Sorry for the long lapse in posting on this but I have been busy moving to New York.
A TV producer friend once said to me that everyone should live in New York for at least a year so I am giving it a try!
I am a born and bred Londoner but New York has always held an appeal which my home city did not. It was the place everyone seemed to go to realise their dreams....but perhaps more than other cities, a place of both limitless opportunity but also harshness....
I plan to write about the intersection of arts, culture, politics and policy so watch this space....
In the meantime, please see below the last few blog posts that I wrote at Regeneration & Renewal - which I have now left.
The 'Time to Bank on Women' one seems to have caused a particular stir!
Sunday 4 October 2009
Social evils and regeneration
TUESDAY, 30 JUNE 2009, Regeneration & Renewal blog
What do contemporary social evils have to do with regeneration? A huge part of regeneration is about change and a book by social policy research charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows Britons are hungry for it - albeit in a more value-driven way rather than through bricks and mortar development. But arguably, one leads to the other.
If a group of individuals want to raise awareness of an issue, or erect a building where they can meet and offer services to other residents, there are many examples of where this has happened. Do local groups or residents need to do this on a larger scale to affect the change that is hungered for?
The book, which is the culmination of a two-year consultation among the public and leading commentators, describes the high levels of unease felt by the public as greed, consumerism and individualism have pervaded our way of life.
It says that people feel the idea of common good seems to have been lost and there’s a real will to reclaim it, bringing back the forgotten values of generosity, empathy and kindness.
It includes chapters on the views of people from disadvantaged backgrounds, an exploration of the absence of society and the stark inequalities between the poor and rich.
The book says some evils – such as poverty – endure as undisputed causes of social harm, but more recent causes attract controversy. These include an alleged rise in selfish consumerism driven by economic liberalisation and a perceived decline in personal responsibility and family commitment.
What do others think? Do we need to be a kinder, more generous society? How disillusioned are we?
POSTED BY HERPREET GREWAL AT 16:50
LABELS: COMMUNITY RENEWAL
2 COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
See also "The Spirit Level" book (2009) which looks at the social harm done by the growing and unsustainable levels of inequality, based on international research. The final chapters suggest some remedies, such as co-operatives and employee-ownership schemes.
For regeneration, key findings are that solutions to poverty effects lie outside of the poorest areas, that everyone benefits from less inequality (this section is counter-intuitive for some and needs careful reading), and that less income inequality does not have to mean higher taxes (eg Japan).
The next question is, what is the smallest scale at which intervention still makes a difference? Their research suggests it is somewhere between a USA state and a neighbourhood, which might be a city or a city-region?
Tony Baldwinson
01 JULY 2009 16:06
kundhan said...
its good to se this...
enlightenment is good and very imp..
i have seen that in this..............
kundhan
13 JULY 2009 15:54
What do contemporary social evils have to do with regeneration? A huge part of regeneration is about change and a book by social policy research charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows Britons are hungry for it - albeit in a more value-driven way rather than through bricks and mortar development. But arguably, one leads to the other.
If a group of individuals want to raise awareness of an issue, or erect a building where they can meet and offer services to other residents, there are many examples of where this has happened. Do local groups or residents need to do this on a larger scale to affect the change that is hungered for?
The book, which is the culmination of a two-year consultation among the public and leading commentators, describes the high levels of unease felt by the public as greed, consumerism and individualism have pervaded our way of life.
It says that people feel the idea of common good seems to have been lost and there’s a real will to reclaim it, bringing back the forgotten values of generosity, empathy and kindness.
It includes chapters on the views of people from disadvantaged backgrounds, an exploration of the absence of society and the stark inequalities between the poor and rich.
The book says some evils – such as poverty – endure as undisputed causes of social harm, but more recent causes attract controversy. These include an alleged rise in selfish consumerism driven by economic liberalisation and a perceived decline in personal responsibility and family commitment.
What do others think? Do we need to be a kinder, more generous society? How disillusioned are we?
POSTED BY HERPREET GREWAL AT 16:50
LABELS: COMMUNITY RENEWAL
2 COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
See also "The Spirit Level" book (2009) which looks at the social harm done by the growing and unsustainable levels of inequality, based on international research. The final chapters suggest some remedies, such as co-operatives and employee-ownership schemes.
For regeneration, key findings are that solutions to poverty effects lie outside of the poorest areas, that everyone benefits from less inequality (this section is counter-intuitive for some and needs careful reading), and that less income inequality does not have to mean higher taxes (eg Japan).
The next question is, what is the smallest scale at which intervention still makes a difference? Their research suggests it is somewhere between a USA state and a neighbourhood, which might be a city or a city-region?
Tony Baldwinson
01 JULY 2009 16:06
kundhan said...
its good to se this...
enlightenment is good and very imp..
i have seen that in this..............
kundhan
13 JULY 2009 15:54
Let's not fear these flops
WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2009, Regeneration & Renewal blog
I guess most right-minded people would be feeling pretty depressed about the British National Party winning two European seats.
The Government’s former community cohesion tsar, Ted Cantle, has said it will have negative repercussions in both the regions the far right party now represents and nationwide.
Whilst he may have a point, something Rita Patel, the well-known community activist who helped set up the Peepul Centre in Leicester said, also rings true. She told me this week that whilst the party’s win was “a wake-up call” for better governance and political leadership, it could never sustain its support because its agenda is based on grievances, fear and negativity – not progression. These things being especially ripe during a downturn.
Behind the hysteria, we know that the party received fewer votes than previous years. And today Nick Griffin was pelted with eggs in Westminster.
What should we make of the BNP’s win? Has support for the party peaked with the biggest economic contraction since the Second World War and is it now due a decline?
Posted by Herpreet Grewal
POSTED BY BEN WALKER AT 10:00
LABELS: COMMUNITY COHESION, COMMUNITY RENEWAL, POLITICS
1 COMMENTS:
Jonathan S said...
Of course the fact that the BNP has won two European seats is worrying, but I think this represents the high water mark of their support.
The British public as a whole has no appetite for the moronic and nonsensical policies they espouse.
Also, it's worth remembering that in all probability the BNP won seats on the back of votes cast AGAINST the mainstream parties - which are embroiled in the expenses scandal - rather than FOR the BNP.
Indeed some reports have suggested that the BNP conceals many of its more repulsive - and illegal - policies when canvassing door to door. In fact, the increased publicity for the BNP will probably do more to expose them for the idiots they are, rather than acting as a platform for further political gains.
11 JUNE 2009 17:03
I guess most right-minded people would be feeling pretty depressed about the British National Party winning two European seats.
The Government’s former community cohesion tsar, Ted Cantle, has said it will have negative repercussions in both the regions the far right party now represents and nationwide.
Whilst he may have a point, something Rita Patel, the well-known community activist who helped set up the Peepul Centre in Leicester said, also rings true. She told me this week that whilst the party’s win was “a wake-up call” for better governance and political leadership, it could never sustain its support because its agenda is based on grievances, fear and negativity – not progression. These things being especially ripe during a downturn.
Behind the hysteria, we know that the party received fewer votes than previous years. And today Nick Griffin was pelted with eggs in Westminster.
What should we make of the BNP’s win? Has support for the party peaked with the biggest economic contraction since the Second World War and is it now due a decline?
Posted by Herpreet Grewal
POSTED BY BEN WALKER AT 10:00
LABELS: COMMUNITY COHESION, COMMUNITY RENEWAL, POLITICS
1 COMMENTS:
Jonathan S said...
Of course the fact that the BNP has won two European seats is worrying, but I think this represents the high water mark of their support.
The British public as a whole has no appetite for the moronic and nonsensical policies they espouse.
Also, it's worth remembering that in all probability the BNP won seats on the back of votes cast AGAINST the mainstream parties - which are embroiled in the expenses scandal - rather than FOR the BNP.
Indeed some reports have suggested that the BNP conceals many of its more repulsive - and illegal - policies when canvassing door to door. In fact, the increased publicity for the BNP will probably do more to expose them for the idiots they are, rather than acting as a platform for further political gains.
11 JUNE 2009 17:03
Time to bank on women
FRIDAY, 8 MAY 2009, Regeneration & Renewal blog
Have you ever wondered what a planet run by women may look like? Maybe not quite like that spoof dystopian sketch by the Two Ronnies in which women rule England while men wear women's clothes and mind the house and law and order is managed by female guards in boots and hot pants.
This week equalities minister Harriet Harman has suggested that if more women held senior positions in banks we may not now be in a deep financial crisis that we are in. She hinted that the Government might use equality legislation to force the appointment of more women managers in banks. This is not something some males in the industry were pleased to hear.
When I interviewed former Dragon’s Den judge, Rachel Elnaugh, the other month, she said she had done away with her previously ruthless attitude to business and that less competitiveness and more collaboration is important to surviving the downturn. She said: “Alpha male competitiveness is actually quite outdated. Feminine businesses these days are what are needed. They are much more collaborative."
Her views echo those of some in the social enterprise sector who think socially responsible institutions are the future, after the economic crisis has left the public disillusioned with the hubris and greed of commercial banks.
Trevor Phillips, who heads the Equalities Commission, believes that putting more women in charge would go a long way towards restoring public confidence in financial institutions.
And what’s more, Muhammed Yunus, who founded the Grameen Bank 26 years ago to give loans to the poor of Bangladesh, started it with the principle to lend only to women because it had a more beneficial social effect.
Despite the male grumbles, Harriet Harman may well be onto something.
POSTED BY HERPREET GREWAL AT 17:02
LABELS: BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMICS
19 COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
What????????????
Come on human beings are greedy whether they are male or female, this aint a gender thing.
11 MAY 2009 13:52
Anonymous said...
What nonsense! Greed affects both sexes equally - sex is not the issue.
11 MAY 2009 13:57
Rachel said...
This is a really interesting debate. Mostly because behind any extremes that seem to be being advocated, there is reason in putting women with greater empathy and social conscience into banks, where greed and egoism are partly to blame in getting us into hot water. Greed may be human but that is not humanity-
11 MAY 2009 14:36
Anonymous said...
Harriet Harman is simply gunning for her boss' job - her comment about the benefits of having women in charge of banks seemed to me a nakedly self interested jibe, with the real object Gordon Brown. Give me the job - a woman - read the subtext and things can only get better.
What nonsense. Women are in no way more inclined towards collaboration than men - what causes alpha male competitiveness is a culture that rewards that behaviour. A man OR a woman can change that culture by setting a tone and rewarding different kinds of behaviour.
Harman seems to have not moved on from Feminism 101. Give me a break.
11 MAY 2009 16:01
Anonymous said...
Excellent blog, agree completely. Banks need to have a better balance between risk-taking and caution. This would happen if there were more women at the top - at the moment, many of the ones who do make it feel like they have to act like men to stay there.
Note that two women are now in charge of Icelandic banks – cleaning up the mess that the men made, according to a government official!
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/10/13/Two-Icelandic-women-picked-to-head-banks/UPI-64331223937968/
12 MAY 2009 13:24
Herpreet Grewal said...
The author replies:
Never mind gender politics, what does the evidence say? An American Massachusetts Institute of Technology study of female leaders running village councils in India found that by objective measures (building better wells, taking fewer bribes) women ran their villages better.
Also American women are about to eclipse men in sheer payroll numbers – and they're now majority owners of nearly half of the private companies in the country. But the average working woman still devotes much more time to childcare and housework.
Women perhaps have had to be more collaborative out of need. It is a fact that most of the people in the world who live in poverty are women. Research in developing countries by economists such as Amartya Sen, shows that the male head of the home "almost always" keeps a disproportionate amount of a family's income to spend on himself. What remains for the woman is spent on the needs of the whole household and family, rather than herself.
Academics in Scotland, currently conducting research into this area say it's similar in working class communities in the UK. They argue that whilst the Government's measurement of households below average income is needed it should also provide disaggregated data that may help policymakers target adult poverty and so discern its disproportionate effect on women.
So Harman’s suggestion should be seen as a possible solution that can perhaps restore a balance to our financial systems – and maybe even have a broader reach into other sectors.
12 MAY 2009 14:22
zohra said...
Think it's important to remember that the point about ensuring more women can lead institutions is about ensuring that discrimination is stamped out and these same institutions are not systematically ignoring half the talent available.
There is value in moving away from group think in terms of innovation and problem solving in the business world. Organisations that are run almost exclusively by white men are compromising their access to wider, more diverse thinking.
The Fawcett Society has recently published this report on women and the recession, which explores these issues further.
12 MAY 2009 14:23
Anonymous said...
If we are to take Harman's suggestion seriously - which I hope nobody actually does - would there be some kind of test in the appointment process to ensure that the woman selected to run with these banks is in fact one of these naturally intuitive collaborative women disinclined to self serving behaviour that are championed here?
The very idea of basing policy on some supposedly inherent gender trait is dangerous and I hope its a path this country never goes down.
12 MAY 2009 14:30
D Stevens said...
You ask the question, "have you ever wondered what a planet run by women may look like?" May I suggest that it might possibly look like Britain under Margaret Thatcher...
12 MAY 2009 14:37
Anonymous said...
Spot on D Stevens, this whole idea that women leaders can some how make everything ok has a whiff of undergraduate naivety about it ...
12 MAY 2009 14:39
Anonymous said...
There are women other than Margaret Thatcher in this world...saying something simplistic like that doesn't undermine the argument that a change of business culture is required and that is slightly more likely to happen if a greater number of women get into senior positions...Take a look at the reports and studies done of what has happened to the business cultures of countries where they have brought in laws mandating a certain number of women on the boards. Those studies are very positive about the effect of women on innovation and preventing group-think. Like a testosterone-fuelled trader losing a lot of our money, you might try doing a bit of research before you make a prat of yourself.
12 MAY 2009 14:49
Hannah said...
I wonder how many of those anonymous commentators criticising this excellent blog are men? I suspect that the answer is 100 per cent of them.
12 MAY 2009 14:56
K Sievewright said...
Without going down the 'men-can't-do-more-than-one-thing-at-a-time' route, working women with children have learned, by necessity, to use their time more effectively. There's nothing like knowing you have to be out the door bang on 5.30 to concentrate the mind. We don't have time to discuss last night's football!
12 MAY 2009 15:19
D Stevens said...
To the anonymous poster timed at 14.49, if you read my post properly, you will notice that at no point do I attempt to undermine the argument that a "change of business culture is required" or that it is "slightly more likely to happen if a greater number of women get into senior positions". You talk about reports and studies focussing on scenarios where women have been in positions in power - well, I can point you in the direction of another huge body of evidence, namely Britain during the 1980s.
So, going back to my original point - I suggest you learn to read properly as it is likely to make you more eloquent and better able to construct reasoned arguments rather than simply dismissing people as a "prat".
12 MAY 2009 15:24
Anonymous said...
Dear D,
I’m sorry that you remain confused about matters. If you did truly understand that I am talking about a change in culture, you would understand that talking about Margaret Thatcher, or any individual man or woman, is a red herring.
Best wishes,
14.49,
p.s. I suggest you go back to school, choose any years between 1 and 11, do a history report on the 1980s and explain that what happened then was mainly down to the sex of the PM. See what mark you get. Something tells me Simon Schama isn’t quaking in his boots.
13 MAY 2009 11:36
D Stevens said...
Dear 14.49,
To go back to the beginning. Herpreet, in what I think is an excellently written blog, asked a question about what a planet run by women would look like. I suggested an answer. The fact that you took the analogy to be an implied criticism says more about you political persuasion than anything else. Though it is not a view I share personally, I can assure you that there are a significant number of people that believe Margaret Thatcher did a very good job running this country. So much so, in fact, that they re-elected her on more than one occasion.
You mentioned that my initial response was simplistic. Was it any more simplistic than Rachel Elnaugh's remark that compared "outdated" male competitiveness with feminine businesses that are "much more collaborative"?
Saying men are competitive and women are collaborative seems very simplistic to me. Indeed, there are female commentators who have argued that women are much more competitive than men.
Best wishes,
D.
p.s. You can rest assured that I have absolutely no desire to emulate Simon Schama.
13 MAY 2009 13:28
Wendy Davis said...
Research into hormonal influences and brain scans is beginning to suggest that men and women ARE different - although of course everyone sits along a spectrum which overlaps - there ARE bullying, aggressive, warmongering, competitive women (vide Maggie Thatcher) and there ARE non-violent, co-operative, intelligent, caring men (vide Mahatma Ghandi).... however research to date seems to suggest that more women sit towards the Ghandi end and more men sit towards the Thatcher end.
Of course the human brain is incredibly plastic and flexible - stroke victims often manage to teach other parts of their brains to take over the functions of the damaged parts.
We know that environment is incredibly important - nurture and education can make a huge difference to behaviour- and of course humans CAN control their behaviour whatever their underlying desires.... male animals may not be able to resist a female on heat - but we can educate most men to avoid rape.....
Many of the women who have managed to succeed in financial institutions up to now have had to be "more male than the men" - more aggressive, more intelligent, more hard-working, more competitive, more ruthless - in order to get where they are against all the sexism and discrimination that still exists.
Were the playing field to be more level, I think that women would generally bring a much more sensible, sustainable and compassionate approach to our financial institutions
19 MAY 2009 13:05
Anonymous said...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/07/women-in-banking-and-finance-crisis-opportunity/print
07 JUNE 2009 23:51
Anonymous said...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/charlie-brooker-women-men-power
07 JUNE 2009 23:54
Have you ever wondered what a planet run by women may look like? Maybe not quite like that spoof dystopian sketch by the Two Ronnies in which women rule England while men wear women's clothes and mind the house and law and order is managed by female guards in boots and hot pants.
This week equalities minister Harriet Harman has suggested that if more women held senior positions in banks we may not now be in a deep financial crisis that we are in. She hinted that the Government might use equality legislation to force the appointment of more women managers in banks. This is not something some males in the industry were pleased to hear.
When I interviewed former Dragon’s Den judge, Rachel Elnaugh, the other month, she said she had done away with her previously ruthless attitude to business and that less competitiveness and more collaboration is important to surviving the downturn. She said: “Alpha male competitiveness is actually quite outdated. Feminine businesses these days are what are needed. They are much more collaborative."
Her views echo those of some in the social enterprise sector who think socially responsible institutions are the future, after the economic crisis has left the public disillusioned with the hubris and greed of commercial banks.
Trevor Phillips, who heads the Equalities Commission, believes that putting more women in charge would go a long way towards restoring public confidence in financial institutions.
And what’s more, Muhammed Yunus, who founded the Grameen Bank 26 years ago to give loans to the poor of Bangladesh, started it with the principle to lend only to women because it had a more beneficial social effect.
Despite the male grumbles, Harriet Harman may well be onto something.
POSTED BY HERPREET GREWAL AT 17:02
LABELS: BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMICS
19 COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
What????????????
Come on human beings are greedy whether they are male or female, this aint a gender thing.
11 MAY 2009 13:52
Anonymous said...
What nonsense! Greed affects both sexes equally - sex is not the issue.
11 MAY 2009 13:57
Rachel said...
This is a really interesting debate. Mostly because behind any extremes that seem to be being advocated, there is reason in putting women with greater empathy and social conscience into banks, where greed and egoism are partly to blame in getting us into hot water. Greed may be human but that is not humanity-
11 MAY 2009 14:36
Anonymous said...
Harriet Harman is simply gunning for her boss' job - her comment about the benefits of having women in charge of banks seemed to me a nakedly self interested jibe, with the real object Gordon Brown. Give me the job - a woman - read the subtext and things can only get better.
What nonsense. Women are in no way more inclined towards collaboration than men - what causes alpha male competitiveness is a culture that rewards that behaviour. A man OR a woman can change that culture by setting a tone and rewarding different kinds of behaviour.
Harman seems to have not moved on from Feminism 101. Give me a break.
11 MAY 2009 16:01
Anonymous said...
Excellent blog, agree completely. Banks need to have a better balance between risk-taking and caution. This would happen if there were more women at the top - at the moment, many of the ones who do make it feel like they have to act like men to stay there.
Note that two women are now in charge of Icelandic banks – cleaning up the mess that the men made, according to a government official!
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/10/13/Two-Icelandic-women-picked-to-head-banks/UPI-64331223937968/
12 MAY 2009 13:24
Herpreet Grewal said...
The author replies:
Never mind gender politics, what does the evidence say? An American Massachusetts Institute of Technology study of female leaders running village councils in India found that by objective measures (building better wells, taking fewer bribes) women ran their villages better.
Also American women are about to eclipse men in sheer payroll numbers – and they're now majority owners of nearly half of the private companies in the country. But the average working woman still devotes much more time to childcare and housework.
Women perhaps have had to be more collaborative out of need. It is a fact that most of the people in the world who live in poverty are women. Research in developing countries by economists such as Amartya Sen, shows that the male head of the home "almost always" keeps a disproportionate amount of a family's income to spend on himself. What remains for the woman is spent on the needs of the whole household and family, rather than herself.
Academics in Scotland, currently conducting research into this area say it's similar in working class communities in the UK. They argue that whilst the Government's measurement of households below average income is needed it should also provide disaggregated data that may help policymakers target adult poverty and so discern its disproportionate effect on women.
So Harman’s suggestion should be seen as a possible solution that can perhaps restore a balance to our financial systems – and maybe even have a broader reach into other sectors.
12 MAY 2009 14:22
zohra said...
Think it's important to remember that the point about ensuring more women can lead institutions is about ensuring that discrimination is stamped out and these same institutions are not systematically ignoring half the talent available.
There is value in moving away from group think in terms of innovation and problem solving in the business world. Organisations that are run almost exclusively by white men are compromising their access to wider, more diverse thinking.
The Fawcett Society has recently published this report on women and the recession, which explores these issues further.
12 MAY 2009 14:23
Anonymous said...
If we are to take Harman's suggestion seriously - which I hope nobody actually does - would there be some kind of test in the appointment process to ensure that the woman selected to run with these banks is in fact one of these naturally intuitive collaborative women disinclined to self serving behaviour that are championed here?
The very idea of basing policy on some supposedly inherent gender trait is dangerous and I hope its a path this country never goes down.
12 MAY 2009 14:30
D Stevens said...
You ask the question, "have you ever wondered what a planet run by women may look like?" May I suggest that it might possibly look like Britain under Margaret Thatcher...
12 MAY 2009 14:37
Anonymous said...
Spot on D Stevens, this whole idea that women leaders can some how make everything ok has a whiff of undergraduate naivety about it ...
12 MAY 2009 14:39
Anonymous said...
There are women other than Margaret Thatcher in this world...saying something simplistic like that doesn't undermine the argument that a change of business culture is required and that is slightly more likely to happen if a greater number of women get into senior positions...Take a look at the reports and studies done of what has happened to the business cultures of countries where they have brought in laws mandating a certain number of women on the boards. Those studies are very positive about the effect of women on innovation and preventing group-think. Like a testosterone-fuelled trader losing a lot of our money, you might try doing a bit of research before you make a prat of yourself.
12 MAY 2009 14:49
Hannah said...
I wonder how many of those anonymous commentators criticising this excellent blog are men? I suspect that the answer is 100 per cent of them.
12 MAY 2009 14:56
K Sievewright said...
Without going down the 'men-can't-do-more-than-one-thing-at-a-time' route, working women with children have learned, by necessity, to use their time more effectively. There's nothing like knowing you have to be out the door bang on 5.30 to concentrate the mind. We don't have time to discuss last night's football!
12 MAY 2009 15:19
D Stevens said...
To the anonymous poster timed at 14.49, if you read my post properly, you will notice that at no point do I attempt to undermine the argument that a "change of business culture is required" or that it is "slightly more likely to happen if a greater number of women get into senior positions". You talk about reports and studies focussing on scenarios where women have been in positions in power - well, I can point you in the direction of another huge body of evidence, namely Britain during the 1980s.
So, going back to my original point - I suggest you learn to read properly as it is likely to make you more eloquent and better able to construct reasoned arguments rather than simply dismissing people as a "prat".
12 MAY 2009 15:24
Anonymous said...
Dear D,
I’m sorry that you remain confused about matters. If you did truly understand that I am talking about a change in culture, you would understand that talking about Margaret Thatcher, or any individual man or woman, is a red herring.
Best wishes,
14.49,
p.s. I suggest you go back to school, choose any years between 1 and 11, do a history report on the 1980s and explain that what happened then was mainly down to the sex of the PM. See what mark you get. Something tells me Simon Schama isn’t quaking in his boots.
13 MAY 2009 11:36
D Stevens said...
Dear 14.49,
To go back to the beginning. Herpreet, in what I think is an excellently written blog, asked a question about what a planet run by women would look like. I suggested an answer. The fact that you took the analogy to be an implied criticism says more about you political persuasion than anything else. Though it is not a view I share personally, I can assure you that there are a significant number of people that believe Margaret Thatcher did a very good job running this country. So much so, in fact, that they re-elected her on more than one occasion.
You mentioned that my initial response was simplistic. Was it any more simplistic than Rachel Elnaugh's remark that compared "outdated" male competitiveness with feminine businesses that are "much more collaborative"?
Saying men are competitive and women are collaborative seems very simplistic to me. Indeed, there are female commentators who have argued that women are much more competitive than men.
Best wishes,
D.
p.s. You can rest assured that I have absolutely no desire to emulate Simon Schama.
13 MAY 2009 13:28
Wendy Davis said...
Research into hormonal influences and brain scans is beginning to suggest that men and women ARE different - although of course everyone sits along a spectrum which overlaps - there ARE bullying, aggressive, warmongering, competitive women (vide Maggie Thatcher) and there ARE non-violent, co-operative, intelligent, caring men (vide Mahatma Ghandi).... however research to date seems to suggest that more women sit towards the Ghandi end and more men sit towards the Thatcher end.
Of course the human brain is incredibly plastic and flexible - stroke victims often manage to teach other parts of their brains to take over the functions of the damaged parts.
We know that environment is incredibly important - nurture and education can make a huge difference to behaviour- and of course humans CAN control their behaviour whatever their underlying desires.... male animals may not be able to resist a female on heat - but we can educate most men to avoid rape.....
Many of the women who have managed to succeed in financial institutions up to now have had to be "more male than the men" - more aggressive, more intelligent, more hard-working, more competitive, more ruthless - in order to get where they are against all the sexism and discrimination that still exists.
Were the playing field to be more level, I think that women would generally bring a much more sensible, sustainable and compassionate approach to our financial institutions
19 MAY 2009 13:05
Anonymous said...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/07/women-in-banking-and-finance-crisis-opportunity/print
07 JUNE 2009 23:51
Anonymous said...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/charlie-brooker-women-men-power
07 JUNE 2009 23:54
Bura awards
FRIDAY, 20 MARCH 2009, Regeneration & Renewal blog
Forget about the Oscars, Baftas and Grammys - I am live in Westminster for the British Urban Regeneration Association's community-inspired awards. The name may not be quite so pithy, but the awards are important because they celebrate projects run by people that deserve recognition. Here are the winners:
Winners
Creation Development Trust, Bridgend
Nessie Club, Runcorn
Runners up
The Living Quarry, Portland
Operation Kingfisher, Lewisham
X-Site Skate Park, Skegness
Park View 4U, Lytham
Commendations
Restoration of Garrison House and Grounds, Isle of Cumbrae
Butterfield Green Community Orchard, Hackney
On a sadder but simultaneously, uplifting note I must mention the number of emotional and touching tributes for the former chief executive of BURA, the late Jon Ladd who died earlier this year and who was key in setting up these awards. Michael Ward, the current chief executive, dedicated the ceremony to his memory as former colleagues and others lined up to pay homage to the “prince among men”. So heartfelt and genuine were the tributes, it almost seemed as if Jon Ladd was in the room.
POSTED BY HERPREET GREWAL AT 14:44
Forget about the Oscars, Baftas and Grammys - I am live in Westminster for the British Urban Regeneration Association's community-inspired awards. The name may not be quite so pithy, but the awards are important because they celebrate projects run by people that deserve recognition. Here are the winners:
Winners
Creation Development Trust, Bridgend
Nessie Club, Runcorn
Runners up
The Living Quarry, Portland
Operation Kingfisher, Lewisham
X-Site Skate Park, Skegness
Park View 4U, Lytham
Commendations
Restoration of Garrison House and Grounds, Isle of Cumbrae
Butterfield Green Community Orchard, Hackney
On a sadder but simultaneously, uplifting note I must mention the number of emotional and touching tributes for the former chief executive of BURA, the late Jon Ladd who died earlier this year and who was key in setting up these awards. Michael Ward, the current chief executive, dedicated the ceremony to his memory as former colleagues and others lined up to pay homage to the “prince among men”. So heartfelt and genuine were the tributes, it almost seemed as if Jon Ladd was in the room.
POSTED BY HERPREET GREWAL AT 14:44
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Grove Roots
I went to see a film last week about the cultural history of the Ladbroke Grove area at the Electric Cinema in west London. It was made by eight local young people.
As artist Toby Laurence Belsen, says in the film: "The history of Ladbroke Grove is fundamental to the history of this country, whether people like it or not."
How? The documentary reminds us that the Notting Hill Carnival began as a response to the dire state of race relations in the UK in the 1950s. The UK's first race riots had occurred in the area in 1958.
The documentary explores the riots of 1976, the experiences of immigrants in the area, profiles heroes like civil rights activist Claudia Jones (now featured on a stamp) and examines the inherent racism in the ruling classes, who failed to inform the masses that many of the Windrush generation that had come over had been invited. Many had British passports and been asked to help rebuild the country post-WWII.
It also looks at how the cultural spark that made the area so edgy in decades gone by for artists and young people (inspiring The Clash Joe Strummer and Mick Jones, among others) is slowly falling prey to the corporate pound.
Those interviewed in the area say even the Notting Hill carnival has lost its heart to big business sponsors.
The community spirit these local residents bemoan may be gone but that's not to say another type of spirit does not exist. The fact that this film has been made at all shows that.
As one person pointed out at the end of the screening, the young people who made it should not be given a pat on the back and the film cast aside as another community project. It should be shown in all local schools, to educate future generations about the history of the area. There would be a gaping hole in our knowledge if it wasn't.
For screening times: www.octaviafoundation.org.uk or phone 020 8354 5592
As artist Toby Laurence Belsen, says in the film: "The history of Ladbroke Grove is fundamental to the history of this country, whether people like it or not."
How? The documentary reminds us that the Notting Hill Carnival began as a response to the dire state of race relations in the UK in the 1950s. The UK's first race riots had occurred in the area in 1958.
The documentary explores the riots of 1976, the experiences of immigrants in the area, profiles heroes like civil rights activist Claudia Jones (now featured on a stamp) and examines the inherent racism in the ruling classes, who failed to inform the masses that many of the Windrush generation that had come over had been invited. Many had British passports and been asked to help rebuild the country post-WWII.
It also looks at how the cultural spark that made the area so edgy in decades gone by for artists and young people (inspiring The Clash Joe Strummer and Mick Jones, among others) is slowly falling prey to the corporate pound.
Those interviewed in the area say even the Notting Hill carnival has lost its heart to big business sponsors.
The community spirit these local residents bemoan may be gone but that's not to say another type of spirit does not exist. The fact that this film has been made at all shows that.
As one person pointed out at the end of the screening, the young people who made it should not be given a pat on the back and the film cast aside as another community project. It should be shown in all local schools, to educate future generations about the history of the area. There would be a gaping hole in our knowledge if it wasn't.
For screening times: www.octaviafoundation.org.uk or phone 020 8354 5592
Saturday 28 February 2009
Hug-a-community-activist
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Well folks, there was no sighting of a hug between third sector minister Kevin Brennan and Rita Patel. But R&R can report that it was the recipient of one from the community innovator! I couldn’t really say no, she insisted. But it made R&R realise that this warm and friendly approachability is why Patel has managed to achieve what she has with the Peepul Centre.
After some quick web research, R&R found that hugging is Rita’s thing. She has refused to shake hands with Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles because of a desire to form connections and break down barriers through The Hug.
Okay, so now we know. And Patel may well have hugged Brennan when R&R wasn’t looking. But does it simply show Patel’s unorthodox approach to meeting and greeting, or the third sector’s ability to reach out to government, more than vice versa?
Patel did end the conference by saying the most valuable thing she took away from the event was Brennan’s telephone number. No doubt she will be using it to ensure the government gets things done...
This is a bloated R&R (due to all the fried snacks, cakes and Indian food consumed at event) signing off…
Originally posted 23.25
Well folks, there was no sighting of a hug between third sector minister Kevin Brennan and Rita Patel. But R&R can report that it was the recipient of one from the community innovator! I couldn’t really say no, she insisted. But it made R&R realise that this warm and friendly approachability is why Patel has managed to achieve what she has with the Peepul Centre.
After some quick web research, R&R found that hugging is Rita’s thing. She has refused to shake hands with Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles because of a desire to form connections and break down barriers through The Hug.
Okay, so now we know. And Patel may well have hugged Brennan when R&R wasn’t looking. But does it simply show Patel’s unorthodox approach to meeting and greeting, or the third sector’s ability to reach out to government, more than vice versa?
Patel did end the conference by saying the most valuable thing she took away from the event was Brennan’s telephone number. No doubt she will be using it to ensure the government gets things done...
This is a bloated R&R (due to all the fried snacks, cakes and Indian food consumed at event) signing off…
Originally posted 23.25
Bassac Obama
Thursday 27th February
The second and the last day at the Bassac conference has seen more handheld device action. (I have also since found out that the electronic pads used for the voting are owned jointly by the Development Trusts Association and Urban Forum, who lease them to other organisations, in case anyone from the sector is interested…)
This time Andrew Robinson, director of CCLA Investment Management Ltd., was chairing a vote on whether organisations think they exist to achieve change…43 per cent strongly agreed and 42 per cent agreed slightly less strongly.
Bassac’s voice and impact manager (sorry I don't know what that job would entail) – to gasps of shock from delegates – said she disagreed that this was why her organisation existed. “Organisations don’t change things, individuals do,” she said righteously in an almost feel-good moment.
Others had a more complicated view of change. “It’s not all about achieving change. Sometimes it’s about maintaining what exists, like community buildings.”
With all this talk of change it was only a matter of time before Barack Obama’s name was mentioned.Sadiq Khan, under secretary of state for the Department for Communities and Local Government, was the first. He called Obama the world’s most famous community organiser. Only three people turned up to the first community meeting Obama organised in the ghettoes of Chicago, Khan told the sector as he encouraged it not to lose heart in current times and reminding it how valuable it is, in the hollow and bland way that politicians can.
But maybe Khan’s a little different….he had time to hug community organiser extraordinaire Rita Patel, who set up the Peepul Centre in Leicester, upon his speedy exit. Maybe this shows genuine intent by the government to work with the sector more closely?But was it a one-off or would Kevin Brennan do that? He’s speaking this afternoon, so I’ll let you know…
Originally posted at 15.57
The second and the last day at the Bassac conference has seen more handheld device action. (I have also since found out that the electronic pads used for the voting are owned jointly by the Development Trusts Association and Urban Forum, who lease them to other organisations, in case anyone from the sector is interested…)
This time Andrew Robinson, director of CCLA Investment Management Ltd., was chairing a vote on whether organisations think they exist to achieve change…43 per cent strongly agreed and 42 per cent agreed slightly less strongly.
Bassac’s voice and impact manager (sorry I don't know what that job would entail) – to gasps of shock from delegates – said she disagreed that this was why her organisation existed. “Organisations don’t change things, individuals do,” she said righteously in an almost feel-good moment.
Others had a more complicated view of change. “It’s not all about achieving change. Sometimes it’s about maintaining what exists, like community buildings.”
With all this talk of change it was only a matter of time before Barack Obama’s name was mentioned.Sadiq Khan, under secretary of state for the Department for Communities and Local Government, was the first. He called Obama the world’s most famous community organiser. Only three people turned up to the first community meeting Obama organised in the ghettoes of Chicago, Khan told the sector as he encouraged it not to lose heart in current times and reminding it how valuable it is, in the hollow and bland way that politicians can.
But maybe Khan’s a little different….he had time to hug community organiser extraordinaire Rita Patel, who set up the Peepul Centre in Leicester, upon his speedy exit. Maybe this shows genuine intent by the government to work with the sector more closely?But was it a one-off or would Kevin Brennan do that? He’s speaking this afternoon, so I’ll let you know…
Originally posted at 15.57
Regeneration & Renewal's new blog
I've started blogging on my magazine, Regeneration & Renewal's new blog. I thought I'd post them here too. What follows is commentary from a voluntary umbrella body's conference.
http://regenandrenewal.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Bassac blog
R&R here in Leicester tonight at the British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres (Bassac) conference. So far, I can report that handheld voting devices are all the rage for community regenerators. And why not? It's community empowerment in action! Voting electronically, Who-Wants-To-Be-a-Millionaire-style, went down a storm at the Urban Forum conference earlier this year and now Bassac are at it. Sadly, it was not a cool £1million (much needed as it would be) up for grabs but rather what those working for voluntary and community groups consider policy priorities for those working in the sector and Bassac.
Thirty-eight per cent of the some 200 delegates casting votes thought the sector must focus on designing funding plans for whole organisations, rather than individual projects they may offer. This would be a way for groups to hand out money to projects as they see fit. This idea was dismissed by some people, who argued there was no point in designing funding plans when funding itself was so uncertain.
Around 20 per cent want Bassac's priorities to revolve around "challenging commissioners to invest in the sector for more effective public services". During 2009-10, 20 per cent of delegates also want Bassac to improve relationships between community organisations and local goverment. Bleeding obvious? Perhaps, but the fact that the same issues keep cropping up shows government policy is not yet reaching deep enough to make community sector workers feel they are not "the child" in the relationship between them and statutory organisations, as one delegate pointed out.
Tommorrow, Sadiq Khan of the Department for Communities and Local Government and Kevin Brennan of the Office of the Third Sector will (hopefully) be held to account for these popular and other long-running gripes. Word on the ground is realistic. Some delegates doubt that ministers will have anything of substance to say. "This is New Labour - they never say anything outrageous," grumbles one.
There are also mutterings that there may be an update on plans for the £70 million Community Builders' Fund, which aims to help groups improve their ability to run local facilities, services and become more self-sufficient. But some are convinced that this will be just another "non-committal" address by the Government...
http://regenandrenewal.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Bassac blog
R&R here in Leicester tonight at the British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres (Bassac) conference. So far, I can report that handheld voting devices are all the rage for community regenerators. And why not? It's community empowerment in action! Voting electronically, Who-Wants-To-Be-a-Millionaire-style, went down a storm at the Urban Forum conference earlier this year and now Bassac are at it. Sadly, it was not a cool £1million (much needed as it would be) up for grabs but rather what those working for voluntary and community groups consider policy priorities for those working in the sector and Bassac.
Thirty-eight per cent of the some 200 delegates casting votes thought the sector must focus on designing funding plans for whole organisations, rather than individual projects they may offer. This would be a way for groups to hand out money to projects as they see fit. This idea was dismissed by some people, who argued there was no point in designing funding plans when funding itself was so uncertain.
Around 20 per cent want Bassac's priorities to revolve around "challenging commissioners to invest in the sector for more effective public services". During 2009-10, 20 per cent of delegates also want Bassac to improve relationships between community organisations and local goverment. Bleeding obvious? Perhaps, but the fact that the same issues keep cropping up shows government policy is not yet reaching deep enough to make community sector workers feel they are not "the child" in the relationship between them and statutory organisations, as one delegate pointed out.
Tommorrow, Sadiq Khan of the Department for Communities and Local Government and Kevin Brennan of the Office of the Third Sector will (hopefully) be held to account for these popular and other long-running gripes. Word on the ground is realistic. Some delegates doubt that ministers will have anything of substance to say. "This is New Labour - they never say anything outrageous," grumbles one.
There are also mutterings that there may be an update on plans for the £70 million Community Builders' Fund, which aims to help groups improve their ability to run local facilities, services and become more self-sufficient. But some are convinced that this will be just another "non-committal" address by the Government...
Wednesday 21 January 2009
Reflections on the inauguration
I am recovering from standing on the Mall yesterday to see Obama sworn in. I was near the Monument where there was still plenty of space but far away enough so nobody felt the need to offer polite applause for George W Bush. As we tried to get out of the area after the swearing-in, a girl climbed on top of the Portakabins to shout out the crowd situation in the surrounding area, to those trying to get out. She even started an Obama chant...a snapshot of the mood the new president has helped to lift.
Some are cynical about whether Obama will change anything within and in the name of the Imperialist Capitalist power he now leads. Being realistic and balanced is right. But being pessimistic without reason undermines the mandate with which he was elected. People only relinquish hope when they have been let down so many times. But some hold onto it in the very same circumstances. Obama seems to have collected many pilgrims but it is about what he represents, not him. If people lose sight of that, change cannot happen.
Obama talked about the failure of America to make hard choices. Now is the time for Americans - but also those who believe in what he represents - to make those hard choices. It was a concern for me standing in the throng on inauguration day to hear the lines of Obama's speech that received the greatest applause from those around me on the Mall.
When he said: "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." This aggressive, defensive statement received far more cheers than some of his other more beautiful lines about a mature way of approaching potential conflicts, like: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
I wonder how ready Americans - or just people - are to take the mature approach in their own lives. "We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things," said Obama. Let's hope this is not a false dawn in what could be the beginning of America's coming of age.
Some are cynical about whether Obama will change anything within and in the name of the Imperialist Capitalist power he now leads. Being realistic and balanced is right. But being pessimistic without reason undermines the mandate with which he was elected. People only relinquish hope when they have been let down so many times. But some hold onto it in the very same circumstances. Obama seems to have collected many pilgrims but it is about what he represents, not him. If people lose sight of that, change cannot happen.
Obama talked about the failure of America to make hard choices. Now is the time for Americans - but also those who believe in what he represents - to make those hard choices. It was a concern for me standing in the throng on inauguration day to hear the lines of Obama's speech that received the greatest applause from those around me on the Mall.
When he said: "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." This aggressive, defensive statement received far more cheers than some of his other more beautiful lines about a mature way of approaching potential conflicts, like: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
I wonder how ready Americans - or just people - are to take the mature approach in their own lives. "We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things," said Obama. Let's hope this is not a false dawn in what could be the beginning of America's coming of age.
Monday 19 January 2009
2009 pre-inauguration observations...
I am in Washington a day before one of the biggest events of our time, the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. A man who happens to be black. The mood in the city is palpable. Souvenirs including Obama mugs, scarfs and hats are available on street corners, much like before a football game in England. Parties and events have been raging for days. Even the Washington metro's travel tickets are emblazoned with Obama's photo. The passport queue in Dulles airport yesterday was 3 hours long - almost half the time it takes to fly from London to Washington! - because of the sheer number of people from around the world wanting to be a witness to the event. But maybe due more to the incompetancy of the airport authorities to manage the extra numbers...
Saturday 17 January 2009
Obama fever
Welcome. This is my new blog. I will be blogging from President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)