Hi Arthur,
At 10:48 27/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Very discouraging. Sounds more like a " 3rd world country. "
No, don't get too depressed. The picture I've described of England and the
police is a highly selective one. The deteriorating situation doesn't
adversely affect most of the population, only the poor. As Francis Fukuyama
points out in his latest book, "Trust", populations in developed countries
have, in fact, become more law-abiding in the last couple of decades or so.
Thus the serious decline in the efficacy and morale of the police doesn't
affect most people.
The situation is, in fact, very similar to that which applies to America.
When I visited San Francisco two years ago, and stayed at an hotel near the
city centre I never saw a single policemen in the whole of three days. Not
a single one -- neither on foot nor in a police car! At the time I couldn't
understand it. I actually felt that my American experience had been
deprived because I hadn't seen a genuine American cop. Yet the hotel people
also told me never to turn right at a nearby corner and walk down that
particular street. Otherwise, I would certainly get mugged at the very least.
(AC)
>The breakdown in social cohesion, once started, seems very difficult to turn
>around.
I'm not so sure that "social cohesion", in the sense that you probably mean
it (up and down the social classes and also laterally across the whole
society), has ever existed -- except in its "pure" form in the
pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer tribe which cohered in order to protect
its area from surrounding tribes, and in other relatively isolated examples
throughout history such as coal-miner villages in Wales (cohering against
other sorts of enemy and adversity). There are also episodes of quite
extensive nationalistic coherence when countries are faced by a foreign
threat, such as we've had in the past two centuries in Europe. But all of
these "coherences" soon break down when prosperity spreads around or an
overall threat disappears. During the First World War, the coherence
(deference) of the newly-urbanised and naive masses to their "betters" soon
evaporated when they saw just how incompetent the officer class was. As
soon as the war was over, and there was no more perceived threat, social
divisiveness rose to a pitch in the 20s that led to a General Stike and the
possibility of a Revolution similar to that which occurred in Russia.
In my opinion, the apparent lack of social coherence is not important. What
is of importance, however, is that the natural intelligence of an
increasing minority of developed countries' populations has been blunted by
State(bureaucracy)-imposed education systems over the past century. This
would not be so serious if we had a fairly static job structure. But
because of technnological change, an increasingly dumbed-down and
standardised educational system has created a terrible vicious circle. A
proportion of the school population cannot respond to changing conditions
and get decent jobs because they were confined to curricula which were
always out of date, in due course they become poverty-struck parents
trapped in sink housing estates, their children in turn then become doubly
deprived by both poor environments and schools which are even worse than
their parents.
In de-bunking economics as the be-all and end-all of life, Ray Harrell in
another posting was quite right. Economics is surely important but the
talent and culture of the human inputs are just as important, if not more
so, in shaping the resultant social and job structure.
Keith H
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: April 26, 2001 4:39 PM
>To: Ed Weick
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Musings on the FTAA
>
>
>Hi Ed,
>
>Yes, I was a bit snide about our police, I'm afraid. But they're in a
>pretty poor state actually. Perhaps your police forces are better than
>ours. Over here, there's no doubt that the calibre of the ordinary recruit
>has been steadily going downhill for 30-odd years now. (They're even going
>to appoint recruits who have minor court records.) In fact, we're tending
>to have a police force which is a reflection of the overall job situation
>-- that is, a widening separation between the bright and the not-so-bright.
>(Like the army, too, thinking about it.) Because of the declining quality
>of the average recruit and the shortage of good officers coming through
>from the ranks, the Home Office started to recruit "fast-track" candidates
>from the universities some years ago. After a minimum period "on the beat"
>these get promoted into comfortable desk jobs very quickly -- much resented
>by the ordinary "copper", of course. Once in position, these bright sparks
>then start to bring in the latest fancy management doctrines. Then, when
>they get promoted, and other fast-trackers take their place, the latest
>fashion is brought in.
>
>The result is that the old-time bobby has become ever more confused and
>demoralised, and a further consequence of this is that the Police
>Federation (that is, the trade union) has become increasingly militant.
>Because policemen cannot go on strike, their militancy takes other forms,
>such as wide-scale illness and massive early retirements for medical
>reasons on the basis of stress -- and taking with them quite substantial
>compensation. Recently The Times newspaper carried out an audit of
>policemen in several boroughs in London and found only one-third on duty!
>The rest were on leave, or ill, or attending courses, or something . . . .
>
>Corruption is widespread, too, particularly in the large cities where drug
>pushing is highly organised and needs the "support" of well-placed
>policemen taking back-handers. Police forces in "sink estates" on the
>outskirts of the large cities hardly ever patrol there, and racial attacks
>on immigrants are rarely prosecuted. In some of the most poverty-struck
>housing estates, the local councils employ private vigilantes because the
>police are completely inept. In other places, vigilantism (euphemistically
>known as "Neighbourhood Watch") is growing and many local hoodlums are
>actually kidnapped and ditched elsewhere.
>
>In Northern Ireland, the police force (the Royal Ulster Constabulary) never
>enter Republican neighbourhoods except when driving through fast in
>armour-plated vehicles. The peace there is kept by vigilante groups. Unlike
>other city neighbourhoods where drugs are rife, there is no
>drug-trafficking and hardly any crime. Drug traffickers get killed and
>petty thieves and burglars are warned once and then, if they persist, are
>"knee-capped" (shot in the leg or something similar). But, then, it'sd a
>well-known secret that there are also similar no-go neighbourhoods in one
>or two large cities in England where the police never enter, except in
>coach-loads, and only then, to pick up bodies. Murders are rarely
>investigated in those places.
>
>Actually, I think that many ordinary London policemen are quite looking
>forward to the May Day demonstrations so they can lay about them with their
>batons with permission and relieve the boredom of their jobs.
>
>Yes, I'm sure there are still many decent and conscientious policemen, but
>they're a disappearing breed. There's little doubt in my mind, that the
>policeforce, like state schools and the National Health Service is now
>breaking down and will become increasingly privatised in the coming years.
>All sorts of isolated "experiments" are taking place in all these public
>services and, as morale sinks lower, there'll come a time when
>privatisation will suddenly accelerate -- and then we'll be in an entirely
>different world in which the inefficiencies of the developed nation-state
>will be fully exposed.
>
>Keith H
>
> At 08:55 26/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
>>Hi Keith,
>>
>>I will try to reply with more later, but for the moment I must say that I
>>like the terms "spikeys" and "fluffies". The latter is an especially good
>>term to apply to Canada's political left in its current state of absolute
>>disarray. It was out in some force (if you can call it that) in Quebec
>>City.
>>
>>I would add that I'm not so sure that the intelligence of the police is
>>below that of many of the demonstrators. Watching the latter bounce around
>>trying to bring down the Quebec City fence had me wondering if they were
>all
>>body and no brains. One police officer who handled himself extremely well
>>was Mike Gaudet, the spokesperson for the RCMP, whom I happen to know when
>>he is not in uniform. He is a highly intelligent and socially conscious
>>person.
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>> At 11:42 25/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
>>> > The tear gas has cleared. The politicians and their advisors have
>>gone
>>> >home. The kids have gone back to their classes or wherever else they
>>came
>>> >from, though a few are still being held in Quebec City.
>>>
>>> Well, all may be quiet in Quebec City, but we (that is, Londoners) are
>>> expecting the biggest riots yet, now being known generically as "S-26"
>>> (after the September 26, 2000 riot in Prague) on 1 May. Enormous numbers
>>of
>>> police are already being trained and kitted out with riot shields and
>>> batons and so forth. They don't stand a chance of keeping the peace, of
>>> course, their intelligence being generally below that of the
>>demonstrators.
>>> Their plans (from what we learn in the media) are to protect about 200
>>> monuments, McDonalds' and the like in the City of London and, to do that,
>>> they are going to plant a few police in each place. The "spikeys" (the
>>> generic name for the real trouble-makers) will wheel about
>>> opportunistically, coordinating their activities with mobile phones,
>while
>>> the police, only instructable from the centre, will be slow to react. I
>>> think we can expect the worst riots yet. The whole thing is being charged
>>> up to high voltage by the politicians. I wouldn't be surprised if someone
>>> dies this time.
>>>
>>> We seem to have a new tradition in the making -- Seattle, Melbourne,
>>> London's Parliament Square, Quebec City, and now back to London. Spikeys
>>> must be spending an awful lot on airline tickets in order to join the
>>> home-grown and relatively peaceful "fluffies" in one capital after
>>another.
>>>
>>> What's the answer? There isn't one within the present terms of reference.
>>> How can there be when almost every major politician in Europe has been
>>> tainted with suspicions of corruption on a large scale in each case --
>>> Kohl, Schmidt, Mitterand, not to mention the relatives (such as the
>>alleged
>>> backhanders to Thatcher's son, Mark)? Political scandals follow one
>>> another like cars off the production line. How can there be an answer
>when
>>> important political decisions are taken in secret according to hidden
>>> agendas (as is now occurring with Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK)
>>without
>>> consulting the experts and with no public debate?
>>>
>>> No wonder that only a minority of young adults bother to vote in General
>>> Elections (only 44% of 18-24 yr olds last time, and probably about 33% in
>>> the one due to be held in June). Within three or four more General
>>> Elections, only a minority of the whole electorate will bother to vote.
>>> This is not a short term phenomenon -- it has been going on for decades.
>>> This trend, plus the riots, are clear signs that the present political
>>> system is coming to an end and has got to change radically. This is
>>> Chartism of the 19th century all over again.
>>>
>>> Keith Hudson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What’s it
>>> >all mean? From the media reports, I gathered that much of the discussion
>>> >among leaders focused on the politics of a more closely linked western
>>> >hemisphere, not on the economics, though economics may well have
>>dominated
>>> >discussion in the back rooms. Politicians appeared to give particular
>>> >attention to the so-called "Democracy Clause", which was intended to
>>> >establish conditions that would exclude non-democratically elected
>>> >countries from the FTAA. It would seem that, as long as a country could
>>> >demonstrate that its leadership was elected, it was in, regardless of
>>how
>>> >elections were held or rigged, how power was distributed, and who had
>>> >control behind the scenes. Dictatorships like Cuba, even if benevolent,
>>> >were out. The economics will undoubtedly prove more troublesome. The
>>> >protesters on the street were probably right in seeing the FTAA as a
>>means
>>> >of making it easier for corporate capital to move from the richer parts
>>of
>>> >the western hemisphere, mainly the United States, into the poorer parts
>>> >where labour was cheaper and restrictive environmental and social
>>> >regulations were fewer. However, the protesters were wrong in making
>>this
>>> >look all bad. Poor countries would benefit and so might the rich. For
>>> >example, Jamaica is alleged to have become a major transshipment point
>>for
>>> >drugs moving from South America to the United States not only because
>>the
>>> >drug trade is extremely lucrative but also because young people in the
>>> >vast shanty towns of Kingston can find little else to do. Giving them
>>some
>>> >alternatives and raising the standard of living even a little might do
>>> >something positive in stemming the flow of drugs. Providing more jobs
>at
>>> >home could also stem the brain-drain which Jamaica and other Caribbean
>>> >countries are experiencing. As another example, people who must live in
>>> >the huge and growing slums of Sao Paulo have a strong work ethic and
>>will
>>> >do anything legal or illegal, to keep themselves and their families
>>alive.
>>> >They try to learn English in little classes held at night to get jobs in
>>> >downtown hotels. Even exploitative foreign investment would be welcome.
>>> >Unions were out in some force in Quebec City. They do not want to see
>>> >capital move from the United States and Canada to Jamaica and Brazil.
>It
>>> >means a loss of jobs for their members and a further decline in their
>>> >powers. However, the movement of capital to cheaper labour abroad has
>>been
>>> >only one of a number of factors accounting for the decline of unions,
>>and
>>> >not likely the most important factor. The industrial structure of
>>advanced
>>> >economies, the nature of work, and the character of employer-employee
>>> >relations, have all changed greatly over the past few decades and would
>>> >all seem to have eroded labour power. But the most important thing about
>>> >the FTAA is that it is unlikely to result in anything very substantial
>>by
>>> >2005, the target date set at Quebec City. Indeed, it will probably not
>>> >result in very much that could not happen under bi- or tri-lateral
>>> >arrangements. There are just too many problems and differences among
>the
>>> >countries of the Americas to permit the establishment of something
>>unified
>>> >and workable. They vary enormously in wealth, income distribution,
>>> >education, the composition of populations, and other such factors.
>>Efforts
>>> >have been made to establish freer trade. The most notable example is
>>> >Mercosur, the trading block which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay
>>and
>>> >Uruguay. At present, however, Mercosur appears to be in some trouble.*
>>> >The FTAA will most certainly not result in anything resembling the
>>European
>>> > Union. Member nations of the EU were originally much closer to enjoying
>>a
>>> >similar standard of living than are countries of the Americas. They have
>>> >put years of work into fiscal restructuring. They were willing to
>>> >relinquish important powers of governance, including monetary policy,
>to
>>> >central authorities. There is no way that one can see anything similar
>>for
>>> >the Americas in the next few decades. * (See:
>>> >http://www.stratfor.com/home/giu/archive/042401.asp#Cavallo) Ed Weick
>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
>>> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>>> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
>>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>___________________________________________________________________
>
>Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
>6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
