#Leadership PT5 "trigger happy!"

Blimey its cold out there this morning (by IOW standards - it is all relative!). Anyway it was still and calm and no one around much. Result as often - thinking time and another blog lol! This one will not be long and I can rattle it off before breakfast (it has to be porridge today!)

Over the years I have written 4 blogs about leadership - not that I profess to be an expert - but they related to points I have picked up over the years and have been useful to me. Oddly enough they regularly have hits and I have even had some good comments - ha!

Anyway this morning's pearl of wisdom! Well it is nothing particularly original - but wisdom can come in many forms.

A Netflix bank robber heist. The two top guys are discussing their hand picked team for the job. The deputy suggest x. The leader says no - "he is trigger happy". The deputy says "he is ok - he has calmed down". The leader says "in my experience people never really change - it is better to accept what they are and do what you can with them". 

There is something in this. Leaders/managers are very often trying to address employee weaknesses. Of course you have to do this where you can. The dreaded PIP - Personal Improvement Plan !!

We have all heard the expressions - he is a square peg in a round hole. She is a round peg in a round hole. It is obvious you tend to get most out of someone - you getter better cohesion - when roles suit -  when it is a good fit.

It is also the case that a lot of engergy can be taken up focusing on weaknesses rather than exploiting strengths. Another corny adage - care you don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

This takes me back to John Adair and the 3 circles (3rd blog). A good leader will find a way of encouraging a subordinate to consider their strengths and weaknesses and get them to conclude themselves that they might be better suited to another role. This can be win all round.

Maybe you can address the weaknesses.

Maybe you can't and if the square peg is jammed in a round hole more drastic action is required. In the modern world - a disciplinary leading from a fully documented PIP. What a faff that can be!

The Netflix leader kept the hot head in the van - he was the getaway driver - lol!

Porridge time!

#Parentalresponsibility Where does it start - where should it start - where does it end?

This will be a short blog because I see the problem - I can ask the question but I do not know the answer. I do not have a solution. 

My question relates to parental responsibility.

Before I pose the question I would like to make a few basic things clear.

I believe I am compassionate. I cannot stand the prospect of child abuse in any form. All children should be safe. I believe our society should strive to ensure every child has the opportunity to reach their potential regardless of their background. I believe in fairness. I rail against unearned privilege. I believe in the welfare state as a safety net and as a catalyst for social mobility and levelling up (as far as is possible).

I also want to say I am a realist - I know things have to be paid for - I am a capitalist with a strong social conscience. I know resources are finite. I know socialism does not work.

So my question. It relates to the relationship between parental responsibility and government/societies responsibility for the welfare and upbringing of children in our society.

I will pose my question in the description of a recent TV news item piece. They interview mum and dad seperately in the front garden - in this covid lockdown. As so often is the case with mainstream media the underlying thrust is to find fault with government. Social housing - on a council estate. They have 6 young children. Basically it is one long whinge about what the government is NOT doing for them. The kids are off school. "how are we expected to self educate our kids if we have no computer in the house". What is the government doing about it if we can't send our kids to school. They are missing out on their education! " " Thanks to Marcus Rashford for forcing the government to give meal vouchers so our kids don't go hungry"   

It is clear the parents feel it is the governments job to provide for their kids - but many will think (including me) NO! - it is not the governments primary job - it is your job - you have primary responsibility - you have parental responsibility. Why do parents have children when they do not have the resources or in many cases it seems, the capacity to look after them properly !? I accept as most people would, it becomes the governments job - the tax payers job - when children are at risk - when children are suffering - but should not be the governments responsibility to the extent that parents feel/expect they can bring children into the world regardless of their personal economic or social circumstances.

Most people and I am one of them believe it is a human right to be able to have children. Adequate parenting/parenthood is not just or only dependent on financial resources. Many children have thrived from poor economic backgrounds - and having money is not any sort of guarantee of good parenting.

However surely there needs to be some balance - some commonsense. Here are a few bullet points I can make. They do not form a coherent arguement but views that might form a debate.

• Some couples decide not to have children because they cannot afford it.
• Some couples have children without considering if they can afford it.
• It is alleged that some choose to have children as a way of securing/guaranteeing welfare benefits - almost a life style choice.
• Some tax payers ask why should their taxes be used to subsidise other peoples children especially when they themselves have forgone having a family because they cannot afford it. (in their view).
• Some people argue having children is almost a public service - the next generation - the next generation to provide the workforce and generate the tax revenues on which society depends.
• It seems obvious the more government accept reponsibility for a child's welfare and upbringing the more it diminishes parental responsibility. 
• Reducing parental responsibility by government being interpreted as assumming responsibility/not emphasising paramount parental responsibility - could/will lead to bad outcomes. Parents surely should never be able to say my child is hungry - it is not my fault - my responsibility - it is the governments. But that seems to be the way things are going!
• It is surely beyond dispute that those early years of a childs life both in terms of nutrition, welfare and education are crucial/critical in a childs development. Early Years intervention strategies are tax payers monies well spent if a family life is inadequate.
• I would think all people want to live in a society where children have a safe, secure and supportive upbringing.
• However I think most people can see children are being brought into the world by parents who are unable to provide for them adequately right from the outset - from the pregnancy. Right from the outset those children are vulnerable. Right from the outset those children are dramatically disadvantaged. Right from the outset the family will be a massive and ongoing consumer of tax payers money.
• Chances of future criminality, drug use, poor health comes, more welfare benefits etc etc are much higher.
• Is this situation desireable? Of course not.
• Would it not be better if children were not concieved by inadequate parents. Most people would say yes.
• If it is not desireable can anything be done to prevent it?
• Is religious belief or aversion to birth control any sort of justification?
• What role if any should abortion have? Should people be paid for having an abortion?
• Should welfare benefits/goverment assistance be reduced to discourage parenthood from being not much more than a welfare benefits lifestyle choice.
• Maybe some people should be paid/rewarded for not having children!

I do not know what the solution is - that is if you even concede there is a problem! Some argue the parents are victims of an unfair society and it is simply an issue of distribution of resources. Personally I think this is disingenuous and naive. I see it as a sad and vicious circle. Some people don't like to hear it - but what we are nurturing and perpetuating is an underclass. Some would prefer to bury their heads - make glib woke statements - and fail to acknowledge what is happening and the consequences.

Going back to the orginal news slot. The reporter was never going to ask the parents "why have you had six young children when clearly you do not have the resourses to adequately provide for them!?" But that is a question that should be asked without apology in my opinion.

#Brexit we have finally left the EU. Summary thoughts on the Brexit saga !

In is New Years day 2021. The UK has been totally out of the EU for a few hours now. We are a sovereign nation once again and I am equally delighted to say our democracy as held together (despite a horrid and shameful attempt by some sitting MP's in the last parliament, many journalists and a minority of citizens to deny it.) The last 4 1/2 years have been dominated by Brexit issues. Now it has at last been done here are my reflected personal thoughts.

REFERENDUMS - should only be used when there is a binary decision to be made. Yes or no - in or out. The Brexit referendum was exactly that - leave or remain - yes or no. Indisputedly the vote while close (52% to 48%) was to leave the EU. This became the democratic imperative.

However the lesson to be learned from the Brexit referendum is while everyone accepted and understood before the actual ballot that a vote for leave meant taking back control of our borders, money, laws and the terms on which we trade - that was not enshrined in the question.

Consequently those that did not agree with the decision felt they could argue the Brexit leave decision could mean something else - for instance - half leave - the so called soft brexit.

DEMOCRACY - we glibly claim to be a democracy. We assume it is our bedrock and something to rely on. The Brexit referendum eventually confirmed we are still a democracy but it was touch and go for a while. Democracy hung by a thread while people who should have known better played fast and loose with the brexit referendum result. Democracy requires the principal of "losers consent" - for the result to be respected by everyone and for it to be implemented. 

However this did not happen. What did happen is many losers (Remainers) either claimed the referendum result was just advisory only (legally but not morally they were correct and morally was far more important), tried to water it down (BRINO - brexit in name only), tried to stall it - in the hope it could go away or be overturned - or claimed the public had been duped and people did not understand what they voted for - and there should be a confirmatory 2nd referendum!

In the end for me and many like me fully implementing the brexit decision became more important for the reason of preserving our democracy than for any other reason. Imagine the situation our nation would have been in, if a precedent had been set which in effect allowed a democratic decision to be ignored because some did not like the outcome of the vote. It would potentially undermine all future votes. Our democratic system would have been compromised for ever and the thin democratic thread that exists is the only thing that holds our fragmented society together. (shame on those who tried to thwart the implementation  of the democratic brexit decision. Personally I find it hard to forgive - especially if they were MP's who should have known much better.)

FACTS - the brexit debate was an assertion of "facts". Definition of a fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true. So much of the debate was in reality not based on actual facts - it was based on assertions, best guesses - opinion informed or otherwise ! Keep stating a guess or opinion - and shouting it loudly does not make it a fact ! No one could/can know with certainty how brexit will work out over time. What many remainers failed to understand or accept is leavers fully understood that and were prepared to take the risk.

PROJECT FEAR -looking objectively the remain side over played their hand. Bringing in Obama for instance, to say the UK would be placed at the back of the queue for a trade deal was ludicrous. It showed disrespect of the British people and our courage. Bullying us - trying to scare - was always going to have a reverse effect. Some of the claims were so ridiculous the public just lost confidence in everything thing the vested interests or so called "experts" had to say.

PEOPLE WERE DUPED - that was the claim of the losers and as a consequence was used by them to justify the disregard of the referendum outcome. People were not duped - and did not swallow everything they were told. What remainers failed to understand was Brexit was about much more than economic arguements in the minds of leave voters. Sovereignty was a massive issue. People were fed up with the interference of the ECJ in British life for instance. On a more general point - one man one vote. As soon as you start saying some electors are not clever enough or well informed enough to vote you are on very slippery - infact totally unacceptable ground. You are undermining the principles of our democracy.

NOT JUST ABOUT ECONOMICS - remainers continually claimed no one voted to be poorer. Define poorer - and over what term. I am much richer if I feel free and that my vote counts - that my nation is sovereign again. I understood there might me an initial hit on GDP. I am thinking longer term - thinking about my grandchildrens future ! I accept the risk. There are no guarantees. No guarantees either about a future in the EU. This I am sure is how many voters saw it. And just to split hairs - no serious forecast said we would not have economic growth with Brexit.

BREXIT WAS/IS RACIST - a desperate accusation from remainers. There is nothing racist about a small island wanting to control immigration numbers to suit the nations requirements. There is nothing racist about introducing a fair points based immigration system which is open to all peoples of the world equally rather than prioritising EU citizens. The claim the UK is inward thinking - insular - is also without credence. One of the main driving forces of the Brexit rationalle is to be able to trade freely on our own terms with the rest of the world ie more outward looking - not less.

THE EU PROTECTS US FROM FALLING STANDARDS. Really !? In so many areas the UK has been in the vanguard when it comes to workers rights and environmental standards etc. A fundamental point remainers willfully disregard, is we live in a parliamentary democracy where a new government is elected at least every 5 years. If the public are not happy with the decisions our government make then the electorate can boot them out and elect a government that better represents their values. What better safeguard do you need than that? We are in control of our own destiny!  

CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE 48% - CALL FOR COMPROMISE - this was always nonsense and was seen for what it was by many - just a badly disguised attempt to keep us in the EU ie BRINO - brexit in name only. The whole point of the referendum was to resolve a binary decision - to get on a train going north or south. Going east or west - the worst of all worlds.

MEDIA BIAS - I think any objective assessment of UK mainstream media would conclude it is characterised by a Londoncentric liberal elite bias. Consequently the default position of the BBC for instance was/is an anti Brexit anti Tory stance. On this basis I feel the BBC did the public a diservice with the way they responded to the Brexit referendum to the extent that I feel they did not fulfill their charter as a public service broadcaster. Consequently I am keen to support the removal of the licence fee privilige that the BBC currently holds. If the BBC wants to act as a de facto political party and promote its own political manifesto then it should be required to be funded as all other political parties. (out of this bias and jaded journalisim will emerge a news force with higher standards - Andrew Neil's GB News - coming online later in the year).  

SPEAKER BIAS John Bercow's conduct was shameful. The bullying narccissist craved the limelight. He devalued the office of Speaker at a time when his nation needed the integrity of a Betty Boothroyd. Quite rightly Bercow is now regarded as a pariah by the majority.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS - stuffed with an unelected liberal establishment bias they exceeded their role and in many ways tried to thwart Brexit. I for one have no doubt the House of Lords needs to be reformed. It certainly needs to be much smaller.

PLAYING POLITICS - it is a fact of life - politics pervades everything. (it is definitely complicating the nations covid response). The political opposition keep saying they want what is best for the nation - country before party - but actually that rings hollow. All the oposition parties played the game of criticising the governments handling of Brexit but were very reluctant to say what they would do. It was a calculated decision to refer to this "Tory Brexit". It is a real shame. Perhaps it was too much to expect our country to come together once the democratic decision had been made - but this is what should have happened in the countries best interest of course.

A FIFTH COLUMN - the most shameful and disgusting element of the whole Brexit affair was the trail of  MP's making a beeline to Brussels to conspire with the EU to undermine our government and the Brexit negotiations. I think this was unforgiveable and they served their country and our democracy very badly. Fortunately many of them - like Soubry and Grieve lost their seats at the first opportunity the public had to kick them out. (they were so wrong to feel the end they wanted justified any means including anti democratic and traitorous behaviour.). History will treat them very badly.

HOW NOT TO NEGOTIATE - Thankfully Boris and his team were able to pull it out of the fire having been backed by the great British steadfast commonsense public who gave him and 80 seat majority. Prior to that, woolly Theresa May and the duplicitous parliament that surrounded her made a totally inept stab at negotiating with the EU. How can you possibly negotiate a good deal if the otherside believes you will never walk away. It is really unbelievable that our MP's tied our negotiators hand by taking "no deal" off the table. This was such a ridiculous tactic it surely could only have been as a last ditch attempt to stop Brexit happening at all.

Boris turned it around. Right from the get go - no deal is better than a bad deal - we will leave on time (no further extensions) and will be happy to trade on WTO terms. The EU believed him - they believed his conviction. More than that, Boris and his negotiating team (and the Britsh public) understood the EU needed a deal as well. The UK market was/is massive to them and they were never going to throw it away. Boris also understood you never make your red lines public when negotiating because at best all you will ever get is up to your red lines (what would be the advantage of giving you more) - despite the mainstream media calling for details 24 hrs a day.

The staggering thing is the British public understood this commonsense/basic strategy when so many politicians either didn't because they were ridiculously naive (you cannot stand up to the EU - they are much bigger and more powerful) and have no lifes skills in the art of basic negotiating or were wilfully ignorant as a tactic.

Of course the inevitable happened. As almost always the EU (as life) played it to the last minute (which is why it was always the right thing to do for Boris to stick to his deadlines) but a compromise deal was done - and because the EU had overplayed their hand (the French through Macron's grandstanding) - in the end Boris got significantly more than our red lines. 

This was total vindication for Boris and all the leavers including the British public who were prepared to take a risk that their assessment was right. The EU needed a deal just as much as we did. It leaves egg on the face of all those crass and weak MP's who argued in effect that we should take whatever we were offered by the EU - or that any deal could not be done in the time in the timescale (and yet another extension was needed.)

WHAT NOW - A COUNTRY DIVIDED ?

So Brexit is done. We have left the EU. Our country is sovereign again - and we can shape our own future.

It is understood this is not the outcome many wanted - but what do they do now ?

Some have already said the battle has been lost - they accept we have left and believe the onus is now on the country to unite and make the best of the opportunity Brexit offers.

Some are hoping quietly or otherwise that our country fails and they are vindicated.

Some will never accept the decision to leave and claim to be starting a campaign to rejoin from day one.

Interestingly the Labour Party seem to be taking up all these positions at once.

The Liberal Democrats and of course the SNP want to rejoin and by implication they want Brexit to go badly - a sad state of affairs.

Hopefully people will be won around as the benefits start to manifest. 

POSTCRIPT despite Project Fear, the negative projections of the experts and predictions of the remainer die hards we are now in day 5 of the brave new world. Both the FTSE and £ have risen strongly, no major problems at the ports, manafacturing output continues to grow etc etc. But typical of the BBC - they have hunted around for some bad news. They have come up with - some additional documentation for pet passports required and the seed potato producers were not included in the trade agreement. They did latch on to Gibraltar - but that has quickly and independently been settled with Spain. The other thing the Beeb are banging on about is the EU student exchange scheme Erasmus. The government says they are replacing it with a worldwide scheme - so the loss of Erasmus is not that earth shattering! Talk about clutching at straws!

For myself and millions like me who voted for Brexit I feel vindicated. True it will not all be plain sailing particularly against the covid backdrop. The great thing is the ball is now in our nations court. It is up to us. No longer will we have the EU holding us back - no longer will we be able to blame the EU! That is a very liberating and motivating prospect I think. The country standing on its own two feet should be good for our soul. It will be intersting to see how the EU gets on without us. They have many problems to reconcile and a massive budget issue to address now one of the biggest net contributors has been lost.

My final thought now the divorce has finally happened - there is every prospect that the mutual relationship between the EU and the UK will flourish.

I have spent a lot of time on the Brexit debate - pre and post referendum. It did turn ino a saga even a soap opera at times. Like our nation I am now liberated from the issue - no need for more brexit blogs. What to do with my time? I am planning visits to the EU of course - definitely cycling in France and Portugese sunshine. A long weekend to Florence is on the cards with my daughter (alas covid restricted) I love visiting Europe - ha! xxx

  

#Brexit UK Fishing negotiated deal etc

 As we know foreign fishing fleets in our waters has been a bitter bone of contention for years. Many UK fishing communities have blamed the EU for their problems - for their decline. As a consequence traditional fishing areas have been very pro Brexit to the point that for some Brexit is almost defined by the repatriation of our coastal fishing waters.

I am not so naive as to not understand territorial fishing rights, the right/necessity for coastal areas to earn a living from fishing and the maintainance of fishing stocks are complex issues. However I have formed a view!

The basis for my view ? I love to eat fish. I love to catch fish to eat. I buy fish to eat. I have seen over fishing by commercial trawlers. I am from the South West of England where there is a strong coastal fishing tradition and I am well aware of the downward spiral the fishing industry has been in for many years. I have watched many of the documentaries made about trawler fishing and I have read quite widely on the subject. So here goes - some bullet points in no particular order !

• For most fishermen fishing is like gambling ie always looking for the big catch and the big payout and when they get it their immediate thought is catch another one. They will never catch enough. The sea is their casino.
• A true tale. I know a local guy who is good at catching bass. He is not a commercial fisherman - but like me, a small boat rod angler - just someone who likes fishing and eats what he catches and gives away a few to friends etc. He told me he would not normally keep more than half a dozen bass from a session - unless that f....ing Langstone trawler is sniffing around. He watches for small boats catching !!). He said he is not going to leave the shoalling bass for that bast....d to sweep up! Consequently he has taken home over 100 bass in a single day! What do you make of that? If I don't catch them - someone else will - so I will catch them anyway ! A common attitude. (If the French are going to grab them I will get them first!)
• Fishing communities - many villages in Devon & Cornwall for instance have a strong fishing heritage - but now descimated or close to extinction by lack of fish/fish quota. The great Brexit hope is quotas will be taken back and communities be revived. Lets hope so.
• However this is the reality as it is in all walks of business life. The small will be swallowed up by the big and powerful - particularly by the efficient. I am concerned that the repatriated quotas will eventually end up in the hands of British boats yes - but those boats will be big - sophisticated - and efficient. Consequently the new wealth will not be spread around - communities will not be revived - but a few people will get much richer. The same goes for the fish markets and fish processing. I suspect it will not survive on a local scale with small communities revived. The super efficient conglomerates will dominate.
• One thing the British fishing industry does not like to be reminded of - but is true - is many of the British fleet sold their boats and quotas to foreign fishermen - in effect for quick cash in the hand for a few. That must not be allowed to happen again.

The Brexit negotiations on fishing rights have been complex and difficult because European fishing boats have been fishing in our waters for decades. Fishing communities across the channel are just as dependent on what they are able to catch in our coastal waters as our fishermen are.

The leverage the EU have been able to use in negotiating quota is to deny/restrict access to their markets unless they could retain some fishing quota for their fishermen. This is a fact of life.

Some people are shouting that the British fishermen have been "sold out" by our government by not repatriating all our stocks/quota immediately. However if this had happened the same people would be shouting that they no longer have the EU markets to sell their catches in at the premium prices they have been used to.

British fishing has not been sold out by our Brexit negotiators and our government. Far from it - the opposite is true - they have done a brilliant job for them. They have retained access to the EU markets without tariff barriers - they have taken back increased quota for British fishermen immediately and over the next 5 1/2 years their quota will increase every year. In 5 1/2 years time the UK will have full control. In addition our government has pledged to invest £100 million in the British Fishing industry to help them upgrade and get ready to deal with increased quotas (which they are not at the moment and which means the negotiated ratcheted deal makes even more sense.) 

Our fisherman maintain there is insufficient demand from UK consumers for the fish they catch and EU consumers are prepared to pay a higher price! So well done our negotiators for maintaining access to crucial markets as part of the deal. Fishing communities should acknowledge that.

Just on the contention British people don't like fish - they only want cod and chips on Friday! (ironically we have to import expensive cod as we do not have sufficient numbers in our own waters.) can I say this ? - there is truth in it - they are right! Our fish industry need to do a better job at building and stimulating British markets for the whole range of fish that can be caught in our waters. I am sure now that many people are more health aware, this would be possible.

My final point - 60% of the UK fishing catch is by Scottish fishermen. The Scottish National Party are arguing they should therefore be given £60m of the £100m pledged by the UK Gov't to invest in the fishing industry. However having listened to the SNP in parliament and the extent they hate Brexit and the Tory gov't there is a concern at Westminster that the SNP will wilfully misuse the money. The SNP are committed to Brexit being a failure (it suits their narrow agenda) - they want an independent Scotland to rejoin the EU. Westminster has pointed out to the Scottish fisherman and the SNP that if the SNP get their way and Scotland did rejoin the EU - Scotland would be back with the Common Fisheries Policy and lose again the extra quota the UK gov't has just negotiated back. Consequently Westminster want to deal directly with the Scottish Fishing industry and makesure they understand the £60m is coming from the UK as a benefit of Brexit. I think Boris is being wise here - however much it annoys Sturgeon and Blackford (there will be a big fuss). 

Overall the future of British Fishing is vastly brighter under Brexit - but I have concerns it might be creamed off by a few big players. Our government must ensure this does not happen and that planning and investment is for the longterm.