Laughing at the present/Thinking about the future

___________________________________________________________________________________

The Good life? We can do much better

Summary

All the points made in this essay are interdependent.

1.The strategy I outline is one of giving citizens real responsibility at community level, as the alternative to the commercially and politically controlling tendencies of Globalism and central government. These latter will, the evidence suggests, inevitably make the quality of our physical existence worse and worse, enriching fewer and fewer dysfunctional appetites at the expense of a balanced life for the rest of us.

2.Alongside this, civic, reasoning and medical 'teaching' needs to be brought closer together. It should promote both better behaviour (in all senses of the word) and more questioning of sloppy thinking. Without these six pillars of civic understanding, social responsibility, physical fitness, mental alertness, innovation and independence among most of our citizens, the edifice of true civilisation will collapse.

3.The existing economic and political establishments will never accept such a bold plan. These established, dysfunctional 'leaders' cannot be dislodged peacefully unless the Party system, costs of entry and electoral methods of politics are reformed to offer increased democracy; and until the Globalist 'no alternative' mantra is rejected in favour of a changed capitalist model - one in which quality, organic growth, community responsibility and smaller units replace Bourses, mega-combines, takeovers, production levels and shareholder enrichment as the goals.

_________________________________________________________

Introduction: there is no such thing as a social problem

How ironic it is that Baroness Thatcher's ludicrous 'there is no such thing as society' gaff needs but small linguistic adaptation to make it the rallying cry towards a more inclusive future.

Mrs T's extremely naive Friedmanite view of how cultures 'work' was missing just a few words: 'there is no such thing as a society somehow existing apart from other influences'. With a bare face redoubled by two-facedness, Establishment elites tend to sub-consciously offload their own disastrous political policy errors by calling the residue 'a social problem'.

For once, Marx was right on this issue: every serious cultural dysfunction is caused by unwise changes in political, economic, ethical, moral (and then social) value systems.

Thus my introductory point in this essay is simple: if the answer to Britain's crisis of integrity was purely 'social', we'd have solved it long ago.

On the contrary: the answer(s) will require determination on several fronts, at every level, in most walks of life, over many years, and - above all - the willingness to revise or ignore shibboleths that have gained credence in the last four decades.

It will require the older generation to resist temptations to go backwards, purely because things worked better fifty years ago: a major need will be to 'futurise' classic principles. Equally, those under thirty-five must learn to discern excrement from putty in contemporary ideas, and invent genuinely original approaches to a 2007 Earth that is not so much a different world to 1957 as a different planet.

Perhaps, in fact, a first new principle would be 'no cliches, no sacred cows'.

There's no future in the present

This paper is really about 'what', not 'how'- but briefly first, I reason that little progress will be made until the economic objectives and mores change, and Establishment fantasies of achieving something are ended by replacing the Establishment itself.

Our current economic culture is one of work longer, earn more, and do what you have to do in reaching targets - whether that means cheating the customer or bullying your staff. It emanates directly from (and is nurtured by) the large multinational corporate entities; the targets in turn are often set - quite arbitrarily - by Bourse expectations.

The trio of results are neglected professional children, alienated poor children whose parents are being left behind by Devil take the hindmost, and moribund communities left to make their own way by residents who are too tired and busy.

Ergo, I call for the discouragement of multinational Globalism, and complete reform of the ways in which business obtains capital.

(For an expansion of this theme, watch out for the forthcoming essay Reforming Capitalism)

The political and governmental Establishments have become (for many thinking Britons) a laughing stock in recent years - the biggest laugh of all being that they appear to have no cognisance at all of how completely impotent they are. An astute man now lost in the footnotes of history once noted that 'much humour is generated by the difference between aspiration and achievement'. This is the straightforward reason why nby (and thousands of other sites like it) find all our pretentious, puffed-up 'leaders', to the last self-serving man and earnest woman, hysterically funny.

A recent example serves to make the point. During September and October 2007, a combination of good journalism and voter common sense ensured that most UK citizens were aware of the following realities:

* The EU wished to reintroduce the rejected Constitution by the back-door without a vote

* Gordon Brown was desperate to get his own mandate, and schemed to create the right conditions for a snap election

* Opposition leader David Cameron dreaded the idea of a snap election, fearing a trouncing for his Party, and the loss of his job

* Ming Campbell (already under pressure as Libdem leader) dreadedbeing squeezed even more

* In this context, Cameron told Brown 'put up or shut up' as a way of worrying a man known to be indecisive

* At the Tory Conference, Oliver Letwin masterminded the rushing-through of tax policies to put Labour on the back foot

* These events caused a massive Poll jump for the Opposition, following which Brown called the election off

* Two days later, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling announced the introduction of tax proposals almost indistinguishable from those suggested by the Opposition a week earlier.

In summary, Brown denied any of the leaking, briefing and scheming for which he is infamous; Cameron and Campbell denied they had ever been anything less than ecstatic about a snap election; Darling plus his Treasury cohorts denied any connection whatsoever between his proposals and those of the Conservatives; and Foreign Secretary David Miliband swore blind from the Despatch Box that the 'new' EU Constitution was vastly different to the old one.

This catalogue of bare-faced fibbing demonstrates that first, the Establishment thinks we were all born yesterday. Second, it shows they talk a good game about new politics, but clearly don't mean it. Third, it illustrates for the nth time just how much of our time and money they're prepared to waste on infantile knockabout politics. And finally - above all - we see yet again how little awareness they have of the public's derision.

Brown himself had, by mid-October, begun slipping in an unholy trinity of "floods, terrorism and financial disaster" to all his deluded utterings, as evidence of his 'strength' in dealing with them. The facts were that he had been late (and then miserly) for the first, was implicated in the second, and headed off the third by weak-kneed bowing to market pressure.

Ergo, my conclusion is the Establishment lives in a cosy fairyland, and has no intention of letting any real alternatives into the fairy tale. When asked about proportional representation or other forms of more inclusive democracy or lowering the cost of entry for new Parties - or indeed anything challenging their iron grip on affairs - they say "This is certainly something we will look at". Having looked at it and sniffed, those in charge then place the proposals in a lead-lined casket, and dump the whole in the North Sea. Twas ever thus.

For here onwards in this paper (outlandishly sweeping though this may seem) the reader must take as a given that the economic and political Establishments have been challenged, are in the process of changing, or have changed beyond recognition. I will continue to expand ideas I have (in other places) about how hugely underused the internet still is as an instrument of political and economic pressure - and indeed, how the Forces of Darkness are already doing everything they can to both sabotage it, censor it and hide behind it. But for today, onwards to the ideas I wish to put forward about 'what' rather than 'how'.

A piece of the Sky is missing

Sincere thanks to, and continuing admiration of, David Nobbs - whose very apt title for an early novel I now steal shamelessly. Our culture (like most successfully cooperative cultures throughout history) used to have what I call a higher-order ideal as part of its method of encouraging honesty, charity and government investment in social need. This was Christianity (later Christian Socialism) and the generally accepted belief that a preferred place in the afterlife would await all those who led 'good' lives.

Such a faith was widely prevalent until relatively recently. In the 1950's, fully 78% of citizens believed in God; even in 2006,the figure remained at 35%. The contradiction (as with much research among people who are muddled about most subjects) is that attendance at church in general and praying in particular is now prevalent only among a tiny minority.

But here are two interesting facts. First, the great and good listed in Who's Who are only half as likely to believe in God compared to the population at large. And second, when the words 'or some form of supreme life-force' are added, the 35% 'God belief' statistic doubles to 70%. (This latter would be supported by the huge success of mind/body/spirit literature in recent years).

The bottom line remains, however, that only 23% of Britons believe in some form of afterlife - and this figure halves again for anyone born after 1950.

My points are these:

1. Far fewer people today have a religious belief system to help guide and control their behaviour. And this is especially true of those in positions of power, celebrity, opinion leadership and media access.

2. For most people under 60, the idea of life after death is vaguely regarded as dated, daft and (sort of) disproved by science. (None of these beliefs is justified - see the Alfie essay - but that's irrelevant in relation to a simple extrapolation: the chances of organised Christian religion making a come-back in the UK are practically zero.)

For many young people between 1955 and 1980, their political beliefs were almost (in some cases entirely) a replacement for religion. Such idealism produced Ban the Bomb, Flower Power, a huge swing to the Far Left among the intelligentsia, but above all a massive body of humane legislation such as the abolition of the death penalty and the legalisation of homosexual activity.This 'activism' has also disappeared under the pressure of free-market economics,and a growing cynicism about what (if anything) the 'little man' can do to effect real change.

In short, the Something More Important than the monthly pay-cheque has been lost. We will not change the direction of our culture downhill until it is put back - in some form or another.

Per adua ad astra

Belief in the RAF motto 'reach for the Sky' is the single biggest reason why creative, socially beneficial, community-orientated, neighbourly, charitable and no-pay-back government investments take place. The Channel Tunnel and the London transport infrastructure developments of recent years will in all likelihood never look sensible on any 'balance sheet'. The reason they took so long to appear is the same reason why balance-sheet Mammon only ever produces more risk-averse sameness and very little in the way of genuine life-quality improvement: because it makes Q4 look all wrong to the shareholders and the Bourses.

Yet it was a fine capitalist - US adman Leo Burnett - who said "If you don't aim for the stars, you will remain firmly in the mud". Burnett was an entrepreneur from a different age - one in which 'City slickers' were mistrusted, and risks were taken, rather than just lauded from some lofty academic or banking platform.

Hence the earlier assertion: until capitalism reforms itself, the species cultures will not improve for the long-term benefit of all. But free-market nonsense has only been allowed to take hold because there is no longer anything more important than income, profit and material acquisition.

Thus, my first 'must have' is a return to some form of bigger ideal than the pursuit of material wealth at all costs.

But if it isn't religion, then what might it be?

Choosing a star to wish upon

There aren't that many from which to choose. Some are more obvious than others, some (for most folks) extremely wacky. I prefer to start with wacky, because I'm no longer sure it's so much wacky as obvious.

This starting point involves the 'what's it all for cum meaning of the Universe' question. In a nutshell, I don't buy the 'everything is anarchic chaos there was a big bang and nothing or nobody is directing anything'. I think there is a point, and that is discovering how to escape from a physical 3-D Universe. For my sins, I increasingly believe it's all a game (or perhaps test) to see if we can suss out how to do it.

I won't say more than that here. But try this page on the site ('Alfie') for a more detailed study of the nature of my madness.

The trouble with anything proposing anything metaphysical these days is that people do either think you're mad, or yawn. Also, it's not exactly a vote-winner is it? 'No more shoes ducky - start studying quantum mechanics instead'. Given most of the population think quantum mechanics must be an elite of grease monkeys down the garage, it's unlikely to win over hearts and minds.

Planetary survival is another possibility, if only because it's more immediate. But here again, there are distractions and side-issues that could easily get in the way. Icebergs will be floating off Southend if we don't stop Global Warming soon - but they aren't doing that yet, and as a species our capacity for denial is infinite. Also, the miseries who believe the Gaia 'it's too late, we're doomed' stuff don't exactly help. And finally, there are many climatologists who think the data is far too sketchy to believe in doom anyway.

I have no doubt that many people are happy to get on with recycling (although much of it is a complete waste of time) but before too long the dead hand of the State will be making us all get quadruplicate glazing and houses made from solar powered rice paper anyway.

Even though, on this issue, the future of the whole species could well be at stake, it lacks the necessary personal threat that most people care about. One will need, I suspect, something that goes right to the heart of individual existence. At the moment, that seems to be the wallet - which is a big part of the problem. Is there anything else?

'Never work with kids or animals'

So said the misanthrope W C Fields. His point - if a tad extreme - was that everyone loves their children and their pets, and thus for an actor, they're the last thing you want mugging away on the same screen as you.

For some folks (especially the British middle class) making Dodo the poodle one's higher order goal would not only be acceptable: I suspect it would also be highly motivating. But for most of us, the one thing that can overcome even the most cynical, world-weary grump is first, a grandchild and second, one's own children. There is something about grandchildren that offers real evidence of genetic mortality.

Even today, I suspect most older (50+) people cannot even bear to think about passing on a world that truly sucks to their grandchildren. So, on the whole, they don't - think about it, I mean. But as the nest empties, and retirement becomes a reality, the wrinklies will give it a great deal more thought.

For all those near or in the sixth decade (especially those unlucky enough to be living in a town in 2007) the disintegration of a disturbingly large section of society into binge-drinking divorcees and quasi-feral twelve year olds is obvious. It's not to politicians, because they focus only on the navel and don't get out enough. It's not to Keith Vaz because he's a pillock. And it's not to David Blunkett because he's blind.

But for others, it is an obvious everyday reality. I feel it would take very little genuinely concerted effort to wake up the older age demographic to the reality that they are passing on a culture which, to quote the ghastly Hobbes, will be 'nasty and brutish', as well being incredibly dull - and one in which the biggest challenge will be finding a plumber not too busy reading City & Guilds media studies.

Now it goes without saying that twenty-something Wayne the Willy-Dipper will carry on grinning, looking for new places to pierce himself and bunking off whenever the CSA gets too close for comfort. Short of wiping Wayne out, there's very little we can do about that.....beyond trying to make his outlook seem (how can I put it?).......unfashionable

The real parallel is smoking's decline

What most people working in the HSE, Race Relations Board, Equal Opportunities Commission and Gay Rights axes can't seem to grasp is that threatening folks with pack exclusion is nearly always far more successful than legislation when it comes to social engineering. And 'threatening' doesn't mean 'do it or else' - the ASBO fiasco has demonstrated that clearly enough. It means 'if you don't do this, people you respect (and far more important, those with whom you wish to exchange bodily fluids) will think you're a complete plonker'.

People outside the pack don't get laid. This is a fundamental law of nature. Thus, if the Waynes vote to stay outside the pack and not reproduce, terrific. But real people won't. Tell a young person that snogging them is like licking an ashtray, and they will - sooner or later - decide to stop smoking. Once the word gets round, non-smoking becomes a given for any snogging to commence, then a given if you want a clerical job. Once sad clutches of deeply unattractive people are seen standing outside office buildings having a fag, you just know it's not the thing to be doing any more.

Thus, while older, calmer adults have rational concerns about the future for their grandchildren, younger (under thirty-somethings) tend to respond to the indirect threat of becoming an outcast.

Those who write off today's young as beyond repair are allowing pessimism to morph into cynicism.They also make the classic mistake of all futurologists - that is, seeing the future as an extrapolated straight line.

In which case (you might ask) what is the point of this essay? And the answer is simply this: things, events, and other stuff we can't foresee will drag us out of the current Dark Age of Daftness in the end - because everything is cyclical. But essays like this one can serve two vital purposes: to become self-denying prophecies - and to accelerate the cycle. Not for me your Existentialist inaction: I like some of Camus' stuff, but that's it.

Cigarettes today are very yesterday. In the same way, thinking young people already see promiscuity as yesterday. They are beginning to realise that 27 units of alcohol a week is not a good idea, especially if you consume them all in an hour. Many under-25s see Waynes now as the last thing they want to be groping - and that's just the girls.

This is almost precisely analogous to the UK situation circa 1975, when the more rational folks in my circle had already stopped smoking, but most of us brought up on Humphrey Bogart still thought ciggies were sexy. Despite being told "Yes ducky, but Bogey's dead...and guess why...", we still thought it alluring. By 1982 - when I had one tiny baby, another on the way, and a wife who didn't smoke - the combination of peer pressure and desire to see my kids grow up did the trick.

The idiot Frank Lampard may glare at everyone and say " 's'all abaht respect innit?" but he's wrong: his marital antics have already rendered him hopelessly uncool to all but the most bone-headed Chelsea fan.

The truth is, it's all about earning enough respect to be a true pack leader. And from here on, that means taking responsibility for the future.

It's all about the legacy

Since Tony Blair grasped the legacy word with his needy fingers, it has become a little tarnished. But when used in a socially-based, futuristic sense it still has enormous power - because our genes will live on into the future. In the narrow sense of 'legacy', the one tax hated far above all others is inheritance tax: very, very few people like the idea of leaving their children nothing. (I'm not one of them, but that's not relevant here).

Equally, despite their very low level of politicisation, I would argue that the 16-30 group are this way because of sub-Thatcher mores but also boring, cynical politicians with nothing new to say. When shown a radical but emotionally logical alternative, I think they would get involved - albeit once the current growth bubble bursts - because they toowill not want to think of 'my generation' being lame.

I see some potential for the media to act directly as catalysts for change in three ways:

i. a rational PR campaign among 50+ adults with children who expect/have or want grandchildren. Forget about your own disdain for theWorld Today - give your grandchildren an unfair advantage.

ii. An emotional government advertising and multi-funded PR campaign to demonstrate that, in the real world, only dead-enders and no-hopers think it's clever to keep having kids and then not taking reponsibility for them. For example:

'This is Dean. He's got a boring job and lives at home. The CSA (or hopefully, its successor) are bleeding him white. Word's got around that he's a jerk and comes with expensive baggage. He keeps getting pissed and losing his job. He's messing with needles. Dean's just a child - screwing up the children he's already got and can't support. There's no bright tomorrow for Dean.

Don't be dumb. Don't be a Dean.'

iii. The media themselves accepting that glorifying the Peter Dohertys and Brtiney Spears of this world isn't in anybody's long term interests. This will not be done philanthropically: a whole celeb magazine sector currently depends on doing the precise opposite. But magazines become dated because social values change, and this is to be greatly preferred to any form of censorship.

If all this seems like idealism bordering on naivety, remember that this overall strategy was the Health Education Council's starting point for anti-cigarette advertising and PR. Within five years, virtually no advertising agency in town would work on cigarette accounts. Within ten, noTVprogramme would feature an actor smoking. Within twenty years, the smoker had become an outcast. Now he (or she) can't even smoke in the pub.

Imagine predicting that in 1970.

People can't take responsibility if you don't give it to them

Media-based persuasion won't do what's required alone, but there is a broader theme here within which it would vital - that is, the whole idea of raising self-esteem and quality of life by taking personal responsibility. (As the Government has belatedly grasped, this fundamental field-researched relationship between doing good and feeling good underpins the success of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT).

The task is far from impossible: it is to make the feckless seem like (and there is no other word I can think of here) wankers. This is the word used today by most young people about drunk driving, and thus here it serves to make the purpose of media persuasion entirely clear.

To change social mores this much (as we saw at the outset) means kicking out the Establishment we have now. Equally, I asked you to assume that a new cultural imperative was already gaining ground, and perhaps even in power. But changing the Zeitgeist totally is too easily talked about in generalities. Hence my desire to set out some specific thoughts below.

Genuine devolution

As Simon Jenkins eloquently argued in The Sunday Times in late 2007, we are one of the least politically connected cultures in the developed world. Not only are our voting statistics a disgrace, the form of devolution not surprisingly chosen by UK naional politicians has been based largely on the principle of not devolving any real power at all. The proposed (and then abandoned) regional assemblies would have been equally impotent - and therefore of little appeal to real people's lives.

Genuine devolution - of the sort propounded by Liberals for the last fifty years - means giving back responsibility at community level - effectively, at ward level. Local elections receive very low turn-outs because politicians there at present tend to be activists - whether Party promoted or not. Also, the debates are narrowly political (and oddly, often related to national party lines) as opposed to dealing with truly local, uniquely relevant issues of real interest - health provision, education, Council services and so on. Most of the pre Libdem Centre party's successes in UK by-elections were achieved with emphasis on local issues. When Martin Bell took on the Hamilton mafia a decade ago at an election in Cheshire, the whole constituency was suddenly involved. All these events attracted turnouts in excess of 83%.

To me, the lesson is clear: give people some geneuine influence and real alterantives, and they will take part. They won't become activists (probably a good thing)but they will appreciate the importance of civic contribution more.

This itself, of course, would have to be preceded by both smaller constituencies per se and universal proportional representation - but these are issues for another essay.

Obligatory community service

My parents' generation always believed the abandonment of National miiltary service was a mistake. I didn't (and don't) but some form of obligatory service to others should be introduced as a major part of restoring community values. Ideally, this should be organised at local level, and crucially not involve the employment of further bureaucrats at the national level: rather, it would operate largely under the auspices of a latter-day 'Dad's Army' of mature and senior citizens overseeing its institution and administration.

I would introduce this as an integral part of everyone's education. A 'junior' version at around the age of eleven (for six to twelve months) and then a second spell at age sixteen for up to two years. Teenagers would work in the community with two aims: to understand and make a difference to the lives of others; and to experience 'real' life in order to guide them further in the selection of future vocations.

Stress is laid on vocation there, as opposed to rote exams, meaningless targets and achieving 'standards' by (as in some contemporary cases) virtually telling students what to write in the exam paper. Facing reality is, like taking responsibility, part of growing up: children must learn about risk, failure and the benefits of determination. This same reality dictates that any good culture should continue to need craftsmen as well as intellectuals and self-styled 'management'. A vocation is a calling - something towards which one is either emotionally or naturally (through an obvious skill) drawn. This applies as much to an advertising copywriter as it does an electrician or a communications technician. It applies to postmen (as vital members of what used to be called the 'social weal'), and - importantly - doctors and teachers.

An increased relationship between medicine and education

Making personal and civic responsibility endemic to all education in our society will never be achieved as a goal until doctors and teachers adapt their current market, paperwork and 'throughput' attitudes, towards others more focused on caring and functional behaviour, better dietary understanding, the importance and psych-physical benefits of regular exercise, birth control on the 'why' as well as 'how' bases', how society functions, how the brain interrogates recieved thruths - and thus why new ideas in all forms of activity are vital if the culture is not to stagnate. Within this framework, I would make both CBT and relaxation/meditative techniques part of the mainstream of education from four years old.

The goal of medical and intellectual 'teachers' should be seen as improving social cohesion and behaviour, and consequently reducing the vast costs of curing and policing it. The only worthwhile 'targets' in all we do in these fields would thus be measurements of quality of life, personal fulfilment, obesity levels, early deaths, technical/craft skills, use of anti-depressants, incidences of reactive anxiety, levels of crime and the prison population as a percentage of law-abiding citizens.

Is this cloud-cuckoo?

In the current environment - and with no change in existing ethics - yes. Otherwise, it would be one of many first steps (across academic, medical, community, commercial, professional, craft-based and political careers) designed to achieve a more controllable, more content, less dictatorial and far less costly society in the future.

Of course, on the per adua ad astra model, it will fail. It is bound to, because Homo sapiens as an average is appetitive, inward-looking, selfish, neurotic, and prone to extreme behaviour patterns.

But the goal is not Utopia: the objective of this approach is to halt a descent into hellish anarchy, by cutting the vicious spiral down into a world of brutish behaviour attracting more and more brutal forms of anti-libertarian State control.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Copyright John Ward, 2007