I believe that one of the quickest ways to discover the learning culture of an organisation is to examine its health and safety policy. Very quickly, this will separate out for you those organisations with a learning culture from the rest with a blame culture. 

I also believe a blame culture is bad for learning and worse, it is bad for safety.

The airline industry is a good case study here. Their health and safety policies are all based on sustaining a learning culture, and have created probably the safest working environment possible in the circumstances. Construction kills far more people than does aviation.

The culture in the aviation industry says that safety has to be systemic. You are required to share your mistakes, so that you and others can discuss them and put things right. And you will be only be disciplined if you make a mistake and do not report it. 

This is not about being nice – it is about learning. 

In aviation every near miss is recorded and discussed. Because accidents don’t just happen. Accidents are an escalation of one near miss after another until the last one hits. Like swiss cheese when all the holes combine to line up and you can see through. Each near miss was an opportunity to break that escalation pathway, and that is the way to avoid accidents. 

Not surprisingly, human error is a major factor. There are interesting and thoughtful books on this, but one example to consider here relates to team work. 

A passenger plane takes off from an airport in the Midlands and quickly the captain sees a warning light. There is a fire in one of the two engines. Not to worry, it can fly on one engine if needed. They practice this routine regularly. The captain tells the cabin crew team and switches off the engine. Only, there is a wiring fault in the cockpit and the wrong warning light has lit up. He doesn’t know it, but the captain has switched off the good engine, not the one on fire. The cabin crew can see this. They talk about it. Should we tell him? No, he’s busy, he knows what he is doing. But? No. Eventually the captain figured it out, but having just taken off, they were too near the ground and ran out of time. Result: sadly, a crash. Learning for others: you are all a team, not just flight deck pilots behind a door and cabin crew juniors who know their place. You are a team, you all are flying this plane. Every one of you.

From this example we can see the escalation of incidents, where each could have been controlled but wasn’t. 

It is tempting to go to blame here. The aircraft designers should fit wing mirrors so the captain can see the engines. The cabin crew should have taken a vote. The airport control tower people should have seen something. And so on. Lawyers come looking for scalps. Newspaper photographers want a face of shame for tomorrow’s front page. Politicians offer a soundbite. 

But when you speak to the families directly involved in such tragedies, they usually don’t want hollow compensation or a show trial. They want the truth, they want to know it won’t happen again, that in the future another family will not have to face what they have endured.

Heavy stuff. But even for more mundane parts of life, such as the school, the council, the supermarket, we all benefit from a mistakes learning culture. Fewer cases of food poisoning, less money wasted on unsuitable street lights, less time wasted sending people to the wrong place, fewer playground fights, less wasted paper, longer lasting pencils, and so on. Less grammatical errors.

There is a view of modern Western politics that says that the leaders of countries can no longer make new policy, at least not unless the people suggest it first. Basically, leaders are now boxed in by public opinion. In which case, for Europe’s future we have a problem. Leaders have become followers.

This isn’t just about the UK. Leaving the EU might actually turn out to be an easy gig. Possibly.

But a harder gig might be the Germany – Greece dynamic, and its impact on the euro rather than the EU.

It is no secret that there is a large body of German public opinion, quite right wing, that says the Greek people have been profligate and are now in a deep and long recession because they have let their debt grow too far. And any German leader who suggests forgiving Greek debt will be hounded out of office, or never elected.

Serious economists know that this explanation is about as useful as blaming the recession on feta cheese. There are basically two camps within the EU: net surplus countries like Germany and net deficit countries like Greece. EU countries with their own currency can devalue their way out of trouble. But EU countries in the euro zone have no such room to manoeuvre.

Serious politicians know about this problem too. There are two basic possibilities: leave the euro and devalue your new, independent currency. Or change the euro rule book to recycle funds between countries in the same way the Americans do between their states for the dollar zone.

But serious politicians fear the public backlash in either case, so nothing is done until public opinion changes. Meanwhile a whole country, a people, suffers.

There are historic precedents. The UK political right wing in the 1920s promoted the idea of the Gold Standard – sound money based only on gold bars in bank vaults. Attractive, at least until millions were unemployed and starving, at which points Keynes showed an alternative, that governments needed to take a lead and borrow to reduce unemployment and restart growth.

We need Keynesian measures again now, and this time these measures need to be internationally co-ordinated.

The main question now is, can Europe’s government leaders take a similar lead today? And if not, can we find a way to move public opinion in order to give our leaders the room they need to start moving?

Oh, the irony. The Leave campaign slogan, empty but nonetheless highly effective, was “we want control of our country back”.
The early reports from the Brexit negotiations are pointing towards a Norway-type associate membership of the EU, which would look like:

• Keeping access to the single market … 
• … but with a pause on free movement of people into UK for 5 – 10 years
• Continue to pay a levy to the EU budget
• Continue to be bound by EU laws
• Maybe continue in some EU science and research networks.  

But

• No UK elections to the European Parliament
• No UK nominations of European Commissioners
• No UK ministers voting in the European Council of Ministers.

The American war of independence started with the battle cry, “no taxation without representation”. 

Someone said that all democracies eventually come to an end because they commit suicide. 

Voting to not have a vote in future, to have less control, seems a good way to start.

In a recent blog I looked at Brexit and concluded that the UK needed to build new international bridges, and fix the economy at home: to “find a progressive economic solution with working dignity for all communities, not just the winners“.

So, how might we solve the need for a progressive working economy for all communities?

Thinking broadly, we might imagine a money-free utopia where everyone swaps butter for eggs over the gate with their neighbours, and with exotic passing travellers swapping their silks and spices for your bread and ale. A sort of cosy Iron Age Emmerdale. That is, until you need antibiotics or an X-ray…

So, here in the 21st century, we need to make the economy work for everyone, even with money circulating which can so quickly leave a local economy to go into the bank accounts of a small, rich elite. Local sourcing is part of the solution, as it delays the eventual departure of money.

Well, tax policy is strong way to sort this out. But to date, tax policy has focused on things like Corporation Tax and how much tax companies should pay, and the scandals of their tax avoidance with offshore accounts. We need to bring tax policy nearer to communities.

Tax policy should be used as an instrument to shape local economies.

1. To start with, whether it is done as a benefit or a tax credit, create a minimum income for everyone aged 16 and above. This would be enough to live on, where work becomes a fulfilling choice and so that the worst jobs have to pay the best.

2. To encourage more employment, shift taxes away from payroll and on to harm reduction by taxing pollution, sugar, tobacco, alcohol, carbon emissions, empty homes, empty shops and derelict eyesores. Land is the most efficient tax base, as it is hard to hide or move offshore, and it can be the most progressive base as well.

3. Similarly, tax credit places used for social wellbeing such as libraries, community centres, adult education, cafes and parks.

4. To reduce inequalities, increase the tax thresholds above twice average earnings, returning progressively to the high percentage rates of tax for high income levels used up to the 1970s.

5. Also to reduce inequalities, taxing inheritance is essential, even though it is unpopular with the right wing newspapers. A decent social housing programme would ensure that family inheritances were not the only way to the next generation to find shelter. This tax is then redistributed to support work and wellbeing.

6. For manufacturing and goods, the circular economy of recycling another organisation’s ‘waste’ as a valuable raw material is key to sustainability, so more tax is needed from all raw materials which are extracted from the earth (such as oil, gas, minerals, coal, stone) to encourage the circular economy. Similarly for renewable energy sources. Our landfill sites and our oceans are brimming with rubbish, and tax policy is one way to help.

By using tax revenues to support the creation of new local economies we can avoid the danger of becoming dependent on needing to maintain sources of tax revenue which are themselves harmful and unsustainable.

There will be many books about Brexit on sale in the shops soon. These will probably include – historical accounts, political memoirs, lessons for managers, public relations handbooks and much besides.

But we know the past. Fundamentally it was a vote of rage, of disconnected people in communities who felt they had been thrown under the bus to save the well-off; who felt their livelihoods had been sacrificed to keep the Stock Market dividends rolling in. Immigration was the target for this rage, cynically whipped up with racism and xenophobia being made to seem respectable.

The vote against the EU was conflated with a vote against EU migrants. And, against refugees coming to the EU to escape from war, including areas being bombed by the UK and its allies.

The message of the economic benefits of the EU – the heart of the Remain campaign – failed to work in communities where the economy was already on its knees. To some, the Leave vote was retribution time. To paraphrase a message back to the London metropolitan elite – you’ve peed in our soup, now we are going to pee in yours.

But looking forward, what should we plan for?

If you still believe in an international future, here are some strategies we could consider.

Well, first we could have the Grim Reaper strategy. Basically, the Leave vote was predominantly elderly, the Remain vote predominantly young. Easy. Just wait ten years … fewer Leave, more Remain, have another referendum and back to normal. Tempting, but alone it is too passive.

Secondly, we could have the Under The Radar strategy. We could press the UK government to try and negotiate with the EU for a least-worst exit. Something like “Norway plus”, which keeps the single market (free movement of people, capital, goods, services), budget contributions, research networks for universities, but no flag and no European elections. Again tempting, but we know it will be two years of constant right-wing bickering on Twitter and in the Daily Mail, complaining of selling out, conspiracy and betrayal. As someone said, these are people who cannot take yes for an answer.

Third, we could have a Cut Our Loses strategy. This sees the UK state break up into its various countries and regions. Scotland, Northern Ireland stay in, maybe London as well. England and Wales out. Manchester and Liverpool voted in (60%), but that area is probably harder to ring-fence than London. Tempting, and more likely now, but ultimately it gives up on England being progressive.

So, fourth, we could have a Build New Bridges strategy. Early days here, but this could include a range of initiatives, including:

1. Declaring our solidarity with all EU nationals living in the UK, calling for lifetime rights
2. Reaching out to “expat” UK nationals in the EU to win over more ambassadors
3. Giving young people reasons to stay hopeful: European exchanges, twinning, joint projects
4. Creating more international links and exchanges at the local community level
5. Building exchanges, twinning and joint projects between progressive local political groups
6. Giving students Europe-wide free movement to study without discrimination,

and crucially

7. Find a progressive economic solution with working dignity for all communities, not just the winners. In the 1930s Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) in the USA experimented until he settled on the New Deal. This phrase is tarnished currently in the UK from the Blair governments’ time but the idea is sound. The 2010s Great Depression needs a response just as strong now as then.

OK. At its best LinkedIn should be a forum for talking about working life. Though sometimes all-of-life takes over. Brexit is one of those moments. For the details, the FT on Saturday gives a thorough recap.

Some key points: Sterling at a 30-year low, intraday swing of over 10%. FTSE 100 down 8.7%. RBS shares down 34%. Spain’s Ibex down 12.35%, worst drop since 1992. Residential property values expected to drop 3-5% pa for next two years. London commercial property, as much as -18%.

Perhaps most telling, the resignation of the UK Prime Minister not even the lead news story that day.

There is a rage from people in the Brexit vote, and “Business as Usual” isn’t going to answer this rage. In 2008 we saved the banks but left many people feeling they had been thrown under the bus. We must do better this time.

Doing business does not have to be ever-greedier; ever more unequal; ever more indifferent to people’s plight.

Being an ethical and moral business is now far more than CSR and due diligence, or a nod at a charity during the swanky awards dinner. Crumbs from the table.

Leadership now requires that we do “Business as Unusual” and make a difference.

Posted on LinedIn on 27 June 2016

Europe is still there. The world is still there. People are still there.

The end of membership of a political structure – the EU – may be a big regret, driven by racism and xenophobia – specifically the whipped-up fear of the free movement of people across the EU.

But international structures will still exist.

So now is the time for progressive people to come to the aid of internationalism. There are many progressive international organisations – for disabled people the European Network for Independent Living springs to mind. Hearing Voices is doing fine work around the world for progressive mental health. Eurocities for local authorities. Greenpeace for environmental protection. And many, many others.

Perhaps our local organisations left internationalism a bit too much to others. It was often left to national organisations to join European and world networks when they could spare the time. But there is no reason why local organisations should not make their own strong international links directly, as well as continuing through national bodies.

The world is still there, its people are still there. Progressive people in all localities in the UK must now work harder to keep the channels of solidarity and internationalism open.

Even before the recent cuts, public bodies were increasingly moving from giving grants to the third sector, to contracts for services instead.

This has led public bodies down a procurement path. Grants could be decided as a matter of policy — contracts have to be bought in the marketplace. The Public Procurement Regulations govern how contracts are awarded: advertising, bidding, evaluation criteria, scoring panels, standstill periods, and finally for the lucky winner, a contract. A long and complicated process, and an expensive one for bidders at a time when resources are very tight.

But there is another way, especially for smaller contracts below the EU thresholds which mandate the full process. Of course, the general principles of transparency, fairness, equal treatment, and value for public funds apply at all levels. These are known in the procurement trade as the Treaty Principles.

Consider the humble price list. A public official can test the market by researching prices and specifications online, then making a purchasing decision, the same day if necessary.

So, I would just suggest that it might help some third sector organisations to publish a rate card, especially for routine small service contracts, just in case someone is looking to buy quickly.

I write this in early April with the referendum on EU membership due in late June.

It will be 100 years then since my great grandfather John died in the Battle of the Somme, aged 37.

My great grandmother Sarah Rachel married again later, and her second husband Thomas died at sea in the Merchant fleet in the Second World War, aged 59.

We only found out recently her family were Jewish, something she never spoke about.

Bare facts. Troubled and sometimes terrible lives.

It is generally thought that the referendum result could go either way. I fear the overall vote will be to leave, mainly by the English, with the fewer people of Scotland, and maybe Northern Ireland, voting to remain in. Wales’ vote may depend on who is blamed for the loss of the steel industry — Westminster or Brussels.

And the day after the vote? Scotland pushing for independence from the UK — the English really — and to remain in the EU. Northern Ireland driven back into irreconcilable Unionist and Nationalist positions. All for a referendum which has everything to do with the Westminster politics of a divided Conservative party, a vote which will cleave the fissure in the party whatever the outcome. Perhaps to the short term advantage of the opposition.

How did we get into this position?

Leaving aside the personalities and the micro grievances of the day, let me suggest a deeper approach. We live in a time when almost every political discussion is economic. We have to argue for social, cultural, or environmental improvements on economic grounds. Only the NHS so far remains an ethical and moral decision. Even climate change can only be tackled, we are told, if there is a sound economic case.

I would not be surprised if some bright person in HM Treasury was asked to prove economically that the security services “pay for themselves” in terms of their safeguarded national income from tourists.

So we have become just a Single Market. The EU is now all about the economy, and big business has captured the EU institutions and narrowed the debate. We have an EU where every policy position can be summarised on a spreadsheet.

And what of peace? What of binding together peoples whose leaders, if not their own instincts, seem too ready to pick a fight? From the Ukraine to Syria, war is not far away. Nor is NATO the answer to peace-making, because at best it is a peace-keeping force. Peace has to be made first.

We need an EU which is fundamentally a peace-maker first and foremost. Economic, social and environmental security are essential parts of this mission, but they are all secondary, to be used internationally as the means to an end in overcoming the causes of war. We need the millions of school exchanges, of young people working in different countries, of marriages between people from combatant countries.

Otherwise, it could be all our children who will have to learn afresh the lessons from war, and who will remind us what we threw away, slowly then suddenly.

Increasingly, cities and towns are looking to appoint a writer in residence to ‘up the profile’ of the area to tourists, visitors and investors. Cultural cachet as an economic driver.

For example, there is a delightful article in the Cities section of The Guardian by Steven Poole on the decision by Milton Keynes authorities to appoint a writer in residence to increase its profile and tourism. Many people who have written job descriptions in the public sector will wince.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/06/milton-keynes-writer-in-residence

But let’s look at this a bit deeper. It is one thing to attract someone to come and write nice things about a place. But how would a town or city make itself attractive to writers as a place to live, to write in for the next ten or twenty years?

Well, the economists amongst us would point to cluster theory. This explains why restaurants choose to set up near each other, the same for jewellery shops, fancy clothes shops, and so on. A too-simple economic theory would suggest they would all spread out, as far from each other as possible. But there is more money to be made by similar businesses grouping together.

So, cluster theory and writers as new residents. Here are my suggestions, based on the real town of Sale in Greater Manchester (or is still in Cheshire for some).

First the existing factors and assets:

1. Most writers have a day job, the writing itself being a passion which usually pays less than the minimum wage. The breakthrough is to get a salaried job for writing, a rare and precarious living as journalists will tell you. Forget the very few celebrity writers, who are foot-loose anyway.

2. Writing is a solitary and self-critical activity, so any supportive and understanding friendships and networks are very welcome, especially in person rather than remote and virtual.

3. As well as there being little money to pay writers, there is precious little money to pay to support writers. The existing resources could be used to their full extent. In Sale these include the library (even though cuts continue), the Waterside Arts Centre, the Northern Lights writers festival, and charity shops with a range of books which put bookshops through their paces.

4. Sale has a large cluster of coffee shops, cafes and bistros which tolerate solitary souls tapping away at their screens and keyboards.

5. Housing which, in places, is affordable in terms of real incomes and not just as a phrase on a press release. Sale is a town which straddles the richer professional groups and the less secure working population.

6. Connectivity to the rest of a big city-region with an international profile and organisations to match, from theatre to TV studios to freelance radio companies to newspapers to university libraries to community writing groups.

7. Resilience is key to making a town attractive as a long-term home for writers. This is not about a new website or a time-limited funded project, which rise and fade like fireworks. It is about a resilient and sustainable change in the culture of a town. It isn’t a ‘hub’, but it is family of strong and independent bodies.

8. Sale has a number of small printing companies, and with the respectable growth in self-publication these firms offer affordable ways for a writer to reach paying readers. There is also online writing (this blog!) but the ability to earn income online as a writer is absolutely minimal. The income goes instead to the hosting organisation such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, Amazon. WordPress, dare I say. The writer is always last to be paid, if at all.

So Sale has these eight assets. What could the ninth?

9. Talks and short courses. Writers love to hear from other writers, and to ask them questions. I would suggest a coffee house owner could volunteer to stay open sometime beyond 6pm, line up the chairs and have a guest writer or two speaking. The extra coffees bought could cover costs, but it is done firstly for the greater good. Keep the costs right down and use existing resources and goodwill to the full.

And a sign of success would be when we see more people moving in to Sale who have budgets and rely on writers – agents, producers, publishers. And if some moved from London, drawn by the buzz of a town of writers, well that would be something.