Tuesday 26 October 2010

Gung-ho Politics

The decent society that I live in does not need or want our civilian police armed with automatic weapons. Their role is the civil control and moderation of us in and about our normal life. That does not entail rapid fire-fight to see off suicidal terrorists intent on mayhem where the only conceivable outcome can be large numbers of 'collateral damage', that is slaughtered husbands, wives, children, neighbours and friends to you and me.

If it comes to that neither do I want to be part of a society where it is normal and appropriate for policemen, armed with automatic fire weapons slung in their arms as they, patrol our crowded civilian airports. After weeks and weeks of doing nothing, how do you imagine they could or would respond to a sudden threat within the airport lounge? One single shot to resolve the situation and all returns to normal, or is general carnage a more apt expectation?

There is no disagreement, we do have a need to be very concerned about the rise of terrorism but the answer is not follow the american macho gung-ho approach of massive weapons and over-kill fire power. It is all very dramatic, it appears to be decision action and total control of a challenging situation. In reality this is just a media placating hype. A hail of bullets, even if yours are bigger, faster and more explosive power per bucks than your opponents, really does not answer the terrorist threat. If anything it actually makes it worse and just spreads the consequences wider. We do not want an arms race with terrorists. Nor do we do want to encourage them to target softer and more vulnerable mass gatherings. We actually need to play down our reaction and responses to their threats, to minimise our concerns, to allay their anticipation and preparations.

The police's daily expectation is not that of going out for another days gun fight, their mental preparation leaves them singularly unsuited to respond appropriately and accurately should they have to respond to fire. No matter what training they get in the use of weapons, once the school room is left behind within hours outside of real combat situations, time will dull the lessons of control and disciple. The adrenalin kick-in will inevitably lead to over-reaction, reflex firing with low target selection and accuracy threshold. A million miles away from a controlled careful sighted shot to 'take out' (kill) an armed threat that we are presented with, to reassure our nervous concerned citizen selves. That is not the way it happens in real life, setting well aside the fantasy movie images we are all weaned on. Bullets kill in a brutal haphazard way. We do need containment of any threat but not enlargement. Actually our old image of the policeman, quiet, determined, firm and fair, prepared to sacrifice himself for the public good, is a far better role model for resolution of a terrorist threat than the frenzied testosterone driven macho over-kill techniques promoted by the singularly unsuccessful american role. Quiet containment, diffusion, appeasement is a better and more measured response. It does not make for heroic kill headlines but is more likely to be successful in the longer term.


Monday 4 October 2010

Who needs Education?

The question is of course rhetorical, we all know we need education. The debate that has continued to rage over the past four hundred years is what form this education should take. Should it be practical, about life skills, or academic, exploring the furthest reaches of human endeavour.

For me the issue is simple. Industry is best placed to know what it wants and needs from the workforce and pay for its training. It is for them to take the raw talent and turn them into the skilled operative best suited to their particular industry. It is not for government to best guess their ever changing needs and skills expectations. We do need a new take on the old apprenticeship model however. It needs to be a lot more inclusive and wider ranging. For example the building industry now needs operatives that have a background understanding of working with concrete, steelwork, masonry and carpentry and all their associated specialist tools and equipment before specialising in their chosen trade. Likewise a machinist needs to develop the hand-eye coordination skills working with a range of materials from wood, plastics to specialist metals, at nanoscale through to massive and all the attendant specialist machine operations before further training in their chosen work area. That is for industry to fund and focus on.

Aside of that the Nation needs to develop its raw talent intellectually to the fullest extent possible, utilising all the available technology to encourage each young citizen to reach for their limits.

What we all have to face up to is the logarithmic expansion of the knowledge we have to encompass inorder to utilise our everyday skills. In any particular subject as the frontier of knowledge pushes ever forward, so the bandwidth of knowledge that has to be covered also increases. To make sense of a small specific item entails an absorption of a huge background of
related information together with all its attendant sideways interrelated matter, necessary to make sense of, to fully understand and be able to manipulate the subject at hand. Subjects have not for some time been discrete packets that stand alone in isolation. Not for a long time is it sufficient to just learn by rote the times tables or the spelling-bee lists of words, life's complexities have broadened and spread out. We need to educate all of our citizens to the limits that they can reach for. That means galvanising and exciting our students to push on further and faster, grabbing every technological aid available. Yes there will be loss of precision at the small scale, faltering mental sums, grammatical or spelling errors. Better by far to reach forward knowing that life's harsh expediency will ensure these small scale loss of accuracy can and will be picked up later. The overriding challenge is to excite them to reach forward as only then are impossible targets suddenly attainable. That is what we so desperately need as a Nation . Every single student should be encouraged to reach for that limit, a university degree should be everyone's free birth right and expectation. For these citizens are our torch-bearers for all our futures and hopes. This has to be our single most important and vital investment into our Nation's future, without limitations of financial resource or fear of future debt or hardship. Without a proven provenience into a solid dependable life career. We simply need skilled citizens to cope with the incomprehensible complexities lurching just around the corner. The Nation and its citizens will have to fast on their feet and quick in mind to survive all of tomorrows great uncertainties. Invest upto the hilt in our stock, our citizens, now, as we just don't know what is coming next.

No better time than right now to redefine our education qualifications and notch them up a gear, expect more of everyone. I see more of an AO exam leading to a degree course similar in structure to a six-form college, acquiring the fundamentals, slowly focusing on the particular area of interest, but broad based, covering all the inter-related skills necessary to be an adroit citizen. Only then moving to a redefined University course with a much higher expectation in both input skills and output, say more of an upgraded Master, applying and extending a initial overview of a subject into a narrowly focused specialisation. These graduates would then leave with a degree of competence at the leading edge of their chosen subject. Our Nation will the beneficiary or not as these citizens use their new-found enthusiasm with perhaps some entrepreneurial flair thrown in to exploit and incidentally create wealth with their new found knowledge and skills. No guarantees of pay back to the Nation, but with such an uncertain future ahead and no clear path to follow this is our best chance of survival. One we must grasp it confidently and pool all our financial resources into it.