So how was the fuel crisis for you? You know, the one that the government started, with its bizarre, inflammatory rhetoric, while Unite, the tanker drivers' trade union, quietly and responsibly went about their business of consulting their members on a worst-case scenario, while negotiating a deal that wasn't primarily about pay or conditions, but one about training, conditions of service and the instigation of health and safety regulations designed to keep the public safe.
The spectacle of drivers queueing for hours on forecourts to drain every last drop of petrol from rural petrol stations is one that is bemusing at the best of times for pedestrians like myself, but at a time when there is no petrol shortage and when there can legally be no strike for at least a further week, it is a jaw-dropping sight. When I see Government ministers like Francis Maude advising people to fill jerrycans with petrol and keep them in their houses (advice swiftly retracted once the Fire Brigade Unions pointed out that this was a fire risk and an obviously bad idea), I find myself wondering if the people in charge of our country have any practical knowledge or skills whatsoever.
Make no mistake, the government is itching for a strike so it can have a 'Thatcher Moment' and be seen to clamp down hard on unions. However, it's rather difficult for a government of incompetence to pick a fight with an organisation that is instead focusing on doing its job. Nick Dennis from Unite diplomatically described the government's stance as 'unhelpful' but I'm sure that he could have, had he been pressed, found a dozen other words that described the government's involvement in the self-created crisis more effectively.
Ed Miliband has been asked about his position with regard to strikes and has sensibly sought to avoid a position of outright support for Unite. However, he has rather missed the opportunity to strike at the heart of the government's utter incompetence. I remind you that Francis Maude is in charge of the Cabinet Office, whose purpose is to provide support and advice to Cabinet Ministers. The notion that contingency planning for all possible outcomes should be something that happens quietly in the background at all times is lost on our leaders, who are ever ready with a soundbite but are able only to be reactive in times of crisis.
It is sad that at a time when the government's slogan is 'We're All In This Together' they cannot trust organisations to resolve industrial disputes through an agreed process without generating media hysteria. I mention this only because when the hours of drivel spouted by ministers are long forgotten and the appallingly militant headlines spouted by our disgusting right-wing media are sent back to the recycling centres for responsible disposal, I am certain that a deal will be struck that will suit both sides and avert a crisis that only ever existed in the feverish minds of our supposed elites.
This is the personal blog of Kris Holt, an award-winning writer based in the UK.
Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Switching Decks
I was playing some cards and reading some online articles last night in the handy window between Match of the Day and bed, and one of those articles was about the government drive to modernise. It got me thinking: if the deck of cards had been designed in the modern day, how would it be different?
Of course, the numbers 2 through 10 would likely remain as they are, but I think the suits and special cards would be due for a review, especially given that most monarchies are constitutional these days. I am also keen to retain the original notion of each suit representing a pillar of society. I therefore suggest the following changes:
Clubs are the weapons in the deck, and a modern card deck would surely represent how warfare has moved on. War these days tends to be more tactically-based and politically-sensitive than it was in the days when large numbers of kilted men in chainmail would line up and hack at each other with claymores. A modern claymore is a type of anti-personnel mine activated by motion-sensors, but a card of war, while remaining no less visceral, would still need to remain somehow personal. The advent of Soviet-era small arms fire means that even the poorest revolutionaries have access to AK-47s, while modern armies are equipped with M-16s and similar. I would suggest that clubs would therefore become rifles in the modern deck.
If you believe Sting, the spades represent the swords of the soldiers, but I believe that there is an alternative, more subtle meaning. The old notion of breaking up swords at the end of war and melting them down to make plowshares, which are useful in peacetime, suggests that this suit is both an instrument of war and peace, or can be viewed as a resource (in the case of the old deck, the right to command labour) that you are fighting to attain. Depending on your viewpoint, spades would become column inches in the news media, or oil if you prefer the resource meaning.
Diamonds remain diamonds; thousands of conflict diamonds - those mined from areas where there is forced labour, civil war and great suffering - still make their way onto markets every year. Nonetheless, in the global climate that now exists, in our modern deck we might prefer a move to another more commonly-considered resource, the place that global financiers go to hide - gold. Failing that, the world's largest currency still remains a staple worldwide, so the dollar would be an appropriate alternative - but if you were remaking the deck a hundred years from now, the likely replacement would be the Chinese currency, the yuan.
Finally, modern politicians still think of the run-up to the ballot box as a battle to win hearts and minds - but while previously, people could get swept away with the urge to fight for their country or in democracies, could get away with voting for the candidate they chose with their gut, in the Information Age, it is becoming increasingly necessary to make clear, rational decisions on an informed basis, and now minds are arguably more important than hearts. Goodness knows how they would represent these on the cards...perhaps a tiny picture of a brain, maybe?
In the modern world, you will hardly ever hear mention of a Jack or a knave, so a suitable alternative might be the Mogul, or baron, the influential individual at the top of his commercial profession with the links to lobby governments and more money than God.
The Queen represents an interesting challenge, as a modern deck would surely not be gender-specific. Nonetheless, the alternative would need to be strong enough to topple said moguls and change their minds through the application of irresistible public pressure, while still not being of government origin themselves. Time Magazine gave us the perfect suggestion - the Protestor - but for our purposes, I believe we can extend the definition to include any dissenter, campaigner or high-profile humanitarian.
The King has long since become a figurehead in a constitutional monarchy, and his place at the head of the table taken by the head minister of a democratically-elected government. The very top of the tree is therefore reserved for the prime or first Minister of state - though American decks would be likely to feature a President. And why not?
Finally, and most appropriately for a card which undercuts the poorest and trumps the richest, the Ace would be replaced by the Crisis. Financial, nuclear or any other - these are the moments in life that make heroes or villains of us all. The crisis would represent those things that are beyond anyone's control - and indeed, in some parts of the world, there are those that would doubtless argue that the Ace should represent a deity, as the only one with the power to topple Kings. The modern age however, cries out for a secular card.
What of individuals? It has been theorised that the picture cards in the deck represent genuine figures from history, so how about Rupert Murdoch as the Mogul of News Media? Aung San Suu Kyi as the Protestor of Minds? Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao as the Minister of Gold? No doubt you will have ideas of your own...
Of course, the numbers 2 through 10 would likely remain as they are, but I think the suits and special cards would be due for a review, especially given that most monarchies are constitutional these days. I am also keen to retain the original notion of each suit representing a pillar of society. I therefore suggest the following changes:
Clubs are the weapons in the deck, and a modern card deck would surely represent how warfare has moved on. War these days tends to be more tactically-based and politically-sensitive than it was in the days when large numbers of kilted men in chainmail would line up and hack at each other with claymores. A modern claymore is a type of anti-personnel mine activated by motion-sensors, but a card of war, while remaining no less visceral, would still need to remain somehow personal. The advent of Soviet-era small arms fire means that even the poorest revolutionaries have access to AK-47s, while modern armies are equipped with M-16s and similar. I would suggest that clubs would therefore become rifles in the modern deck.
If you believe Sting, the spades represent the swords of the soldiers, but I believe that there is an alternative, more subtle meaning. The old notion of breaking up swords at the end of war and melting them down to make plowshares, which are useful in peacetime, suggests that this suit is both an instrument of war and peace, or can be viewed as a resource (in the case of the old deck, the right to command labour) that you are fighting to attain. Depending on your viewpoint, spades would become column inches in the news media, or oil if you prefer the resource meaning.
Diamonds remain diamonds; thousands of conflict diamonds - those mined from areas where there is forced labour, civil war and great suffering - still make their way onto markets every year. Nonetheless, in the global climate that now exists, in our modern deck we might prefer a move to another more commonly-considered resource, the place that global financiers go to hide - gold. Failing that, the world's largest currency still remains a staple worldwide, so the dollar would be an appropriate alternative - but if you were remaking the deck a hundred years from now, the likely replacement would be the Chinese currency, the yuan.
Finally, modern politicians still think of the run-up to the ballot box as a battle to win hearts and minds - but while previously, people could get swept away with the urge to fight for their country or in democracies, could get away with voting for the candidate they chose with their gut, in the Information Age, it is becoming increasingly necessary to make clear, rational decisions on an informed basis, and now minds are arguably more important than hearts. Goodness knows how they would represent these on the cards...perhaps a tiny picture of a brain, maybe?
In the modern world, you will hardly ever hear mention of a Jack or a knave, so a suitable alternative might be the Mogul, or baron, the influential individual at the top of his commercial profession with the links to lobby governments and more money than God.
The Queen represents an interesting challenge, as a modern deck would surely not be gender-specific. Nonetheless, the alternative would need to be strong enough to topple said moguls and change their minds through the application of irresistible public pressure, while still not being of government origin themselves. Time Magazine gave us the perfect suggestion - the Protestor - but for our purposes, I believe we can extend the definition to include any dissenter, campaigner or high-profile humanitarian.
The King has long since become a figurehead in a constitutional monarchy, and his place at the head of the table taken by the head minister of a democratically-elected government. The very top of the tree is therefore reserved for the prime or first Minister of state - though American decks would be likely to feature a President. And why not?
Finally, and most appropriately for a card which undercuts the poorest and trumps the richest, the Ace would be replaced by the Crisis. Financial, nuclear or any other - these are the moments in life that make heroes or villains of us all. The crisis would represent those things that are beyond anyone's control - and indeed, in some parts of the world, there are those that would doubtless argue that the Ace should represent a deity, as the only one with the power to topple Kings. The modern age however, cries out for a secular card.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)