be on Merseyside’s economy if the 300 or so agencies were ‘rationalised’ in the way some might wish. Would there be a local mini-recession? And would this kick-start or stifle further developments?
Emphasis on technology
It’s also interesting that one proposal for the way forward is to have a web forum. As I was one of, no doubt, many who suggested the web ‘ideas exchange’, I am pleased to see that this notion has now taken on a life of its own.
The web forum has been entitled ‘ucan’ (make it) and is intended to be a virtual reference point for all things entrepreneurial in Merseyside. Hopefully, it will be a means by which those other, non-e agencies can streamline and provide a joined up service for budding entrepreneurs, as well as for established followers of the mode who want to exchange news, views and so on. Perhaps it will also be able to support the educational initiatives which the Commission obviously wants to see extended and nurtured.
Where now?
The Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission told us this morning that it has now completed its formal work. It will be interesting – if not fascinating – to see what happens next. The website is to be sponsored for six months to see how much it is used and how it develops; and the challenge is firmly presented to the many agencies and other operators to get themsleves aligned in terms of the clients’ wider experience and access.
We shall all, I suspect, watch this space with interest.
Whose Liverpool Capital of Culture Year?
Is ‘high culture’ in reality only for ‘tourists’ in a city like Liverpool? Have civic leaders confused seeking excellence with its occasional and much less desirable adjunct, exculsivity? If the city is serious about opportunities to support the personal development of its citizens and the economic health of its communities, ‘high’ arts and culture surely have to integral to the experience of the many, not just of the few.
Liverpool City Council’s new Leader, Councillor Warren Bradley, has already given his opinion on the city’s current plans for the European Capital of Culture in 2008.
‘I want to raise the profile of Capital of Culture because many people feel it is not for them’, he says. ‘We will need high art for the city centre for tourists, but it must hold the hand of community art.’
Social inclusion
Well, what does this mean? Warren Bradley was before his elevation Executive Member for Culture in the city, so it’s good to see, if I’m reading him correctly, that he intends to bring the Capital of Culture programme to as many people in Liverpool as possible.
It’s quite true that not everyone in Liverpool will willingly pay to sit through a long performance of a play, concert or perhaps opera; and in that of course Liverpool is no different from any other city anywhere.
Community politics
But is it true that as things stand (almost?) no-one in the city would or does enjoy ‘high art’? I don’t think so. This has a feeling, albeit perhaps unintentional, of playing to the gallery.
It’s a strange world where it’s suggested that only ‘tourists’, presumably from elsewhere since that what tourists generally are, will appreciate or want to see ‘high art’. There significant numbers of people who live in Liverpool and Merseyside who enjoy and support ‘high art’ already – we have three universities, two famous cathedrals, well-known theatres, a very significant collection of museums and galleries, and a world-renown orchestra. And these instituitions were integral to the winning bid to take on the mantle of 2008 European Capital of Culture. So why are they by implication now perhaps for ‘tourists’?
Leadership in challenging cultural barriers
I’d like to see two things happen fairly quickly as far as Liverpool’s ‘high arts’ assets are concerned.
Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged absolutely without question that nearly everyone involved in ‘high art’ in this city strives very hard indeed to make what they have on offer more ‘accessible’; and even those who aren’t actively involved in this mission fully accept its imperative. And the same will apply to those additional visiting ‘high’ artists who come to Liverpool during 2008. So there is already a huge will to challenge the barrier which may be keeping some Liverpool people away from the excellent range of high art in their own city. ‘Community’ art in Liverpool is already a central plank in the ‘high art’ cultural offer.
Secondly, I believe very strongly that people should be helped to understand the role of high art in their communities. It can and should serve them directly, but it is also a significant factor in attracting and / or maintaining other highly skilled people within the local economy. Professional and many business people expect to be able to attend quality performances in their own city, they expect to be able to take potential investors and customers to good plays, opera, concerts and whatever. These high art commodities are not fluffy add-ons, they are essential to the developing local and regional economy. And they need to be presented in this light by our city leaders.
Cultural entitlement
But there’s also another thing we all need to keep in mind….. Like many other things which are worth doing, ‘high art’ takes a bit of effort and getting used to. Moving outside previous experience and comfort zones is not always an easy option, but that’s absolutely not a ‘reason’ why it would not be attractive to many so-called ‘ordinary’ people, if they were given genuine opportunities to enjoy it.
‘Community arts’ whilst essential, and indeed an excellent way to engage people in the artistic experience, are not a substitute for the ‘real thing’. Let’s not apologise for the fact that high art can be challenging or even difficult. There are plenty of massively accomplished performers and artists in Liverpool who came originally from less privileged backgrounds; what took them forward was the chance, often in unlikely circumstances, to discover that they had real talent in their specialist fields.
An exciting route to personal development
Music, drama and other arts can offer people amazing ways to expand their experience and lives. Everyone in Liverpool who cares about opportunities opening up for all our citizens must, as Councillor Bradley would surely if asked agree, say loud and clear that high art and community art alike are part of everyone’s cultural entitlement.
All the citizens of Liverpool should be encouraged by the active example of our leaders to try the whole cultural offer, not just (though this may come first) the ‘community’ part of it. ‘High art’ isn’t just for ‘tourists’, it adds meaning to the lives of many people of every background and experience; it’s for us all.
Balancing The Early Years Education Pay-Off
There seems to be a growing consensus from different parts of the world about the benefits of education both to individuals and to the common good and economic well-being. What this means in terms of particular policies in different places may however be less obvious.
It’s probably not just random co-incidence which finds the New York Times and the BBC putting out complementary news items on education today.
The first of these items concerns the ‘return’ on education for the economy as a whole. The second is about the positive effects of nursery education on adults’ employment prospects and earnings. Each of these reports offers yet more evidence that education, as an overall experience and in the context of early years, is worthwhile both for the individuals concerned and for society as a whole.
Individual impact
In a British study, researchers Alissa Goodman and Barbara Sianesi of the Institute of Fiscal Studies have just reported that ‘starting education before the compulsory school starting age at five can have long-lasting, positive impacts on children’s lives.’
The IFS research findings suggest that adults with a nursery or playgroup background were more likely to have gained qualifications and be in work at the age of 33, and also offer evidence that such adults were able to sustain a 3-4% wage gain over others at that age. This is obviously encouraging to those currently engaged in enhancing pre-shcool provision in the U.K.
Impact on society
The American studies, some of them by Princeton’s Professor Alan Krueger, also point to an educational advantage (of up to 10% overall) for individuals who continue in education, with the impact being most pronounced for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The particularly interesting debate however concerns the effect on education on the economy as a whole. And in this there seems to be consensus across the Atlantic: UK economist Professor Jonathan Temple of Bristol is reported as agreeing with Harvard’s Professors Lawrence Katz and Claudia Goldin that the impact on total economic growth of extra education is at least as significant as that for individuals, with perhaps up to a 10% growth in gross domestic product. But as ever how this education should be funded, and to what extent, is less clear.
What’s good for people is good for society
The conclusion from these and other studies seems quite firmly to point towards a commonality of interest between those who strive as individuals to benefit from education, and those who as a matter of policy provide it. The evidence is unsurprising – education, from the early years onwards, produces people who are more able both to succeed in their personal lives and to contribute to their communities, society and overall well-being.
The next question, as politicans and decision-makers both sides of the Pond acknowledge, is at what level of public investment at any stage in individuals’ educational careers will there be optimal return in respect of socio-economic pay-off? Answers to that question may, even within the current economy-led consensus across the western world, yield very different specific policies in different places.
Dreaming Realist 