My blog

Author: admin

  • Review of Galvin at Windows: “reliably first rate”

    Christopher Jackson

    ‘Now is the time for eating. Later is the time for regret.” So said my companion as we sat down to lunch at Galvin at Windows. In the end we had the eating, but not the regret.

    But first the view: London, unlike New York and Paris both of which are built to comprehensible plans, looks delightfully mad from the skies. The Thames is never quite where you think it should be, swerving in and out of everything, seeming to force the architecture into unexpected arrangements. From on high, you realise too that the tube map is a perfect liar, giving you a false sense of distance and relationship when you travel through it.

    From the 28th floor of the Hilton Park Lane you discover if you didn’t know it already that London is a mystifying place to live. What is Westminster Cathedral doing being so near, for instance, to the back garden of Buckingham Palace? Throughout our meal, we were able to see a peaceful soul mowing the gardens at the palace, looking in his way more kingly than the king. Talking of the regal, there was also an emperor of a seagull presiding over the area near Vauxhall, a bird who, we came to decide, certainly views Nine Elms as his terrain not ours. I noted the occasional stray drone skating along clouds – inquisitive, knowing things we didn’t.

    But we knew also what it did not: the supreme glory of the food at Galvin at Windows. The butter came, slightly fanned and petalled, like an apricot rose on a basalt slab. The butter-knife resembled a sort of bladed paperweight, whose balance would self-correct if you nudged it so that its sharp end always pointed upwards. Like this, admiring a minor novelty, we embarked on one of the meals of our lives.

    In retrospect greatness was coming at us from every possible angle; but I think it was the service which began to alert us to the sheer quality of the afternoon. One by one, good-humoured and knowledgeable staff arrived at our table, conducting the rituals of public dining with a notable intelligence and thoughtfulness. A great meal must of necessity be to some extent incidental to the food: a Burger King would have tasted good up here.

    But happily, this was no fast food experience. Tasting the bread, we already knew that the food at Galvin would be reliably first rate. At around this point, the attentions of Rudina Arapi began to weave in and out of the experience. Arapi cheerfully told us about her upcoming sommelier exams – and the thoughtful pairings throughout the meal make me think she’s likely a shoo-in for these.

    Hearing that I wasn’t drinking alcohol, she caused a revelation in the shape of a few glasses of Wild Idol, the closest non-alcoholic approximation to champagne I’ve experienced – only the very slightest alien tang giving the game away.

    Food-wise, we started with caviar, which came amassed on an oyster shell at the centre of a plate of ice. Adjacent to it, was an oblong plate of bite-sized pancakes together with a tiny china saucepan of whipped cream cheese, sprinkled with chives. I recommend trying the caviar without any additional flavour in the first place so as to concentrate entirely on the pop and brine-rush of the little fish beads.

    This was mere prelude to our main courses. I consulted the menu. After a period of anxiety, where every decision seemed to cordon off too many delightful possibilities, I opted – grieving for what I wouldn’t eat – for the artichoke soup. But I hadn’t erred: what emerged was a gorgeous broth, topped with truffles. I found myself reflecting that I never regret ordering soup. My companion went with the crab, which came with a veritable garden of edible flowers, as well as dill. A generous splash of caviar was to one side – like a kindness when someone doesn’t demand a thank you.

    By the time of the main, I was by any reasonable standards already full – almost to the extent where food was beginning to present itself as a dangerous notion. But I had previously committed to a bulky steak. At this point – though my steak was delicious, I might have preferred the cod which my companion had ordered: a thing of delicate crutons, scattered capers, grapefruit, and mash.

    No onlooker, seeing what we had already eaten, would have expected us to order dessert. But our ambition had increased, and so had our curiosity regarding what was possible. Not to eat dessert would have been like hearing the first four movements of Beethoven’s Ninth, and not listening to the finale. That would be to miss out on the Ode to Joy.

    I opted for the araguani chocolate and dulce de leche, which came with banana and lime ice cream, topped with a sort of hyperloop of caramelised banana. To my own amazement, its deliciousness caused me to eat it in its entriety. My companion meanwhile showed no compunction about finishing her apple tarte tatin, with Calvados caramel and Tahitian vanilla ice cream.

    When she laid down her spoon, it was with the confidence of the soothsayer who has been proven right. It had indeed been the time for eating. We had done our duty – and perhaps if you’re reading this, you should too.

    To make a booking go to www.galvinatwindows.com

     

     

     

     

  • Finito bursary candidate Joseph Macdonald on an unexpected interview with Lady Bennett

    Joseph Macdonald

    It wasn’t something I ever expected to do. Though it was an experience a little outside my comfort zone, when I was given the opportunity to talk to the former leader of the Green Party Natalie Bennett, I decided to go ahead. It had been a year of ups and downs; I had decided to intercalcate from my computer science course at Lancaster University but was by means sure whether I should return or not, or whether I should pivot.

    Fortunately, I have benefitted from the attentions of the Finito bursary scheme. This scheme aims to help young people like me in the journey toward a meaningful career, and I have worked with the company’s business mentors now for several years. When I suggested to my mentor Talan that I was considering moving courses into Ecology and Conservation, the opportunity to talk with Natalie came my way.

    Before the call, I wasn’t certain about the opportunities available to me if I did decide to make a change.

    At the start, Natalie provided me with technical examples which began to address my concerns about the breadth of careers I could go into. She also reassured me that the time I had used studying Computer Science had not been wasted, as there are numerous ways in which the subject areas are being combined. After the call, I was more sure than ever that my decision to study Ecology would be the right one.

    I also learned a lot from talking to Natalie herself. She  came across as a very well-informed and intelligent person, with a wide range of experiences from all over the world. She taught me to always be open to new experiences and that there are plenty of different roles even within certain disciplines.
    Crucially, Natalie also gave me technical examples that are currently relevant or which she expects to be emerging areas of study. For example, we discussed how the excess use of fertiliser on farms means that chemicals are being washed into nearby water courses. This causes the growth of vegetation on the water and stops light from reaching into the water, leaving fewer nutrients for fish and other aquatic animals.

    Another point we discussed was the issue concerning the discharge of raw sewage into rivers and the sea by water companies in the UK. In exceptional circumstances, such as after very heavy rain, this is permitted. However, there is an average of hundreds of discharge incidents per day. This heavily pollutes the waters within and surrounding the UK. There are ongoing campaigns for heavier punishments for the water companies involving larger fines. Under proposed legislation, the executives of the water companies would be personally liable for paying fines.

    Natalie also explained how government policies affect environmental issues and to what extend they are applied by the UK government. She believes their current efforts do not go far enough to make a positive difference. Bennett believes that the age of neo-liberalism that started with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s must come to an end soon and more progressive policies should be applied if change is to take place for the better.

    She also described how she got into politics through journalism with The Bangkok Post and subsequently finished her first degree in Agricultural Science. She then completed outreach volunteering work via Australian Volunteers International. Her second degree was in Asian relations which she completed at the University of New England. Her third degree is a MA in Mass Communication which was awarded by the University of Leicester in 2001.

    Bennett later went on to join the Green party on 1st January 2006. She represented various constituencies in London and later Sheffield Central in 2017. She described how there are only two Green peers in the House of Lords but they make a significant impact because they are the only party with new ideas. Natalie also remarked on how strange the House of Lords can be with the clothing and décor!

    When I explained to Natalie how I was taking a year out of university and planning on changing my course to Ecology and Conversation from Computer Science, she moved swiftly to put my mind at rest. She explained that there are more and more emerging ecology roles that involve algorithms and quantising data using computers. This was an important connection which I hadn’t made before, and gave me much food for thought.

    A call like this is always nerve-wracking, but Natalie’s manner was at all times open and kind. This was a lesson in itself, and one I intend to remember as I forge my career.

     

  • Tim Clark Essay: What should the role of schools be in preparing young people for work?

    Tim Clark MA, PGCE, FRSA

    In 2013, an Ofsted enquiry into careers education reported that, “only one in five schools were effective in ensuring that all students were receiving the level of information they needed”. Since then, the Department for Education has certainly taken action: schools are now provided with statutory guidance on careers education and the latest Ofsted Framework [September 2023 – the eighth in eleven years] stresses the importance of “next steps” and CIEAG [Careers Information, Education, Advice and Guidance]. Furthermore, the Skills and Post-16 Act 2022 requires all maintained schools and academies to arrange for students in Years 8 to 13 a minimum of six “encounters” with providers of approved technical education qualifications and apprenticeships (though, in effect, this equates to only one “encounter” per year).

    Since 2015 the DfE has also funded The Careers and Enterprise Company which provides digital resources and Careers Hubs, bringing together employers, educators and providers, to which some 90% of secondary schools currently belong. In addition, the DfE funds the National Careers Service which is intended to provide free and impartial AIG [advice, information and guidance] to anyone aged 13+; the Service offers web chats, webinars and individual guidance appointments online or at a venue.

    Both the Statutory Guidance and Ofsted Framework place great emphasis on the eight Benchmarks devised by the Gatsby Foundation, the charitable foundation established by David Sainsbury. These recommend that all secondary school students should benefit from:-

     

    1. A stable careers programme
    2. Learning from career and labour market information
    3. Addressing the needs of each pupil
    4. Linking curriculum learning to careers
    5. Encounters with employers and employees
    6. Experiences of workplaces
    7. Encounters with further and higher education
    8. Personal guidance
    Schools will, no doubt, argue that money limits what they can offer: minimum funding per secondary school pupil for 2023-24 is £5,715, rising to £6,050 in 2024-25 [National Funding Formulae 2024-25]. Even though schools receive additional top up funding for additional needs, IDACI and deprivation factors etc. this must cover all school costs (over 70% of which are universally taken up by salaries) and is far short of average independent school fees which stand at about £15,000 per annum. Teachers will also probably argue that it is “yet one more thing” to cover despite the constraints of time and the numerous other demands on their role: the requirement to teach a broad curriculum for as long as possible, the pressure to achieve the highest exam results they can because of public, competitive league tables, as well the requirements to teach PSHE [Personal, Social and Health Education], RSE [Relationship and Sex Education], Cultural Capital, SMSC [Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development] plus the growing public demand to see greater emphasis on students’ mental health. Time must also be found for sport, music, drama and extra/co-curricular activities such as the Duke of Edinburgh Award, the very things that help to develop character, resilience and social skills.

    The question remains, therefore, whether students will be “work ready” when they leave school. For obvious reasons, the national system is unlikely to have the capacity to provide the individual, one-to-one coaching and mentoring necessary to help every student transition from school to work. Time will tell what a difference this recent investment will make, though we must hope that the National Careers Service is not too target driven or preoccupied with box ticking, as some have alleged. A key point is also missing in the latest approach – it is the whole school experience that should help to prepare young people for the adult world, not just in terms of knowledge but skills, personal traits and what used to be covered by the phrase, the “hidden curriculum” – what schools deliver almost subliminally – something hard to measure and quantify, yet indicative of a truly great school.

    In my first headship, we gave all Year 11 pupils a dedicated fortnightly careers lesson, during which, as well as developing personal statements and CV’s, they were encouraged through talks, presentations and online programmes, to explore the world of work. More than anything, these lessons proved a great motivator as they encouraged youngsters to begin to understand the whole point of education, that it was leading somewhere and that in order to get there, they had to work hard and to succeed. I was sometimes asked by teachers of core subjects to scrap the lessons and given them to maths or English, but having time to see the bigger picture was, I think, a worthwhile use of finite timetable space. Some years later, this argument was echoed in the 2015 Statutory Guidance which stated that the aim of careers advice and guidance is that pupils should be, “inspired and motivated to fulfil their potential”.

    Not the least important purpose of good careers education is to simply open the eyes of youngsters to what is out there. How many teenagers know what a quantity surveyor or an actuary does for a living? Typical teenagers will be limited in their experience of the professions – perhaps just teacher, doctor, nurse, police officer, armed forces – and have even less fist-hand knowledge of technical or practical careers. Having a goal and knowing what you need to do to get there, can only have a positive impact on motivation, attendance and work ethic.

     

    *************************

     

    “EngineeringUK has been tracking the annual demand for engineers and technicians needed to just keep pace with infrastructure and other engineering projects…..Despite the prioritising of STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths] in many schools and 2018 being denoted the “Year of Engineering” in the UK, almost half of those between 11 and 19 said they “know little or nothing about what engineers do”.

                                                                                   “Overcoming the Shortage of Engineers”, Riad Mannan, 2021, NewEngineer.

     

    ****************************
     

    The new T Levels, as with the previous short-lived 14-19 Diploma, place emphasis on industry involvement and genuine, meaningful industry experience for youngsters. This can be of real practical benefit, but we must also be cautious. Since we are talking about teenagers, their ability to travel to placements is naturally limited and consequently there is a danger that since they will be bound to make use of local industries and employers, far from broadening horizons, they could become tied to the needs of the local economy. This will have its benefits, but it is far from the genuine aim of education. We are unlikely to replicate one school in 1930’s Orel, the city in western Russia, where all senior students were trained to be “poultry-breeding technicians” as that was what was required for the city by Stalin’s Five Year Plan, but we must be careful not to narrow students’ options. True “levelling up” demands that we broaden the horizons of all young people, regardless of background, ability or where they live.

    When discussing preparing for adult life, it is essential that we also consider the curriculum – what is actually taught in our schools. The emphasis for many years has been to stress traditional academic subjects and the EBacc [the English Baccalaureate – English literature and language, maths, the sciences, history or geography and a language.] The aim, according to the DfE, is to keep “young people’s options open for further study and future careers”. Annually, however, despite all the investment and developments in education, one third of sixteen-year-olds still “fail” their GCSE’s. If we are serious about producing future citizens, equipped with the knowledge and skills to meaningfully contribute to society and the economy, we need to accept that “success” can be measured in many different ways. “To only judge things according to their ability to climb trees leaves the fish going through life feeling it’s a failure”. [Wrongly attributed to Einstein.] Whilst new courses are being developed in technical and vocational subjects, these are currently almost solely for post-16 students. Of course, there is nothing to stop academically successful youngsters from embarking on these courses, as some do, but for many, vocational courses are the only option after “failing” traditional academic GCSE’s. How are we ever to attain parity of esteem between academic and non-academic subjects [the descriptor used in the 1944 Education Act for academic grammar schools and less academic technical and secondary modern schools] if the latter continue to be seen as second best and only available after perceived failure?

    This is far from arguing that we want prizes for all, but it does question the efficacy of eleven years of compulsory education. Nor do I argue for a utilitarian approach to education – an appreciation of literature, art and music, as well as an understanding of the country and world which we live, remain essential components of a meaningful liberal education. Accepting different pathways from 14 as opposed to 16 could, however, enable us to raise standards in all subjects, including the traditional academic ones as they would no longer have to be designed to cater for pupils of all abilities. Our aim should be to fulfil the true etymological roots of the word “education”, to bring or draw out, to nurture and nourish and to enlighten: not to “fail” simply because a student has aptitudes other than for academic subjects. As a Head, I always argued that I was happy for us to teach classics and plumbing, on one condition: that we produced the best classicists and the best plumbers. Equally, the calls for a “knowledge rich” curriculum must be accompanied by an understanding of the real purpose of knowledge: not knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but knowledge to aid understanding. Students must also be helped to develop the skills to use and apply that knowledge – only then does knowledge become “powerful” or, indeed, useful.

    It might be worth pausing for a moment to consider the French approach. The French Baccalaureate, a three-year course (15-18) has long been renowned as a demanding academic qualification but one that also has a remarkably high pass rate – over 90%. How is that possible? Are French students or teachers better? Does it suggest that academic lycée/grammar schools are more effective? The answer is probably none of these but rather it is down to the fact that only just over half of French students study the academic Baccalaureate – the more academic half; the rest follow technical or professional courses post-15. The point is that by accepting that one size does not fit all, we can raise standards, provide more meaningful and useful outcomes and, not least, improve young people’s motivation to achieve.

    In recent years, following the work of the American psychologist Angela Duckworth, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the importance of “grit” as a key ingredient of success; having “the perseverance and passion to achieve long term goals… It’s a marathon, not a sprint.” [Psychology Today] Of course, developing grit does not mean, as many youngsters have been encouraged to believe in the past, that you can achieve anything you want. You can’t. Success also requires ability and aptitude; effective, honest and realistic careers guidance should help to steer us appropriately and successfully, and also support us if we cannot achieve our initial goals.

    As I have previously argued [see Better Schools – The Future of the Country] we need to consider young people’s wider attributes rather than solely their academic achievement. We should introduce a non-academic school leaving certificate which should state factual information about the pupil – attendance, punctuality, attitude, behaviour. These are attributes which really interest employers. During the 1990s and early 2000s, pupils produced a Record of Achievement, a portfolio of documentation about academic and non-academic successes but very few employers, and practically no universities, took any notice of them, primarily because they contained no objective and quantifiable information. In the past, many school reports have also been worthless because of the requirement to be “positive”.  Yet it is of crucial importance to employers and admissions’ officers to know whether the pupil was rude, defiant, continually late or frequently absent; such information was missing from the Record of Achievement. A national, standardised certificate could be easily completed by schools and could then be used for job/apprenticeship applications or for admission to colleges and school sixth forms. The idea is nothing new: the Newsom Report of 1963 called for pupils’ wider qualities to be recognised including their, “patience and persistence…general attitudes to learning…honesty, cheerfulness, pleasant manners…and an ability to get on with people”. [S258] Above all, such a certificate places the responsibility for attendance, behaviour, manners and work ethic on individual pupils (whilst also enabling the school to explain any extenuating circumstances) and makes them realize that they will be personally accountable for any shortcomings – what could be better preparation for the world of employment?

    We have come a long way since the 1960’s when the headmistress of a local girls’ school allegedly concluded a final assembly by bidding the leavers farewell with the words, “I wish you all every success in your future careers as wives and mothers – and preferably in the order!” Personally, I always chose to end my leavers’ assemblies with the Winston Churchill quotation, “The world was made to be wooed and won by youth”. Our prime duty is to equip and empower young people to do that wooing and winning.

  • James Reed on The Big Give

    James Reed

     

    Over the last 15 years, we have built a great machine for fundraising. It is called Big Give, and you might have never heard of it. If so, I want to introduce you to our work and ask for your help.

    What we have pioneered is the concept of match funding – asking funders to match donations to charities made by members of the public. So £50 from an individual becomes £100 for a good cause, after being doubled by a Big Give match funding ‘champion’ – typically philanthropists, foundations or companies.

    What the champions who support Big Give say is that they are so pleased to see their donations multiplied, often by many times. The average donation to Big Give last year was multiplied by 5.6, making their money go far further than it would otherwise have done.

    We are now the UK’s biggest match funding platform, working every day to multiply people’s generosity.

    Public donations are crucial. But we need the fuel provided by more champions to take our work to the next level.

    My feeling is that a lot of wealthy individuals want to help and to do something charitable, but they are not quite sure where to put their wherewithal and their energy.

    It’s actually not that easy to give away a lot of money and do it effectively. It may be that there is a cause you want to champion – the environment, homelessness, the arts, women and girls, developing communities – but you aren’t sure who to work with to have the best impact.

    Working with us means you make much, much more impact. We say to the public who donate to charities through our platform that one donation has twice the impact. But for the champions, it’s  a lot more than that.

    In the UK the top one per cent are not as generous as they are in the US. What I would say to those people is that you get an enormous satisfaction from making a contribution like this. Once you have got the material things you need, the return on acquiring more and more material things diminishes. When you contribute philanthropically, the satisfaction grows stronger each time you do it.

    The people who take part tell us that it is really enriching. They get huge satisfaction from supporting what is often a number of different organisations. If you want to support the homeless, say, you can target your help at more than one charity working in the sector. You also know that we have done the work for you in terms of selecting well-run, effective organisations to support.

    Our annual Christmas Challenge raises money for over 1,000 different charities, and even our themed campaigns like the Green Match Fund, which targets environmental causes, are very varied.

    Wealthy people should think about how much they want to give away every year, and then they can plan effectively for doing so. In some religions, it’s expected that you will give away a certain percentage of your income. I’m not saying everyone should set it in stone, but there is something to be said for planning ahead.

    I try to do that, and it helps that I have been working with charities since I was a young man. I have seen how well targeted work can make a huge difference to people’s lives.

    What we have created in Big Give is a way of multiplying and magnifying that. We give the organisations that take part in our campaigns a lot more financial firepower.

    I find it very satisfying when I hear back from our charity partners that they have hit a target and demonstrate amazing programmes of work as a result, across all different aspects of society that are really inspiring. That motivates me.

    There are a lot of cracks in our society and life that government does not fill. Voluntary and individual action is a necessary part of the social landscape.

    The small battalions, as they have been called, make a huge positive difference. A lot of them are led by very impressive individuals who are really remarkable leaders.

    We want to work with them to reach a new target of raising £1 billion by 2030. It’s a big number and it’s a long way off where we have got to. But I’ve always found in business that it’s good to know what you are trying to do and have a target. It keeps you focused on the goal, which is raising money to help charities finance the work they do.

    Currently, we are not far off having raised a quarter of a billion pounds – so £1 billion is a big stretch. But it’s doable.

    It’s good that people know we are ambitious. After all, the need out there is limitless.

     

    For more information visit https://donate.biggive.org/

    Chairman of the board of trustees at Big Give and chairman of The Reed Group

  • Essay: Why government needs to get serious about business

    Joanna Thomas

    British business and trade will drive the future growth and prosperity of the UK, yet in recent years the relationship between the UK Government and business has been left wanting at best. Business engagement has almost become synonymous with securing donations. Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt are attempting to change this perception and be taken seriously again as the party of business. They are genuinely diligent, intelligent leaders who have impressive business and entrepreneurial experience: a PM with an MBA, ex-Goldman Sachs and a Chancellor who founded a successful business.

    Meanwhile, the political and economic fallout after the referendum is still playing out. Brexiter or Remainer, the observable, negative effects of Brexit on business are amplified by the aftershocks of the pandemic and we are still refusing to have honest conversations about where we are. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the improvised explosive device that was Trussononics compound the problems.

    Global supply chains are still recovering. Working patterns have changed. Inflation is hard to suppress. People feel squeezed. AI will destroy humanity, or save it, depending on your choice of pundit. The UK car industry still risks being unplugged from the electric future, notwithstanding the deal to subsidise a battery factory for Jaguar Land Rover. Steel is in trouble again. Joe Biden’s gigantic Inflation Reduction Act underpins America’s green industrial growth. The EU is responding, but where does that leave the UK? Then there is the rise of China and India. The promised benefits of Brexit remain unicornian for now. We need a credible plan grounded in reality and we need to communicate it.

    The scale and complexity of issues facing CEOs is daunting. It is in this environment that business leaders must chart a course to ensure that their companies thrive. They need stability to make long term investment decisions. The very agility and resourcefulness of business sits totally at odds with the rigidity and torpor of Westminster. All too often we hear that the Government does not listen, and that the Government is not available. Things need to change.

    The UK’s Business department should have a full-time Secretary of State, but it does not. The incumbent is also the Minister for Women and Equalities, an extremely important, complex, sensitive and unbelievably time-consuming brief in its own right, that arguably deserves to have its own Ministry. The message to business is all wrong. Is business a priority or not?

    We need a paradigm shift in how the Government engages business and without doubt the PM recognises this, but we need to go further within Westminster to support him. We have some exceptional Ministers, but we should in the future place a premium on ensuring that all in positions of power have the passion and experience needed for such an important task. We need to be able to “speak business”, to know the culture of international business and SMEs alike; to understand the diplomacy required to navigate sensitivities and build relationships and to have a sense of the technologies of the future. We need a huge injection of emotional intelligence and a commitment to face the facts about where we are, with courage and humility. We must, as a matter of urgency, acknowledge and tackle the structural problems that Brexit has created for British businesses.

    On a more superficial level but equally important, basic etiquette would be standard. There would be respect for CEO diaries, events would not be cancelled last minute after months of planning, and, if unavoidable, then followed up. Invitations would be sent out with plenty of notice and would be professional in delivery. We should not have to say that basic courtesy needs to be observed; the Government needs to reply to correspondence in good time and receive and return phone calls.

    Steering groups offer valuable insights from the ground into the issues being faced and provide viable solutions, but unless these insights are taken to the top and heard, time is lost and decisions made without sector input. Alongside these we should have frequent in-depth conversations with business leaders and not just representative bodies. We must recognise that business does not sleep during the day, that some of the best networking, intelligence gathering, deals and decisions are made over breakfast. The Department for Business needs to be open for business from early until late.

    The Government must be curious, willing to ask big, open questions and to hear answers that we might not always like: to show humility and patience enough to listen and to learn, to inform policy-making. We must then act with speed to find solutions, not dither in picking up on issues raised months earlier, such as the VAT Retail Export Scheme. We need to act in real time. Even the simplest of solutions can be complicated, though, if the political will is not there to fix it – or more importantly the will to listen to critical voices. It is not enough to keep admitting “we do not know what business is about” and “we want to hear from you”. It is novel, even charming at first, but the act wears thin if the fact is we really do not know, nor really care. Business leaders will become impatient when it is apparent that we are not learning, that incomprehensible political maneuvering trumps urgent business needs and that we are merely paying lip service. Business leaders are not stupid. Businesses want to know how we will now sort the customs and border irritations for goods, how we will tackle business rates, the skills shortages that arise from the lack of labour mobility and myriad other problems created by questionable policy decisions. We need genuine dialogue with give and take from both sides, not tone-deaf political monologue, game-playing and supercilious posturing. Being given only high level policy answers and not practical solutions merely frustrates and further undermines the Government’s credibility.

    If Westminster could run more professionally in certain areas and less emotionally, we may get somewhere. For the sake of the country, the approach must be more cohesive and businesslike, and the structures should survive changes of Government. We need to look at where we want to be in five or ten years’ time.  What does that look like? What is the vision?

    I have seen evidence of ground-breaking approaches to helping some of the biggest global companies to define the future of their businesses. Effective questions are asked using systems design and creative thinking approaches to tackle the most complex issues, from how boards can best imagine the future to define strategy, to how to redesign production processes and supply chains. Stakeholder mapping is utilised to understand what’s really going on in a system, to map the “value exchange” between parts to see what’s working and what needs to change. The purpose is to find a competitive edge, to do better thinking and to produce better strategic options.

    These approaches are also used to help leaders from emerging economy governments and multilateral organisations to design and test policy. And yet Whitehall rarely taps into such British expertise and instead continues to work in antediluvian ways that Victorian civil servants would recognise.

    We should use the best available, cutting-edge techniques in systems design to explore the issues we face, to imagine the successful and prosperous future we wish to create and then objectively work out what needs to change. We need to take a truly collaborative approach that works throughout Whitehall and across departments and sectors. We owe it to the country to think beyond any particular ideology and the electoral cycle, as we require long-term solutions that actually work. How else are we going to tackle climate change, to get beyond net zero and towards a sustainable, regenerative future? How else are we going to stay globally competitive?

    We also need a shift in our political culture. It is no secret that successive Secretaries of State have been constantly planning the downfall of whomever is the current Prime Minister and focusing on their own positioning, using whatever brief they have at hand and to the detriment of that brief. Such an environment is unsettling and unsustainable. A great figure from the world of politics who served in a past Cabinet once told me that it used to be, when serving in high offices of State, Ministers focused on the job at hand and stopped playing politics. You served the Government and the country – not yourself. Tellingly they added, “There wasn’t time”. What has changed so much in our political culture that rarely does this seem to be the case today? The instability of the last seven years has fuelled the dreams of those who wish to reach No 10 and so the focus has shifted to personal ambition and away from the day job. The political reflex is to rubbish criticism while scrambling to deny any personal culpability and find fall guys to take the hit, usually officials who cannot defend themselves, or even colleagues in Parliament. All this should stop.

    In contrast, when it comes to business, the Government should respect the importance and personal expertise of backbench MPs and include them more in the process of engagement and consultation. They have deep local empathy for and knowledge of the culture of their constituencies, and can offer valuable insight into the needs of their businesses. Visits, issues and ideas can filter through this channel and data can be gathered to inform policy making.

    There are very impressive and good people working at the Department of Business and Trade, Ministers and civil servants alike. Talk about “The Blob” is disrespectful, combative and counterproductive. The process of government is clunky and slow but that is from all sides. In contrast, I found hard working, impartial, bright and diligent people who care deeply about our country; people who need leadership and to be encouraged and allowed to think big, but also who need to be heard and valued for the expertise they bring. I am an advocate of a more compassionate, open and collaborative approach to the conduct of government.

    A senior political figure once said to me, “The trouble with you, Joanna, is that you see everyone as a friend, someone to work with, whereas I think, ‘How can I kill them?’” I was astounded. How can anything be achieved if the people in our politics behave in this self-interested way, playing a zero-sum game? This country, our people, this nation can only be protected and developed with teamwork. If we are constantly undoing the good of others for self-gain, how does that serve? Look around, this is how we have ended up in such trouble.

    There is much that is wrong with Westminster and how it works for business. Engagement with businesses now runs the risk of being about populating a personal address book as a hedge against election defeat, rather than driving business growth. In addition, departmental strategic planning should not be sacrificed due to political pre-election inertia, or the business department risks entering a state of suspended animation, tying the hands of exasperated officials.

    We are going through a very difficult time, but I believe that good, competent, committed, creative and courageous people can change things, to stimulate new ideas, to help our businesses to thrive and to drive wealth creation. I have worked with many such great people from all sides of politics, and from the civil service and from business. We need people such as these at the top, making the decisions and supporting the Prime Minister if Government is to get serious about business and drive the future growth and prosperity of the UK.

     

    Joanna Thomas was a Special Adviser to the Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade until recently. Before, she spent over a decade working in Parliament and in politics. Joanna has a background in business and experience of broadcast television in the US

  • Cosmo Landesman on making it in journalism and the tragic fate of his son Jack

    Cosmo Landesman

     

    My parents had a cabaret club in America in the mid-West. They did plays and had performers – people like Woody Allen, and Lenny Bruce – and a then unknown singer called Barbara Streisand. They put on plays by Pinter and Beckett and had a show on Broadway and moved to London in 1964.

    I was too young to remember Woody et al. but I remember going to the club and Albert King – B.B. King’s brother – was there and I went up on stage and did the twist. My Dad went on to do all sorts of things; he was a theatre producer, who put on a play at the Edinburgh Theatre Festival. My mother was a lyricist and wrote jazz songs and became a performing poet.

    I think my Bohemian upbringing gave me a taste and a leaning towards the unconventional. I’ve never followed the traditional path of most of my peers. I didn’t go to university and didn’t go to Oxbridge. I dropped out – and hung out.

    There are disadvantages to that, and I don’t think it makes me superior at all. It gives me a certain unique perspective and that’s good. That Bohemian tradition of which my parents were part of in the 1960s is something I miss. The classic moan is that Soho isn’t what is used to be. But cities have to change. Soho, which was once the Mecca of the Bohemian, has gone.

    But sometimes I look back at people who I thought of as square and conventional, and think of how they have the pensions. When you’re in your twenties, you think: “Pensions be damned!”

    I know quite a lot of people who did law, for example, not out of passion or interest, and regret it. I could never do something like that; I’m too dumb. I went into journalism because I was too stupid for everything else. I always wanted to write and I’m happy with my choices. I know plenty of deluded journalists who think they’ll write the great novel. Robert Harris is the exception everybody names. I realised I had no talent in that area; I abandoned all hope!

    Fleet Street used to be fun. Last time I went to The Sunday Times office it was like going into a library; it was so quiet and calm. Nobody hangs out and has lunch anymore. I meet young journalists who remember The Modern Review and it seems exciting to them. I was invited by Robert Peston to come to his Academy to talk about jobs in journalism. I would say: “Don’t do it – or only do it if you’re driven by a crazed passion that you must.” It’s a bit like becoming an actor – have a reserve job.

    I don’t do the kind of journalism that aims to change the world; I want to make people think, but mainly I want to make them laugh. You just do the best you can do, and pray to God that somebody will be moved. You try to be good and say something original and fresh. 95 per cent of what I read is this sludge of opinion and punditry.

    Book-writing is very unlucrative too. If you look at the statistics of the number of writers who make a living from their writing alone, it’s tiny, especially for a country as cultured and book-oriented as the UK. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t write books. It’s very rewarding.

    My real advice to young people is to try and be different. In this day and age, there’s such conformity – especially in the mainstream. 25 people writing the Harry and Megan article: do something different even if it will be a bit harder. Don’t follow the herd.

    If you devote yourself to journalism and writing, you’ll have what we call cultural capital. Don’t not do it because of fear about your pension.

    The death of my son Jack, who committed suicide after developing a drug problem, isn’t an easy topic – especially if you’re a parent. Who wants to read a book about this? It came out over the Christmas period last year. I hope people will find in the book more than just a sad memoir. I wanted it to be thoughtful and to have something to say about loss; I wanted it to be entertaining. I wanted to think about what it means to be a Dad.

    Parenting is trial and error; you bumble along and try your best. One of the things I write about in the book is that I had this idea of being a great Dad. I realise that I wasn’t being the Dad that my son needed, but I was trying to be the Dad I might have wanted. You don’t have to be a great Dad, you have to be a good enough Dad. You have to show up; you don’t have to be spectacular. It’s not just showing up at the parents’ evening. They’ll remember you sitting you in a chair, and leaning over and smiling at them, and pulling a funny face. It’s those small things: as long as there’s an atmosphere of support, love and care.

    You’re going to make terrible mistakes; being a Dad is about being a flawed human being. You’ll shout and lose your temper and regret it. That’s part of the business; it’s what you have to learn.

    There are days when I think Jack could have had more support for his condition, but I didn’t give him enough support either.

    But I can’t point the finger of blame; these things are complex. You often read that so and so committed suicide because of bullying. I don’t believe that; what drives people to that state of despair is a whole set of complex reasons. It’s not just one thing which does that. We always have these initiatives and drives, but I don’t think there’s a magic wand we can wave. We don’t really know why certain individuals commit suicide. Some will have suicidal thoughts; it’s only a minority will actually go through it.

    We need to give young people more tools when they face adversity and unhappiness. Suicide shouldn’t be an easy option; I sometimes wonder it’s become a sort of lifestyle choice – a human right. It should be understood that it’s a terrible thing to do, not just in relation to oneself, but in relation to others. But sometimes the mind orders its own destruction and that’s a scary thing.

    The trouble is my son had a terrible drug problem. We’re beginning to wake up to the impact of drugs on young people. I grew up in a generation where drugs were considered recreational and even mind-expanding, and people thought that anyone who disagreed with this view was a right-wing lunatic. Well, that’s just not true.

    I don’t think prosecuting people is going to solve the problem. You have to get people to understand what they’re doing. Our drugs problem also enriches the drug dealers, who are the worst in our society.

    People feel embarrassed to say they find my book funny, because it deals with tragic things. But humour is important – it’s perhaps especially important here. You don’t have to have a damaged son to enjoy this book.

     

    Jack and Me: How NOT to live after loss is published by the Black Spring Press Group

  • Diary: Liz Brewer on etiquette, presentation – and meeting Guy Ritchie

    Liz Brewer

     

    Life is  all about presentation. You have to realise that when you walk in that room, in front of the interviewer or panel of people, they’re going to make an instant decision. They don’t know they’re doing it, but it happens automatically, and it’s all to do with your energy. And so when you walk into a room, you have to take a deep breath and turn your energy from whatever it is, whether you’re frightened, or worried, or having a bad hair day, into positive energy. If you ever been to the east, and you’ve studied Kirlian photography, you know that they can photograph your aura. You have to make that aura – that energy – positive. So you take a deep breath, think positive thoughts, and you go in and your energy will hit them, and they’ll sit up and they’ll say, ‘right, what have we here?’

     

    The thing about communicating over Zoom is that you never manage to judge energy. The whole idea of meeting with people is eye contact, it’s energy contact, and it’s feeling. We are animals, and although a lot of people don’t understand that, we train ourselves to be able to judge people – to know whether this is someone that I can trust and rely on. A lot of people now judge people’s mannerisms and the way they behave to determine things like whether they’re telling the truth or not. It’s happening more and more, and people who have the ability to do that have either spent time realising that have that ability, or they’ve actually studied people. When I started the first discotheque club in Portugal, for over ten years I had a rule for myself that I never danced. I would watch people and I would watch their behaviour, and I must have automatically picked up the ability to be able to read people. And it’s something that you can train yourself to do. A lot of people are unaware of other people, they’re too busy thinking about themselves or looking at everything around them. But just studying people, how they speak, and how they make eye contact is something that we’re going to have to learn to do better and better as this world becomes even more competitive.

     

    I’m in my element with outside living and through my many sojourns in Africa, mainly exploring Zambia, was frequently lost along the Zambesi, having missed a confluence along the way and getting stuck on sandbanks in the middle of the river!  So camping, cooking and eating outside are always an integral and exciting part of my life. I was a pleasure then to be invited recently to join Guy Ritchie and his enthusiastic team in his creation, the alfresco lifestyle WildKitchen on a lake at his Somerset Estate, Ashcombe. The WildKitchen is quite an amazing structure: a copper topped 12 seater WildTable, containing two ingenious fire boxes covered by clear lids, so you could witness the cooking, both burning wood or charcoal and generating heat and light without smoke. Having seen Ritchie’s 2019 film The Gentlemen I was amused that product placement cleverly made its mark on several occasions.

     

    Guy Ritchie’s sense of humour turns out to be a delight. After finger-eating the succulent steak, he’d cooked to perfection, I asked if I could have a finger bowl. Without hesitation he reached up to the halo of tools hanging above for a suitable dish, and having added water he added a tablespoonful or two of olive oil, explaining apparently t’was the necessary ingredient for a finger bowl.  Who was I to argue?

     

    What’s happened in today’s world is, because of technology, everything is speeded up. We can do ten times more nowadays than we could, say, 15-20 years ago. Because of that, we’ve speeded ourselves up, and we overlook things like saying ‘please’, and ‘thank you’, and ‘hello’, and remembering that the person on the till who’s taking our money is a human being. When you’re with another person, that is now precious time, and if you then have your phone out, it’s an interruption. Time is a luxury, and it’s often very special and limited.

     

    Wherever you work, you have to have your own self-esteem. So when people have said, ‘Oh, well I can’t be bothered to dress up, I’m in the back room packing boxes’, I tell them that how you feel about yourself is a reflection of the way you present yourself. If you catch sight of yourself in a window or mirror, and you’re looking dishevelled with your shoulders hunched down, it doesn’t do much for your self-esteem, in which case, it doesn’t do much for you yourself.

     

    Life is for living. You never know what’s going to happen from one second to the next, so the way you dress, how you walk, and how you present yourself makes people immediately think, ‘right, this person has respect for us, and they have respect for themselves’. You have to take pride in what you’re doing. If you don’t bother to make yourself look good in the morning, that’s how you’re going to continue during the day. When they’re training people to be soldiers, it’s very important that your shoes shine, it’s very important how your belt is buckled, and how your suit is presented. It’s a question of not just discipline, but it’s a question of actually giving the best of yourself. That’s what it’s all about.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Three takeaways from India’s G20 summit

    Dinesh Dhamija

    Now that the dust has settled from the Indian G20 meeting, I’m left with a generally positive impression of the event, from the hosts’ point of view.

    There were three headline-making moments: the invitation to the African Union to join the group, the communique on Ukraine which didn’t mention Russia, and the introduction of ‘Bharat’ instead of ‘India’.

    Africa first. I think this is a very positive step. In recent years, too many African countries have become financially indebted to China for their infrastructure or militarily indebted to Russia for their security. The latest instability on the continent, with military coups in Niger and Gabon and civil war in Somalia, underscores the need for concerted action. Otherwise there is a risk of widespread regional insecurity which would benefit nobody.

    Through this act of inclusion, India’s ‘Global South’ leadership has taken on a practical edge, giving Africa a stronger voice in an important political forum. Ideally, it will encourage African nations to work more closely with one another, rather than getting further in hock to Russia and China.

    For Narendra Modi, this was a key diplomatic achievement, bolstering his position as self-styled voice of the Global South and winning African friends in high places. India is already providing transformative IT services to several African nations, mirroring the Adhaar online financial network it developed at home. This G21 accession – as we should now call it – could help unlock much more of the same, setting India up as a tech partner to the continent.

    On Ukraine, the communique was probably the best that could be achieved in order to keep everyone on side. Ukraine itself was the least happy party here, but then Ukraine isn’t a member of the G20 so it had to take what it was given. Optics are important here. As long as the leaders of the 20 states could return to their home countries and endorsed the message, India could say the meeting was a success. Short of expelling Russia (in which case the whole G20/21 concept falls down) there wasn’t much else they could do. India’s reputation as a catalyst for reconciliation and compromise was enhanced.

    Finally, Bharat. There are plenty of optics in this debate also. It would force the entire map-making and list-publishing industry to reprint every atlas and league table. It would mean people like me would have to describe ourselves as Bharati-heritage. Does it matter very much? I suppose it’s a sign of India’s muscle-flexing, now that it has half a seat on the global top economic table and wants everyone to pay more attention.

    We’ve grown used to Mumbai instead of Bombay, Chennai instead of Madras, Kolkata instead of Calcutta, so why not? There’s an anti-colonial thing going on here, which prompts people to debate the issues and that’s no bad thing. I’d like to see a referendum take place before any decision, just to be sure that a healthy majority (two-thirds?) of the country agreed with it.

    The most important thing is that India is setting its own agenda, meeting with the great world powers on its own terms. For me, that’s a big step forward and much to be welcomed.

    Dinesh Dhamija founded, built and sold online travel agency ebookers, before serving as a Member of the European Parliament. His latest book, The Indian Century, will be published in the Autumn.

     

  • The Power of Motivation in the Workplace

    Stuart Thomson

    Motivation in the workplace plays a valuable role for the individual as well as the organisation, but it needs to be recognised and nurtured. If anyone feels that their motivation is lacking then it is time to ask questions.

    On a recent episode of the ‘Eat Sleep Work Repeat podcast (29 June 2023), Bruce Daisley spoke with Gallup’s Anna Sawyer about their ‘State of the Global Workplace Report’. The report makes for interesting reading but in particular Question 12 focuses on measuring employee engagement.

    Gallup categorises an organisation’s employees as engaged, not engaged or actively disengaged.

    “Engaged employees are thriving at work. They are highly involved in and enthusiastic about their work and workplace. They are psychological “owners,” drive performance and innovation, and move the organization forward.

    Not engaged employees are quietly quitting. They are psychologically unattached to their work and company. Because their engagement needs are not being fully met, they’re putting time but not energy or passion into their work.

    Actively disengaged employees are loudly quitting. They aren’t just unhappy at work. They are resentful that their needs aren’t being met and are acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers potentially undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish”.

    Looking at the UK, the results show that it does quite badly for engaged employees. That makes the chances of any of us, having direct experience of feeling low levels of motivation quite high. At the very least, you may well witness low levels of motivation, amongst colleagues. That means that the individual, teams and the business suffer.

    Poor levels of motivation tend to be contagious.  That means we can all play a role in preventing the contagion or contributing to its spread. But the organisation needs to provide the incentives to progress along the more positive path.

    The organisations should see the benefits across productivity: lowers costs because they do not have to constantly recruit and train; a supportive workplace culture and the innovation that that can drive; employee engagement; not needing to constantly firefight to cover absenteeism; and, the delivery of higher quality work that can even come with an extra sparkle or flourish

    For the individual, higher levels of motivation result in feelings of job satisfaction. This, in turn, contributes to the development of the business that can help a person’s career and may even have direct financial rewards as well which should not be ignored. There can be the development of a culture of learning across a team, all of whom can see a future there rather than being distracted by other opportunities.

    Motivation drives us forward pro-actively. It is about wanting to do make a positive contribution rather than simply being compelled to do so. It is the spark in the step that helps us to enjoy work rather than enduring it.

    Assuming that you are attracted by working in such an organisation, what are some of the tell-tail signs that you might be about to enter a workplace that takes motivation seriously? What should you be looking out for?

    It is important to consider the system of recognition and rewards both formal and informal but with that should come some initial goal setting so that you know what is expected of you and the team you are part of. How is feedback provided, and how regularly?

    You also want to see evidence of development and training, and whether opportunities for mentoring exist.

    Also, challenge an employer on their communications and how they talk to and engage with their teams. Think about whether it is possible for you to be part of decision-making processes now or in the future, and how you can contribute to the success of the organisation.

    You need to have a clear idea of career progression but how you will be supported at every stage through wellness, especially if life gets tough which it will for many people at different stages. Is there an expectation that you will support yourselves and power on through any troubles or will support be available?

    A few social and team building events would be useful as well.

    Motivation in the workplace is crucial for creating a positive, productive, and successful work environment. It drives employees to perform at their best, fosters a positive company culture, and delivers it success and growth.

    Do you recognise that scenario where you work or are thinking of working?

     

  • Tariq Ali on Churchill and the Sunak administration

    Tariq Ali

     

    I’ve recently published a book about Churchill, and it’s interesting as the dust settles on the Johnson administration, and as we enter a period of strikes under Rishi Sunak with Boris even out of Parliament now, to consider the way in which Churchill is all bound up in this.

    Sometimes Boris created the idea that he was dumb but he certainly wasn’t. He always knew what he was doing and why. Boris’ novel is even a copy of Churchill’s novel; he complains about being a victim, just as Churchill did. He copies Churchill to that extent; Boris really does think Churchill was the greatest person ever.

    Churchill could say what he did and get away with it, because behind him was the British Empire, which was supported by a large part of the British population. Some of the Scots, whether you like it or not, were the most ardent imperialists. That’s why, with the decline of the Empire, the more nationalist tendencies have come out in Wales, Scotland and England.

    What Boris tried to do was to nurse a special form of English nationalism, linked very much to Churchill and his so-called heroism –

    and to make this part of the new mythology. If you withdraw from Europe, or Scotland might go from the Union – as seemed more likely when he was Prime Minister than it does now – then you need something, and for Boris that was Churchill.

    America also plays into this. He used Churchill to say to the Americans that we have a long-standing relationship, and that we will be better partners than Germany, for instance, because we’ve been attached by an umbilical wire. Blair played that line in the most vulgar way, as did Thatcher. Boris attempted the same. What that results in is a Britain completely tied to the United States without any room for manoeuvre.

    This all played out of course in respect of the reaction to Putin’s crazed assault on Ukraine – and still does under Rishi Sunak. The British media class went semi-hysterical, though they’re beginning to calm down now. If you look at France, Germany and Italy, they all supported NATO but the tone was more measured.

    Even in America itself, there’s a different tone: look at Thomas Friedman’s columns in the New York Times. I’m not a huge fan of his, but he has sought a balanced tone, and even pointed out the mistakes the Americans have made.

    We also need to look at the situation in Yemen which is infinitely worse than what is going on in Ukraine. The reason for the lack of coverage is that the media largely supports the government, and so they’ve been told by the Foreign Office that this isn’t a priority. I notice that all four parties drool over Zelensky’s addresses, and especially when he mentions Churchill; and I do sometimes wonder whether the Foreign Office has a hand in writing those.

    The big debate now is really this: How long do you want to tie the Russians down? American intelligence boasts that the Russian generals who were killed, were killed because of us. Older intelligence people in the US are saying: “Keep your mouth shut. Do you want a retaliation?” How long will Biden want to carry this out? It will either be non-stop escalation or a negotiated settlement.

    Putin’s invasion has been a mistake, and he has lost the support of the usually pro-Russian segment of Ukraine. That means that Putin is in a position where he might need to negotiate a settlement in any case. So far, the Americans have irresponsibly chosen to continue the war.

    The roots of our present problems domestically are also deep. The post-War consensus required the rebuilding of the country and that meant a form of social democracy. This wasn’t just in Britain – it was also in Europe. It was never meaningfully altered by Conservative governments, until Thatcher destroyed the mining industry.

    That development was dual in nature. First, it showed she didn’t care about the British working people anymore. Secondly, it meant that Arthur Scargill would have to be dealt with. The British trade union movement never recovered from that defeat. Privatisation was never contested in Britain in the same way it was in many other countries – for instance in South Korea. There was a huge strike wave in South Korea in the 1980s against multinationals. The banners in front of the Japanese multinationals said: “You can’t crush us, we’re not English.”

    That was a huge triumph for Thatcher, and Blair carried on and to some extent went further. They were looking for a strike to crush – but unfortunately for them the only strike going on was the nurses, and even they felt that nobody in their right minds would regard them as the enemy within.

    When it came to both the Blair and Brown premierships, the first person they invited in was Thatcher. Then Cameron made no secret of the fact that he was an admirer of Blair. I call this the ‘extreme centre’. It doesn’t seem to matter who comes in. They do the same thing; they fight the unions, and fight America’s wars. What is the point of an election under such circumstances? It just becomes a ritual.

    And a ritual all bound up with Churchill, who himself fought the unions in Wales and Scotland. That’s why the hatred of Churchill went so deep, and why I get so many messages from working class people saying how much their grandparents hated Churchill. Rishi Sunak should know that rubbing British noses in British mud doesn’t go down well.

     

    Tariq Ali’s Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes is out now