What is it about The Wizard of Oz that makes it so popular now? There was the new production at the Festival Hall last year. Now there is the success of Wicked. Well, I have a suggestion. It is to do with economic collapse.
The idea that Frank Baum actually wove his tale around the monetary battles of the 1890s only emerged in 1963, but I’m sure it is right. Although Oz stands easily on its own as a tale, it was also a subtle tract urging more money in circulation on behalf of the agricultural workers (the Scarecrow) and the industrial workers (the Tin Man).
Baum was involved in the battle between the supporters of gold standard money – authoritative and scarce – and silver money (much more plentiful). So Dorothy sets out on the Yellow Brick Road wearing the Witch of the East's magic Silver Shoes (they were red in the Judy Garland film) – shoes that neither she, nor the Witch of the North, nor the Munchkins understand the power of.
The poor deluded residents of Oz are required to wear green-tinted glasses fastened by gold buckles. They see the world through the colour of money. Oz, of course, was the well-known measure of gold – the abbreviation for ounces – and the Wonderful Wizard, the personification of the gold standard, was finally revealed as a fraud.
This is how Baum saw the wizard-bankers who defended the gold standard: “Toto jumped away ... in alarm and tipped over the screen that stood in a corner. As it fell with a crash they looked that way, and the next moment all of them were filled with wonder. For they saw, standing in just the spot the screen had hidden, a little old man, with a bald head and a wrinkled face, who seemed to be as much surprised as they were.”
All of which is a way of saying that The Wizard of Oz is about economic crisis, and about the hope of a different way. The 1939 film certainly implies that, but the original tale is also about the pomposity and delusions of bankers.
So, there I was in upstate New York a week before my eldest son was born, giving a talk about the future of money and referring liberally to the Wizard of Oz. Afterwards, an American publisher took me aside and suggested I write an updated version, still a mythic story in its own right, about also about money – a Wizard of Oz for the age of derivatives trading and Goldman Sachs.
Well, five years on, I have done. It’s on sale now, published through The Real Press. It includes a short essay about the meaning of the original Oz, my speech at the launch of the Brixton Pound last year, and some wonderful illustrations by Karin Dahlbacka, which are worth all the rest put together! Take a look at it:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wizard-David-Boyle/dp/0955226317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272399973&sr=1-1
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Radical inefficiency and my local woods
Sarah called Croydon Council yesterday to report fly-tipping in the local woods. Their response goes to the heart of the problem of public services over the past decade – and David Laws might do worse than looking here for a more radical and effective way of saving money.
The lady at the call centre replied: “I don’t think we can do this.”
What she meant was that our local park, and the woods attached, don’t have a street address, which means the fly-tipping incident couldn’t be entered on the council’s database. And if it couldn’t be entered, it couldn’t be communicated to those who might do something about it.
The IT problem was solved in the end – though not the fly-tipping – but that sentence is telling. “I don’t think we can do this.” As if somehow the failure of the council IT system is the definitive problem. Nothing can happen without it, but they are notvery interested in any problem which can't go into the system either.
Let’s just go to the heart of this. The first issue is the disastrous front office/back office split, which the Labour government set such store by. The staggering inefficiencies of this idea have been set out clearly by John Seddon (www.systemsthinking.co.uk) so I won’t repeat them now.
The second, related problem is inappropriate IT systems.
These two issues are related. They mean that inadequate procedures have been set in concrete by IT systems which don’t work very well anyway, and which excise the crucial human element. They have been put there at enormous expense and they are steadily removing the ability to act from the public sector.
They also shift costs elsewhere in the economy. This is the real narrative of public service efficiency which we badly need to get to grips with before the cuts take place.
What’s the solution? End the front office/back office split, put members of the public back in touch with people who can help them directly, train professionals accordingly. It’s about trusting people, an eminently Liberal ideal – but also, in the medium-term, a cost saving one. Because, in the end, imaginative and committed people are more effective than systems.
The lady at the call centre replied: “I don’t think we can do this.”
What she meant was that our local park, and the woods attached, don’t have a street address, which means the fly-tipping incident couldn’t be entered on the council’s database. And if it couldn’t be entered, it couldn’t be communicated to those who might do something about it.
The IT problem was solved in the end – though not the fly-tipping – but that sentence is telling. “I don’t think we can do this.” As if somehow the failure of the council IT system is the definitive problem. Nothing can happen without it, but they are notvery interested in any problem which can't go into the system either.
Let’s just go to the heart of this. The first issue is the disastrous front office/back office split, which the Labour government set such store by. The staggering inefficiencies of this idea have been set out clearly by John Seddon (www.systemsthinking.co.uk) so I won’t repeat them now.
The second, related problem is inappropriate IT systems.
These two issues are related. They mean that inadequate procedures have been set in concrete by IT systems which don’t work very well anyway, and which excise the crucial human element. They have been put there at enormous expense and they are steadily removing the ability to act from the public sector.
They also shift costs elsewhere in the economy. This is the real narrative of public service efficiency which we badly need to get to grips with before the cuts take place.
What’s the solution? End the front office/back office split, put members of the public back in touch with people who can help them directly, train professionals accordingly. It’s about trusting people, an eminently Liberal ideal – but also, in the medium-term, a cost saving one. Because, in the end, imaginative and committed people are more effective than systems.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
A peculiar moment of radical opportunity
It is a bizarre feeling. I haven’t heard all the details of the coalition deal. But I have just watched a government take office involving the party I’ve been working for over three decades. It feels good. I keep poking myself to see if I really feel that, but I do.
As a Liberal Democrat, I am of course a manic optimist – but I wasn’t sure I would ever see the day.
There is another paradox I am aware of. I regard myself as a Lib Dem radical (not that I always find myself agreeing with other self-proclaimed radicals) but I find I am a good deal more excited about this coalition than I would have been about a link with Labour, with or without Gordon Brown.
Partly that is, of course, ignorance about what is going to happen – compared with the thought of grappling with what we know only too well: the dreadful stodgy blancmange that New Labour had become.
There are going to be seriously uncomfortable issues – immigration and the way we cut spending seem to be the sharpest. But I do have the sense of possibility, and three of those possibilities in particular. They may not be the issues that the press talk about tomorrow, but they are hugely important:
1. Tackling the banks: I hope Vince will do more than just put in place the banking levy, but will fulfil our commitment to break them up. We might even get the local banking infrastructure that France, Germany and the USA enjoy.
2. Localism: it wasn’t clear whether there was anything behind the Conservative commitment to localism. Now there is. If this can be done imaginatively, we may now get a real revolution in the way we are administered.
3. Low carbon economy: did Cameron know what this was when he used the phrase? That isn’t clear. But, at long last, we may now be able to push this forward in an accelerated way.
These may all be hugely disappointing, when it comes to it. Government tends to be. And yes, there are things I’m seriously worried about – of course there are. But what we have now is a radical opportunity, and I hope very much that we seize it. In practice, that is going to mean a great deal of effort to put policy flesh on the bones of the rhetoric. But we can do that...
As a Liberal Democrat, I am of course a manic optimist – but I wasn’t sure I would ever see the day.
There is another paradox I am aware of. I regard myself as a Lib Dem radical (not that I always find myself agreeing with other self-proclaimed radicals) but I find I am a good deal more excited about this coalition than I would have been about a link with Labour, with or without Gordon Brown.
Partly that is, of course, ignorance about what is going to happen – compared with the thought of grappling with what we know only too well: the dreadful stodgy blancmange that New Labour had become.
There are going to be seriously uncomfortable issues – immigration and the way we cut spending seem to be the sharpest. But I do have the sense of possibility, and three of those possibilities in particular. They may not be the issues that the press talk about tomorrow, but they are hugely important:
1. Tackling the banks: I hope Vince will do more than just put in place the banking levy, but will fulfil our commitment to break them up. We might even get the local banking infrastructure that France, Germany and the USA enjoy.
2. Localism: it wasn’t clear whether there was anything behind the Conservative commitment to localism. Now there is. If this can be done imaginatively, we may now get a real revolution in the way we are administered.
3. Low carbon economy: did Cameron know what this was when he used the phrase? That isn’t clear. But, at long last, we may now be able to push this forward in an accelerated way.
These may all be hugely disappointing, when it comes to it. Government tends to be. And yes, there are things I’m seriously worried about – of course there are. But what we have now is a radical opportunity, and I hope very much that we seize it. In practice, that is going to mean a great deal of effort to put policy flesh on the bones of the rhetoric. But we can do that...
Friday, 7 May 2010
Risking a little optimism
I listened to Nick Clegg talking about understanding people’s fears of change. I suppose he’s right, though I haven’t quite reached that point in the recovery process myself.
But I suppose – like so many of us (at least us Lib Dems) – I have been struggling today to understand why the excitement of the polls didn’t last the full campaign, and disappeared once people were actually in polling booths.
There are a whole lot of reflections about our campaign and its authenticity that I keep being tempted to blog about, but I don’t think they go to the heart of the matter. The truth is that people seemed, in the end, unwilling to entrust the nation to Clegg on so short an acquaintance. They want to rub along with their politicians, to get to know them, before giving them a go.
Thinking back over Liberal history, it occurs to me that this is born out by previous experience. Most Liberal or Lib Dem leaders since the Second World War had to deal with huge disappointment in their first general election campaigns, but went onto their breakthroughs – which seemed so important at the time – in their second.
It was true of Grimond and Thorpe. It was true of Steel in the disappointment of 1979 and Ashdown in 1992 (Kennedy is a more complicated case). But it is almost certainly true of Clegg in 2010.
What happens next depends on the next few days. But, if we Lib Dems conduct ourselves with openness and authenticity now and in the months to come, it seems to me that – as the Labour Party fragments for want of a uniting ideology – the most exciting period of change lies just ahead.
But I suppose – like so many of us (at least us Lib Dems) – I have been struggling today to understand why the excitement of the polls didn’t last the full campaign, and disappeared once people were actually in polling booths.
There are a whole lot of reflections about our campaign and its authenticity that I keep being tempted to blog about, but I don’t think they go to the heart of the matter. The truth is that people seemed, in the end, unwilling to entrust the nation to Clegg on so short an acquaintance. They want to rub along with their politicians, to get to know them, before giving them a go.
Thinking back over Liberal history, it occurs to me that this is born out by previous experience. Most Liberal or Lib Dem leaders since the Second World War had to deal with huge disappointment in their first general election campaigns, but went onto their breakthroughs – which seemed so important at the time – in their second.
It was true of Grimond and Thorpe. It was true of Steel in the disappointment of 1979 and Ashdown in 1992 (Kennedy is a more complicated case). But it is almost certainly true of Clegg in 2010.
What happens next depends on the next few days. But, if we Lib Dems conduct ourselves with openness and authenticity now and in the months to come, it seems to me that – as the Labour Party fragments for want of a uniting ideology – the most exciting period of change lies just ahead.
Friday, 30 April 2010
The narrow imagination of the BBC
I know it’s 24 hours ago now, but I’ve reached two conclusions about the third leaders’ debate. Perhaps, more accurately, they are two emotions
The first one relates to Cameron’s bizarre repetition of the word ‘grip’. Often used ungrammatically as in “we must grip the banks”. Strange, but clear evidence of the testing of words to destruction before Conservative focus groups. Gripping was obviously something the poor interviewees approved of.
It makes me realise that what actually made Nick Clegg’s performance stand out was his authenticity. His unusual rhythm, and strange awkward – but authentic – pauses, flagged up that this was real.
The third time round, perhaps they were also too familiar to seem so breathtakingly real as before, especially once Cameron seemed to have controlled his enraged facial twitches. But looking back on the debate last night, my main memory is all that Cameronesque ‘gripping’ and I find it rather disturbing. Because, in the end, fake sends a bit of a shiver down the spine.
Which brings me onto the second emotion. Rage at the BBC.
The first debate was thrilling because it was the first time we heard those same questions on immigration, schools and cuts. The second time we heard them, in week 2, there was still some variation to keep us engaged. But when the BBC chose those questions again in the third week, I really felt like throwing something at the TV.
As if somehow the BBC believes it is their duty to narrow the election debate to certain approved topics – the same ones their interviewers harp on about every day. You could almost sense them clapping themselves on the back for their collective decision to include immigration again.
Not that it isn’t important – of course it is – but what about questions on the environment? How about airports? How about civil liberties, high streets, post offices – aren’t they important too?
But no, the BBC has decided that the approved issues must be dragged out again. Consequently there was an exhausting sense of déjà vu about the third debate. I don’t think that was really the fault of the politicians. It was the miserably unimaginative choice of questions.
The first one relates to Cameron’s bizarre repetition of the word ‘grip’. Often used ungrammatically as in “we must grip the banks”. Strange, but clear evidence of the testing of words to destruction before Conservative focus groups. Gripping was obviously something the poor interviewees approved of.
It makes me realise that what actually made Nick Clegg’s performance stand out was his authenticity. His unusual rhythm, and strange awkward – but authentic – pauses, flagged up that this was real.
The third time round, perhaps they were also too familiar to seem so breathtakingly real as before, especially once Cameron seemed to have controlled his enraged facial twitches. But looking back on the debate last night, my main memory is all that Cameronesque ‘gripping’ and I find it rather disturbing. Because, in the end, fake sends a bit of a shiver down the spine.
Which brings me onto the second emotion. Rage at the BBC.
The first debate was thrilling because it was the first time we heard those same questions on immigration, schools and cuts. The second time we heard them, in week 2, there was still some variation to keep us engaged. But when the BBC chose those questions again in the third week, I really felt like throwing something at the TV.
As if somehow the BBC believes it is their duty to narrow the election debate to certain approved topics – the same ones their interviewers harp on about every day. You could almost sense them clapping themselves on the back for their collective decision to include immigration again.
Not that it isn’t important – of course it is – but what about questions on the environment? How about airports? How about civil liberties, high streets, post offices – aren’t they important too?
But no, the BBC has decided that the approved issues must be dragged out again. Consequently there was an exhausting sense of déjà vu about the third debate. I don’t think that was really the fault of the politicians. It was the miserably unimaginative choice of questions.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
What is Mandelson thinking?
I’ve been wondering what Peter Mandelson has been doing with all this extending the hand of friendship to the Lib Dems, who they plainly despise.
I think it is this: they are gambling that hyping the Clegg effect even further will pop the bubble sooner.
Mandelson thinks that, if he is clever, he can make the word Clegg synonymous with media hype, with public emotionalism like there was at Princess Diana’s funeral. He thinks he can make sophisticated people sneer at the whole thing and distance themselves from it, before there is a general slide back into cynicism and then, well, we might as well all vote Labour again.
It may work. The reason I think it won’t is that, actually, there was more behind Nick Clegg during last week’s debate than there was behind the others. This isn’t actually a battle between a phantasm created by media hype and some solid, reliable figures, unaccountably passed over. In fact, Clegg had something to say and the others didn’t.
I think it is this: they are gambling that hyping the Clegg effect even further will pop the bubble sooner.
Mandelson thinks that, if he is clever, he can make the word Clegg synonymous with media hype, with public emotionalism like there was at Princess Diana’s funeral. He thinks he can make sophisticated people sneer at the whole thing and distance themselves from it, before there is a general slide back into cynicism and then, well, we might as well all vote Labour again.
It may work. The reason I think it won’t is that, actually, there was more behind Nick Clegg during last week’s debate than there was behind the others. This isn’t actually a battle between a phantasm created by media hype and some solid, reliable figures, unaccountably passed over. In fact, Clegg had something to say and the others didn’t.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Shields and swords
I’ve been a member of the Lib Dems since 1979, a terrifying thought. I hadn’t realised I was so old (though I was terribly young when I joined). For the past 31 years, I have been waiting for the moment when the Liberal case could be put with the combination of sanity and passion that Nick Clegg generated last night.
I went to sleep afterwards with an amazing sense of peace. It was everything I hoped (though kind of typical of ITV that there was no green question) since I first imagined Nick as leader of the party.
Of course, we are now going to have to be like a submarine after a successful attack on a convoy. We will have to endure the coming depth charge attack from the Conservatives, but it is worth it for the opportunities created.
I also learned a huge amount last night, about what is possible and what is not when it comes to policy that can be communicated. I am only too aware of what I have failed to understand, and got wrong, in the past.
But one thing I felt I got right, and I’m now sure about. This division between ‘shield’ issues and ‘sword’ issues – the distinction between those issues we can use to gain votes and those where we just have to protect ourselves – is nonsense.
The best form of defence is attack, and there is no area where we can’t formulate policies based on clear Liberal thinking which can be used to press forward the cause. Anything else is a kind of pathetic sense that what we believe is somehow bound always to be unpopular.
Having just spent two months in the USA, and talked to endless miserable and depressed people on the left – convinced that there is nothing they can do to tackle the tide from the right – I feel this is a lesson we urgently need to learn, before we end up like them.
So many on the left, including some Lib Dems I serve with, seem to have an inner assumption that our policies are deeply unpopular and must at all costs be hidden behind a ‘shield’. All else is populism.
Well, it’s nonsense. In fact, an articulate, aggressive liberalism, of the kind we saw from Nick Clegg last night, is the only way of countering the slow spread of lazy Fox News-style intolerance.
Right, now – close watertight doors and prepare for the depth-charges!
I went to sleep afterwards with an amazing sense of peace. It was everything I hoped (though kind of typical of ITV that there was no green question) since I first imagined Nick as leader of the party.
Of course, we are now going to have to be like a submarine after a successful attack on a convoy. We will have to endure the coming depth charge attack from the Conservatives, but it is worth it for the opportunities created.
I also learned a huge amount last night, about what is possible and what is not when it comes to policy that can be communicated. I am only too aware of what I have failed to understand, and got wrong, in the past.
But one thing I felt I got right, and I’m now sure about. This division between ‘shield’ issues and ‘sword’ issues – the distinction between those issues we can use to gain votes and those where we just have to protect ourselves – is nonsense.
The best form of defence is attack, and there is no area where we can’t formulate policies based on clear Liberal thinking which can be used to press forward the cause. Anything else is a kind of pathetic sense that what we believe is somehow bound always to be unpopular.
Having just spent two months in the USA, and talked to endless miserable and depressed people on the left – convinced that there is nothing they can do to tackle the tide from the right – I feel this is a lesson we urgently need to learn, before we end up like them.
So many on the left, including some Lib Dems I serve with, seem to have an inner assumption that our policies are deeply unpopular and must at all costs be hidden behind a ‘shield’. All else is populism.
Well, it’s nonsense. In fact, an articulate, aggressive liberalism, of the kind we saw from Nick Clegg last night, is the only way of countering the slow spread of lazy Fox News-style intolerance.
Right, now – close watertight doors and prepare for the depth-charges!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
