This posting was originally added on 11 October 2001 to the Transition Town Liverpool blog age at www.transitionliverpool.org/1/post/2011/10/what-transition-could-learn-from-napster.html
I am on the Transition Town Liverpool "core Group". It was my view of Jeremy Rifkin's concepts of a "third industrial revolution. I've polished it up a bit and added it here:
POST BEGINS
It's difficult to disagree that there is a need for some form of “third industrial revolution”
Those of you who know my local economic and regeneration background will know that I’ve long postulated the need for economic localism, and for something I call the “third culture.” To me, the third culture is a place of opportunity that sits between economics and society. Or to put it another way, it acknowledges a gap that exists, which is possibly widening, between economic theory and social impact. Whilst this gap might be dire and frightening, it is also a place of opportunity.
I use the term third culture because it seems to me that it is society that pays when economic concepts or theories, or decisions, fail. Thus, we need something new and something different to re-connect them. This is ironic, as economics is a social science borne from societal needs, which in simple economic terms meant, desire, demand, supply, and transaction. These needs arose long before “money” was invented or before terms like this had names. So how can this have happened? Well, possibly because economics has become an “expert system” and to some extent opinion based, which inevitably includes politics, and decisions which don’t necessarily add to the common good. For example. It’s long been said that if you lock 100 economists in a room and gave them a problem you’d get 101 answers.
Author/Scientist CP Snow talked, some 50 years ago of the “Two Cultures” in that humanity was theoretically (and puzzlingly) split between the sciences and the humanities, in a theory about human attitude. In an era no far removed (in time) from idealists like Marx, Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Oppenheimer, and social commentators like DH Lawrence, Orwell, Huxley, Lucien Freud, etc, Snow was probably right. These people were distant from each other compared to the polymathic nature of the European Enlightenment and Renaissance, when science and art were often the same. Think Leonardo, Christopher Wren, and so on.
These days, the same concept of a parallel “two cultures” is increasingly apparent between economics and society. Despite a range of catchy words and contemporary political ideas in the UK that claim to want to address this, the reality is that politics is mainly driven my markets and privilege, and not society. So you have to ask whether a post-modern political re-dress of societal need in an economic sense can work.
So all of this brings me to conclude that there really is a need for a “third industrial revolution.” And given the pure good of most human beings, with a natural need for people to interact, take actions, and be part of a group as well as retaining the self, we do have the capacity for this.
We also have unprecedented access to information and networks structures, in a new form of digital enlightenment. And whilst you don’t need to be a scientist to extract digital knowledge from the internet (as most people seem to want to do as part of the natural human condition), you do need a certain technical ability
So are we becoming polymaths again? And are we becoming enlightened at a time of intense economic, social, political, and environmental insecurity? I think Yes. And does even the third culture have third dimensions, and indeed other dimensions? I hope so
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Creative Opportunites in a Cultural Campus
It's interesting to see yet another local initiative targeted at the “creative community.” Liverpool Vision in association with a range of local academic institutions has set up a body called "Creative Opportunities," as a free online recruitment tool designed to assist creative industries to help retain graduates within the Liverpool City region and attract new blood from further afield.”
Despite the obvious clash of objectives between localism and externalism I would say “fair enough,” except that several of the key partners to this venture, namely the two central Liverpool universities, set up something identical back in 2008 called “The Culture Campus.” But having set up an office employed a CX and set up a Board, and Steering Group (I was on the latter) they shut it down again. So what went wrong with Culture Campus and why might Creative Opportunities be better?
I accept the two bodies may have differences in identity, structure, costs, and payrolls, but the remit seems the same. So why is one better than the other? One must also wonder about the dupliccation of cost in setting up two different bodies with an identical remit, especially as themoney for both came from the public purse.
I should add that Culture Campus was the brain child of a Liverpool based academic who later had the full support of the NWDA for her idea. But even with this level of support it failed, and one of the reasons for it failure was a lack of commitment to its financing.
I offer no judgements, just these thoughts.
Despite the obvious clash of objectives between localism and externalism I would say “fair enough,” except that several of the key partners to this venture, namely the two central Liverpool universities, set up something identical back in 2008 called “The Culture Campus.” But having set up an office employed a CX and set up a Board, and Steering Group (I was on the latter) they shut it down again. So what went wrong with Culture Campus and why might Creative Opportunities be better?
I accept the two bodies may have differences in identity, structure, costs, and payrolls, but the remit seems the same. So why is one better than the other? One must also wonder about the dupliccation of cost in setting up two different bodies with an identical remit, especially as themoney for both came from the public purse.
I should add that Culture Campus was the brain child of a Liverpool based academic who later had the full support of the NWDA for her idea. But even with this level of support it failed, and one of the reasons for it failure was a lack of commitment to its financing.
I offer no judgements, just these thoughts.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
How much renewable energy do we need?
I recently attended a Liverpool Sci-Bar. This is a UK wide venture whereby a scientist or professional is asked to give short informative presentations about their work
I went along on 18th January to Liverpool’s Ship & Mitre Pub, to listen to Professor Tim Greenshaw from the University of Liverpool talk about how much energy the UK will need in the future and the contribution that renewable and non-renewable resources can make to supply that energy, without causing climate change.
In brief it was about current and future UK energy needs, and how these needs might be met. All renewable energy options were covered with the exception of geo-thermal, including nuclear. Tim is a physicist well versed in nuclear energy. He and others are doing cutting edge research on particle accelerators and reactors that are much more efficient in terms of "energy in-energy out" and less harmful in terms of residual nuclear waste. The waste from these new machines, are measured in tens rather than hundreds of thousands of years. But, the technology is new, time lines long, the planning issues complex, and new energy solutions are needed now, not tomorrow. So in line with a lot of environmental thinking on climate change, Tim was stating that we need realistic alternatives to energy use now, and not in some vague distant future.
He suggested that there is a solution for renewable electricity supply, and that it was relatively simple too. It involves "farms" of solar concentrators in hot desert countries. In the right numbers and locations, these could produce all of the world’s electricity for a limited loss of land mass, which on the whole is uninhabited anyway. The energy can be distributed by high voltage DC cables that are highly efficient and the investments involved can add to local and marginalised economies. There are issues in such a strategy of having to deal with complex regimes and energy security, but these are no worse than our current dependency on Russian or Saudi oil, or Norwegian gas.
it was an interesting and informative night, and the Sci-Bar format is - highly recommended
I am a core group member of Transition Town Liverpool and have been able to persuade Tim to come and give a similar talk to us
I went along on 18th January to Liverpool’s Ship & Mitre Pub, to listen to Professor Tim Greenshaw from the University of Liverpool talk about how much energy the UK will need in the future and the contribution that renewable and non-renewable resources can make to supply that energy, without causing climate change.
In brief it was about current and future UK energy needs, and how these needs might be met. All renewable energy options were covered with the exception of geo-thermal, including nuclear. Tim is a physicist well versed in nuclear energy. He and others are doing cutting edge research on particle accelerators and reactors that are much more efficient in terms of "energy in-energy out" and less harmful in terms of residual nuclear waste. The waste from these new machines, are measured in tens rather than hundreds of thousands of years. But, the technology is new, time lines long, the planning issues complex, and new energy solutions are needed now, not tomorrow. So in line with a lot of environmental thinking on climate change, Tim was stating that we need realistic alternatives to energy use now, and not in some vague distant future.
He suggested that there is a solution for renewable electricity supply, and that it was relatively simple too. It involves "farms" of solar concentrators in hot desert countries. In the right numbers and locations, these could produce all of the world’s electricity for a limited loss of land mass, which on the whole is uninhabited anyway. The energy can be distributed by high voltage DC cables that are highly efficient and the investments involved can add to local and marginalised economies. There are issues in such a strategy of having to deal with complex regimes and energy security, but these are no worse than our current dependency on Russian or Saudi oil, or Norwegian gas.
it was an interesting and informative night, and the Sci-Bar format is - highly recommended
I am a core group member of Transition Town Liverpool and have been able to persuade Tim to come and give a similar talk to us
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Liverpool Vision and The Mersey Partnership to merge?.
The subject of public sector mergers has arisen again. Downtown Liverpool leader Frank McKenna is suggesting that Merseyside’s two economic development agencies should merge, “in the interests of clarity, efficiency and common sense.”
I understand this rational but question whether the motive is a business one, as presented, or a political one. Mainly as Liverpool Vision are now part of Liverpll City Council's political administration. In the first instance there is logic in defining and slimming down public sector processes where the wealth to create them comes from a tax base predominantly fed by the contributions of businesses and taxpayers. But in the second the centralised control of local economic agencies by one body, namely Liverpool City Council, has to be enticing to any current or would politician with collective aspirations.
But here is the problem. Whilst Liverpool is in Merseyside, it is not all of Merseyside. Liverpool is one part of a six part administrative body, where the interests of five “non-Liverpool” local authorities need to be considered. These are the same bodies that regularly get into a mess about trams, Mersey Crossings, and so on, so what chance them agreeing to give power to another local authority. None I think; none at all.
You can also argue that the current ad hoc concept of Merseyside, its governance, its structure and rational are wrong. And I for one would prefer an elected city regional body to replace it. Afterall it is a region of some 440,000 people that historically had totally different political and economic relationships to today’s boundaries. Thus a combined “Greater Liverpool” administrative area to manage strategic decisions on planning education, health, utilities, transport, economics, etc, has appeal. But that will never happen either, so what’s left is as unsatisfactory as Mr McKenna suggests.
But on a more observational level, I worked in Liverpool Vision for six years and also sat on a body called the Merseyside Investment Team; this being a business and tourism investment body attached The Mersey Partnership. Because of this I am convinced that neither body has the full skills to effectively design and operate the type of body Mr McKenna has in mind. Liverpool Vision, for example, was engaged in physical regeneration and not economics. But flollowing its expansion in 2008, this changed slightly, and saw the engagement of some outstanding individuals with sectoral skills, but these were too few.
Additionally there are many involved in both bodies who have limited or no private sector business experiences at all. And in a strategic sense, I saw great naivety, a failure to understand emerging trends,and strategic processes devolved by external consultants with limited local knowledge, who were presumably engaged to cover the skills and experience gap.
Furthermore, if such a merger where to take place surely you would want to consider other bodies like the Chamber of Commerce, Invest Wirral, and so on. These were points I made in forums as far back as 2007, when this and other structural changes where being considered.
I won't go into any detail, but people working alongside me in those days know how sentient I was regarding “Merseyside matters” related to marketing in China and London, renewable technology progression, ICT procurement, tourism development, Manchester and MIDAS, the US Eastern seaboard, and more. But my progressive and open thinking was ignored then, but later proven right. And it was offered as someone with professional experiences as a business analyst. I was interested in value and progression, at a time when the processes were about volume and strategic guardianship. I think too that there was a lack of confidence and an aversion to risk, and possibly even disbelief that counter intuitive arguments and ideas related to local economics were meaningful.
Mr Mckenna also refers to Birkenhead, which like Liverpool is likely to suffer from public sector cuts. I agree. But here is another weakness that the region fails to address, namely the “economic and political apartheid” between Liverpool and Birkenhead. So forget the idea of a Liverpool Embassy in London, as described elsewhere on this blog. Why doesn’t Liverpool do something more local d "twin" with Birkenhead. The both can do something related to economic geography and deconstruct the monopolisation of the River Mersey by our friends at Merseytravel. A monopoly that kills the local economy.
It dawned on me some time ago, that you can't explain Liverpool’s and Birkenhead’s decades of poor economic performance by bad luck, and Margaret Thatcher alone. I concluded that the “taxes” charged by Merseytravel using and crossing the river by boat, car or train, has more to do with it. It's a real cost on labour, services and more.
Mr McKenna also talked of Liverpool's historic "grim existence as a marginal city." I know what he means in socio-economic terms, but in geographical terms Liverpool will always will be on the margin, and this is why it needs better and more localised strategies. These should include the Liverpool Bay, life beyond the Bay and ideas related to geography as much as community, culture, and economics. And this thinking has to be locally defined and not based on "any place" consultancy opinions that could almost apply to anywhere, and frequently do.
So is Mr McKennas idea valid. Yes it is, but I dont think he goes far enough or deep enough into a critical issue that affects us all on Merseyside.
I understand this rational but question whether the motive is a business one, as presented, or a political one. Mainly as Liverpool Vision are now part of Liverpll City Council's political administration. In the first instance there is logic in defining and slimming down public sector processes where the wealth to create them comes from a tax base predominantly fed by the contributions of businesses and taxpayers. But in the second the centralised control of local economic agencies by one body, namely Liverpool City Council, has to be enticing to any current or would politician with collective aspirations.
But here is the problem. Whilst Liverpool is in Merseyside, it is not all of Merseyside. Liverpool is one part of a six part administrative body, where the interests of five “non-Liverpool” local authorities need to be considered. These are the same bodies that regularly get into a mess about trams, Mersey Crossings, and so on, so what chance them agreeing to give power to another local authority. None I think; none at all.
You can also argue that the current ad hoc concept of Merseyside, its governance, its structure and rational are wrong. And I for one would prefer an elected city regional body to replace it. Afterall it is a region of some 440,000 people that historically had totally different political and economic relationships to today’s boundaries. Thus a combined “Greater Liverpool” administrative area to manage strategic decisions on planning education, health, utilities, transport, economics, etc, has appeal. But that will never happen either, so what’s left is as unsatisfactory as Mr McKenna suggests.
But on a more observational level, I worked in Liverpool Vision for six years and also sat on a body called the Merseyside Investment Team; this being a business and tourism investment body attached The Mersey Partnership. Because of this I am convinced that neither body has the full skills to effectively design and operate the type of body Mr McKenna has in mind. Liverpool Vision, for example, was engaged in physical regeneration and not economics. But flollowing its expansion in 2008, this changed slightly, and saw the engagement of some outstanding individuals with sectoral skills, but these were too few.
Additionally there are many involved in both bodies who have limited or no private sector business experiences at all. And in a strategic sense, I saw great naivety, a failure to understand emerging trends,and strategic processes devolved by external consultants with limited local knowledge, who were presumably engaged to cover the skills and experience gap.
Furthermore, if such a merger where to take place surely you would want to consider other bodies like the Chamber of Commerce, Invest Wirral, and so on. These were points I made in forums as far back as 2007, when this and other structural changes where being considered.
I won't go into any detail, but people working alongside me in those days know how sentient I was regarding “Merseyside matters” related to marketing in China and London, renewable technology progression, ICT procurement, tourism development, Manchester and MIDAS, the US Eastern seaboard, and more. But my progressive and open thinking was ignored then, but later proven right. And it was offered as someone with professional experiences as a business analyst. I was interested in value and progression, at a time when the processes were about volume and strategic guardianship. I think too that there was a lack of confidence and an aversion to risk, and possibly even disbelief that counter intuitive arguments and ideas related to local economics were meaningful.
Mr Mckenna also refers to Birkenhead, which like Liverpool is likely to suffer from public sector cuts. I agree. But here is another weakness that the region fails to address, namely the “economic and political apartheid” between Liverpool and Birkenhead. So forget the idea of a Liverpool Embassy in London, as described elsewhere on this blog. Why doesn’t Liverpool do something more local d "twin" with Birkenhead. The both can do something related to economic geography and deconstruct the monopolisation of the River Mersey by our friends at Merseytravel. A monopoly that kills the local economy.
It dawned on me some time ago, that you can't explain Liverpool’s and Birkenhead’s decades of poor economic performance by bad luck, and Margaret Thatcher alone. I concluded that the “taxes” charged by Merseytravel using and crossing the river by boat, car or train, has more to do with it. It's a real cost on labour, services and more.
Mr McKenna also talked of Liverpool's historic "grim existence as a marginal city." I know what he means in socio-economic terms, but in geographical terms Liverpool will always will be on the margin, and this is why it needs better and more localised strategies. These should include the Liverpool Bay, life beyond the Bay and ideas related to geography as much as community, culture, and economics. And this thinking has to be locally defined and not based on "any place" consultancy opinions that could almost apply to anywhere, and frequently do.
So is Mr McKennas idea valid. Yes it is, but I dont think he goes far enough or deep enough into a critical issue that affects us all on Merseyside.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
A Liverpool Embassy
Here’s another late posting. I should have posted this pre Xmas as I was there, at the event. And I was not alone. It was rather busy and “chattery” in the usual Liverpool sort of way, in the Town Hall. We'd beeninvited to hear an announcment, severl infact, related to Liverpool Council opening an embassy in London. Just what Santa ordered for the suits, loot, and Ruperts, of the Smog.
Event over and with the glow of Christmas almost upon us I was even invited to “do something” at the embassy, in the New Year, from no less a figure that one from the events “top table”. Game on. But a later inquiry did not get the same positive response that I’d had (and enjoyed) on the day. Game off, or merely a delay in a game of three halves?
So there I was, pre event, observing the dais/top table of the usual currents, hopefuls, was beens, or could have beens, which was not unlike the ID parade from “Never mind the Buzzcocks.” The host, Frank McKenna was as slick as ever, and absolutely in his element amidst a socialist top dais and capitalist under dais.
But once again I was forced to contemplate, beyond the event, how the splendid Liverpool urbanist website “Downtown Liverpool” became “Downtown Liverpool in Business,” which in itself has spawned “Downtown Preston” and “Downtown Manchester.” But in order to avoid confusion there are no embassy’s planned there, or from there. Manchester, in case you don’t know , is a small damp hillside village, by the Pennines, while Preston is a city with a plan for a tram. A plan I was involved in and helped shape.
Anyway, back in the Town Hall, I could not help contemplate the very inconvenient fact that despite what anyone said on the day about owning the idea of a Liverpool Embassy, the idea is not new. Nor is it remote. Mainly as that wonderfully humanist local artist Alex Corina beat them to it. Ok, he did not launch an embassy in London, but he did launch “The Garston Cultural Embassy” back in Liverpool’s Capital of Culture year of 2008. He was seeking, and some would say rightly so, full cultural independence from Liverpool, despite Garston being in Liverpool! It was a brilliant idea and attracted lots of press coverage, so that’s where the idea arose, no doubt about it. Alex, by the way, was also my inspiration for Made in Liverpool Ltd.
I can take no personal credit myself for anything to do with the Embassy, but I can take credit for a parallel idea. In 2008/9 I dreamt up and documented an idea at Liverpool Vision, which I left on someone’s desk, for Liverpool to become a UNESCO world city of music. In fact I referred to several different UNESCO world city nominations and thought we might go for a few. I even contacted UNESCO. It's a long story and worthy, perhaps of a posting in its own right, but not now. To this day I’ve had no credit for this idea, despite it being taken on by Liverpool Vision, and others. I have even seen a phrase I used in my paper, that Liverpool might just sneak onto such a World City of Music list ahead of Bruges, in Belgium who are already a UNESCO world city of music. So there you go.
Anyway, during the exact same week, and thought processes I started to concoct to research it, I met and invited the retiring UK Ambassador to Iceland to become Liverpool’s Ambassador to the UK. The introduction was courtesy of Ingi Thor Jonsson who organised the NICE festival at the Liverpool CUC Gallery. In fact it was the varied events at the gallery that week, and the richness and breadth of the culture on offer, and the 30 plus nations providing it, that gave me the idea to contact UNESCO and define the World City ideas.
But back to Mr Ambassador; I was interested in seeing if we could find a respected and diplomatic “Scouse neutral” who would be prepared to explain Liverpool to the wider world, and most noticeably to the UK Government in London. Many, including Andrew Pearce, a retired and respected Merseyside Euro MP, thought it a great and mischievous idea, but Mr Ambassador’s wife wanted him home to stay at home and do the gardening! I don’t blame her. why grab nettles when you can pick plums?
So I like the idea of the Embassy, but I don’t like the claims of originality. Nor do I like how/where the Embassy is “hidden.” From memory it is part of an upper floor, back of building, in a non-descript office building close to Liverpool Street station. Thus its a bit Midtown. Ok its city but not City, if you know what I mean. Liverpool is not so discrete and quiet. It's “West End”, front of house, and half hanging out of the lobby in a gregarious state.
Meanwhile the last great Embassy debate regarding Liverpool arose when the city hosted the one and only embassy of the US confederacy during the US Civil War. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but..............?
So we'll see what happens, how long it last, and if I get to go. Watch this space.
Event over and with the glow of Christmas almost upon us I was even invited to “do something” at the embassy, in the New Year, from no less a figure that one from the events “top table”. Game on. But a later inquiry did not get the same positive response that I’d had (and enjoyed) on the day. Game off, or merely a delay in a game of three halves?
So there I was, pre event, observing the dais/top table of the usual currents, hopefuls, was beens, or could have beens, which was not unlike the ID parade from “Never mind the Buzzcocks.” The host, Frank McKenna was as slick as ever, and absolutely in his element amidst a socialist top dais and capitalist under dais.
But once again I was forced to contemplate, beyond the event, how the splendid Liverpool urbanist website “Downtown Liverpool” became “Downtown Liverpool in Business,” which in itself has spawned “Downtown Preston” and “Downtown Manchester.” But in order to avoid confusion there are no embassy’s planned there, or from there. Manchester, in case you don’t know , is a small damp hillside village, by the Pennines, while Preston is a city with a plan for a tram. A plan I was involved in and helped shape.
Anyway, back in the Town Hall, I could not help contemplate the very inconvenient fact that despite what anyone said on the day about owning the idea of a Liverpool Embassy, the idea is not new. Nor is it remote. Mainly as that wonderfully humanist local artist Alex Corina beat them to it. Ok, he did not launch an embassy in London, but he did launch “The Garston Cultural Embassy” back in Liverpool’s Capital of Culture year of 2008. He was seeking, and some would say rightly so, full cultural independence from Liverpool, despite Garston being in Liverpool! It was a brilliant idea and attracted lots of press coverage, so that’s where the idea arose, no doubt about it. Alex, by the way, was also my inspiration for Made in Liverpool Ltd.
I can take no personal credit myself for anything to do with the Embassy, but I can take credit for a parallel idea. In 2008/9 I dreamt up and documented an idea at Liverpool Vision, which I left on someone’s desk, for Liverpool to become a UNESCO world city of music. In fact I referred to several different UNESCO world city nominations and thought we might go for a few. I even contacted UNESCO. It's a long story and worthy, perhaps of a posting in its own right, but not now. To this day I’ve had no credit for this idea, despite it being taken on by Liverpool Vision, and others. I have even seen a phrase I used in my paper, that Liverpool might just sneak onto such a World City of Music list ahead of Bruges, in Belgium who are already a UNESCO world city of music. So there you go.
Anyway, during the exact same week, and thought processes I started to concoct to research it, I met and invited the retiring UK Ambassador to Iceland to become Liverpool’s Ambassador to the UK. The introduction was courtesy of Ingi Thor Jonsson who organised the NICE festival at the Liverpool CUC Gallery. In fact it was the varied events at the gallery that week, and the richness and breadth of the culture on offer, and the 30 plus nations providing it, that gave me the idea to contact UNESCO and define the World City ideas.
But back to Mr Ambassador; I was interested in seeing if we could find a respected and diplomatic “Scouse neutral” who would be prepared to explain Liverpool to the wider world, and most noticeably to the UK Government in London. Many, including Andrew Pearce, a retired and respected Merseyside Euro MP, thought it a great and mischievous idea, but Mr Ambassador’s wife wanted him home to stay at home and do the gardening! I don’t blame her. why grab nettles when you can pick plums?
So I like the idea of the Embassy, but I don’t like the claims of originality. Nor do I like how/where the Embassy is “hidden.” From memory it is part of an upper floor, back of building, in a non-descript office building close to Liverpool Street station. Thus its a bit Midtown. Ok its city but not City, if you know what I mean. Liverpool is not so discrete and quiet. It's “West End”, front of house, and half hanging out of the lobby in a gregarious state.
Meanwhile the last great Embassy debate regarding Liverpool arose when the city hosted the one and only embassy of the US confederacy during the US Civil War. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but..............?
So we'll see what happens, how long it last, and if I get to go. Watch this space.
Friday, 28 January 2011
Made in Liverpool is Coming
I should moan about myself. The fact I can't keep a blog on line in anything less than yearly visits is more a testament of modern life than personal laziness. So all I can say in my offence is “out of blog, out of mind”
But word wurzelling over; where do I go from here? Well no New Year reservations (sic and sick) for a start, no false promises, and no false flags of inconvenience to top the summits of convenient untruths. Nor should I conclude that in the neo-world of the blog and the neato-world of the tweet that I should “bleat.”
Mind you in the landscaped pastures of the UK and the shepherded hooks of mad dog government there is a lot to bleat about. It's not really pastoral at all as the majority of us nibble on the short bitter shoots of recovery; whist running dogs gorge themselves in the troughs of greed and sloth. So for those who know Garret Harding and his “tragedy of the commons” there is a common that is forever England, where too many people do not have enough resources and opportunity. Its called the economy (stupid) and its broken. And those who broke it want the community to mend it, So from “No Society” to “Big Society” in less time that it takes to say four terms. That’s four terms PT (post-Thatcher)
So enter Made in Liverpool Ltd. It's a modest attempt by me to face off against political economics and do something related to natural economics, and perhaps in doing so create wealth from ideas that can help more people than just a few corporate shareholders. And in pursuing this idea I would also hope to localise things in a Liverpool context and not destroy the planet.
Now that is something to be happy about…..
More of last year, next year, More about Made in Liverpool soon
But word wurzelling over; where do I go from here? Well no New Year reservations (sic and sick) for a start, no false promises, and no false flags of inconvenience to top the summits of convenient untruths. Nor should I conclude that in the neo-world of the blog and the neato-world of the tweet that I should “bleat.”
Mind you in the landscaped pastures of the UK and the shepherded hooks of mad dog government there is a lot to bleat about. It's not really pastoral at all as the majority of us nibble on the short bitter shoots of recovery; whist running dogs gorge themselves in the troughs of greed and sloth. So for those who know Garret Harding and his “tragedy of the commons” there is a common that is forever England, where too many people do not have enough resources and opportunity. Its called the economy (stupid) and its broken. And those who broke it want the community to mend it, So from “No Society” to “Big Society” in less time that it takes to say four terms. That’s four terms PT (post-Thatcher)
So enter Made in Liverpool Ltd. It's a modest attempt by me to face off against political economics and do something related to natural economics, and perhaps in doing so create wealth from ideas that can help more people than just a few corporate shareholders. And in pursuing this idea I would also hope to localise things in a Liverpool context and not destroy the planet.
Now that is something to be happy about…..
More of last year, next year, More about Made in Liverpool soon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)