A couple of days ago I
enrolled for the “Progressive Governance Digital Summit 2020” and watched the first few hours of the event which
is supported by the usual leftist suspects – the New Statesman, Rosa Luxemburg
Stiftung Heinrish Boll Stiftung, ESP et al .
update on Progressive Governance virtual conference; in fact things improved from Wednesday evening with the arrival of Germany's ex-Green Minister J Fischer - and Thursday's discussion were quite excellent with the Leader of the Netherland's Labour party, Adam Tooze, Dani Rodrik and Paul Mason.
This is the first such
virtual conference in which I have taken part – its Zoom facility (which is new
for me) gives the opportunity not only of viewing but of fixing chats. It’s
very much the younger generation on show - starting with a guy for whom I have
a very healthy dislike Yasha Mounk, ex-Director of the Tony Blair Foundation and author of the
very slick “The
People v Democracy – why our freedom is in danger and how to save it”
(2018)
The Conference
strategy paper was sent only in the first hour after some confusing
references to it by the introductory speaker - and is actually a very good read. It focuses on the present pandemic and explores
six different scenarios – named as
1. New Golden Age
2. Varieties of Localism
3. Radical Individualism
4. Welfare Technocracy
5. National Populism
6. School Trip (by which is meant a minor irritant)
But the subsequent
presentations annoyed for their superficiality and for the sheer impertinence
of youngsters barely out of their nappies daring to lecture us all. There was
not even a pretence of putting up a token wrinklie.
Jeremy Cliffe of New Statesman
was a typical example – with a wiste of a moustache and using Robert Unger to
impress us with talk of “high-energy politics”.
With that one exception so far, the speakers are mostly academics - exuding the confidence that comes from being tenured and speaking mainly to students - and clearly fail to understand how counterproductive they are.
They turn the rest of us into proponents of defunding university social science!! (see update below)
With that one exception so far, the speakers are mostly academics - exuding the confidence that comes from being tenured and speaking mainly to students - and clearly fail to understand how counterproductive they are.
They turn the rest of us into proponents of defunding university social science!! (see update below)
Apart from that, my day
was occupied in taking an axe to the text I have been labouring on for the past
few weeks and coming up with a different structure for what is effectively a taster for the full version of “Dispatches for the Next Generation – a bibliograph’s
notes on the past half-century”. I was helped in this by this table I found
myself doodling…..
Thrust
of chapter arguments
|
Why do
I feel strongly about this?
|
Supporting
theories
|
1.Trespassing
encouraged
|
Most senior execs are in the grip of groupthink
|
AO Hirschman
Chas Handy’s “The Second Curve”
|
2. Critical
junctures identified
|
History is written by the victors. Events were often finely
balanced. There’s too much fatalism around
|
|
3. Economics
relegated
|
Basic model is badly flawed and needs urgent reinvention
|
Daly, Raworth,
|
4. The Elephant
probed
|
Talk of capitalism and post-capitalism is too loose. Are we
really clear what the core and marginal aspects of the system are – and can
the beast be reformed?
|
Ronald Douthwaite,
|
5. A new social
goal is sought for the commercial company
|
Shareholder value ignores other dimensions
Cooperative and social enterprises employ more people than we
think – but have to struggle for legitimacy
|
Paul Hirst
Ed Mayo
|
6. Lessons of
change explored
|
So much protest fails and few social enterprises have a multiplier
effect.
How do we ensure that there is real learning?
|
Robert Quinn
|
7. Change agents
and coalitions sought
|
Progressives are good at sounding off – and bad at seeking
common ground
|
??
|
8. Conclusion
|
No comments:
Post a Comment