There was a time when PMQs were doubtless a valuable occasion for holding to account the The First Lord of the Treasury and giving ministers and opponents an opportunity to grill the incumbent on matters of actual importance. One imagines it may even have been an occasion of some gravitas where the workings of parliament were conceived in all their egalitarian glory.
No more however. Now it is a mind-numbingly dull spectacle of infantile caterwauling, hollow remonstrance and tedious point-scoring and triumphalism to 'rally the troops'. Political journalist will assert that party leaders metaphorically bloodying the nose of their erstwhile opponent can reinvigorate a party for the ideological battles ahead.
Really? I would be sceptical of that in the extreme. This is to assert that 30 minutes of partisan name calling and outright yobbery is what keeps our political leaders sustained? the though appals more than it amuses.
Any use for this overwrought and mindlessly soul-destroying, numbingly, wearying, banal so called spectacle is undermined by the fact that it is so stage managed and lacks any real possibility of being pulled from the embers of mundanity by anything purposeful ever occurring.
The contemporary image of Parliament and politics in this country is poor in the extreme and to see this cliche driven, fractious and ultimately politically inane sideshow as the main representation of Parliament to the voters and the outside world can be doing that reputation no favours.
We have two obvious choices, either scrap it for good or rescue it from the embers of its current moribund redundancy by giving the Speaker the power to enforce a ban on the oafish lout like behaviour from all sides of the house that occur when this 'debate' occurs and get back to a debate driven by courtesy which gives the electorate a fair view of opposing ideological stances.
If this were a school debate both captains would have been taken to one side and admonished for the behaviour to their teams by now!
Monday, 30 December 2013
Thursday, 19 December 2013
Oh, I'm awfully sorry.
The English have long been noted for an almost pathological devotion to reserve, manners and self-deprecation. Which is something one can accept quite honestly, they seem like reasonable attributes to adopt to me.
The one area that puzzles me the most though, is why do we apologise so much/ is it a cultural hold-over that we inherently feel we mus apologise for the excesses of former generations? One would be inclined to believe not. In fact you could more reasonably assert that this has more to do with the aforementioned reserve and manners.
Even if we know something is the other person's fault we apologise. Personal experience has led to a variety of experiences pertaining to this. Ranging from both parties apologising or inadvertently bumping into each other when nobody is at fault, to my own immediate reaction of 'soory' which bubbles up instinctively when someone else is at fault. In the later instance, one may, for example, have been crashed into by a trolley weilding buffoon who has no spatial awareness in supermarket aisles and leaves you with a haematoma the size of a cricket ball. This does not natter however when you apologise to each other.
HOWEVER, should you apologise for something which is clearly the other person's fault and get no response then ones blood begins to boil. Yet reticence precludes further action. Surely this is too frustrating a way to carry on? Well, no actually, no matter how frustrated one gets, as an English person the instinct is to just keep on apologising regardless of lack of personal blame.
Awfully sorry about that old bean.
The one area that puzzles me the most though, is why do we apologise so much/ is it a cultural hold-over that we inherently feel we mus apologise for the excesses of former generations? One would be inclined to believe not. In fact you could more reasonably assert that this has more to do with the aforementioned reserve and manners.
Even if we know something is the other person's fault we apologise. Personal experience has led to a variety of experiences pertaining to this. Ranging from both parties apologising or inadvertently bumping into each other when nobody is at fault, to my own immediate reaction of 'soory' which bubbles up instinctively when someone else is at fault. In the later instance, one may, for example, have been crashed into by a trolley weilding buffoon who has no spatial awareness in supermarket aisles and leaves you with a haematoma the size of a cricket ball. This does not natter however when you apologise to each other.
HOWEVER, should you apologise for something which is clearly the other person's fault and get no response then ones blood begins to boil. Yet reticence precludes further action. Surely this is too frustrating a way to carry on? Well, no actually, no matter how frustrated one gets, as an English person the instinct is to just keep on apologising regardless of lack of personal blame.
Awfully sorry about that old bean.
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
Is fear really the best motivator?
One watched with fascination the BBC 'imagine' production delving into the history and reputation of Machiavelli via the 500th anniversary of his politically seminal book 'the prince'.
One suggestion that stood out above all others was this. it is better for a leader to be feared than liked. it is better to engender respect through trepidation than kindness.
Is this true though? One can only relate to personal experience in the workplace. There has been an occasion upon which I was able to witness in action a man who would shame a Dickensian caricature of industrial despotism like Gradgrind with his sheer overwhelming awfulness. Was he feared by his workers? Yes, indisputably. did they then work all the harder for him because of this? Well, speaking as one of those aforementioned workers - no.
What developed was an us and them mentality and no desire or ability to pull together. instead most staff did the bare minimum to get by then looked for a way out.
yet working in other situations one has encountered leaders who perhaps awe their staff without terrifying them. They were definitely senior to you and to be respected. The best of these was a hospital manger who would defend her staff to the hilt against all comers. Then, if the transgressed or failed her, take them to one side and eviscerate them - without malice. Once criticism was delivered, that was it, one moved on and more often than not performed to a higher standard. Knowing however that your manager still had your back.
One has also worked for decidedly 'nice' people. Whilst there is a possibility that they could be taken advantage of, on a personal level one finds it easier to be motivated to want to help these people, to pull together and to aim for common goals (apologies for the horror of any corporate-speak that has seeped in here).
So is the key niceness, or fear? neither, the key is respect. Leaders need the respect of those they intend to lead and need to gain that respect by earning it through their own demonstrable ability.
http://www.theartsdesk.com/tv/imagine-whos-afraid-machiavelli-bbc-one
One suggestion that stood out above all others was this. it is better for a leader to be feared than liked. it is better to engender respect through trepidation than kindness.
Is this true though? One can only relate to personal experience in the workplace. There has been an occasion upon which I was able to witness in action a man who would shame a Dickensian caricature of industrial despotism like Gradgrind with his sheer overwhelming awfulness. Was he feared by his workers? Yes, indisputably. did they then work all the harder for him because of this? Well, speaking as one of those aforementioned workers - no.
What developed was an us and them mentality and no desire or ability to pull together. instead most staff did the bare minimum to get by then looked for a way out.
yet working in other situations one has encountered leaders who perhaps awe their staff without terrifying them. They were definitely senior to you and to be respected. The best of these was a hospital manger who would defend her staff to the hilt against all comers. Then, if the transgressed or failed her, take them to one side and eviscerate them - without malice. Once criticism was delivered, that was it, one moved on and more often than not performed to a higher standard. Knowing however that your manager still had your back.
One has also worked for decidedly 'nice' people. Whilst there is a possibility that they could be taken advantage of, on a personal level one finds it easier to be motivated to want to help these people, to pull together and to aim for common goals (apologies for the horror of any corporate-speak that has seeped in here).
So is the key niceness, or fear? neither, the key is respect. Leaders need the respect of those they intend to lead and need to gain that respect by earning it through their own demonstrable ability.
http://www.theartsdesk.com/tv/imagine-whos-afraid-machiavelli-bbc-one
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)