A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only.
www.brucenixon.com
providing healthy food, quality products, good service and good value. Governments and business leaders
must see that the system needs to be fundamentally changed.
The bias for “big ideas” Anxious to appear to be getting something done, they are attracted to big solutions
supplied by big business. These are “solutions” imposed by central government instead of devolving power
to local people and enabling them to solve their problems. An example is the “Pathfinder“ demolition
programme and “Housing Market Renewal” leading to “tinning up” large swathes of good Victorian terraced
homes in Northern cities like Liverpool, Manchester, Oldham, Salford and St Helens. The flawed rationale
was that it would lead to economic renewal. Some 850,000 homes were to be involved in this scheme.
Residents say they were kept in the dark until the last moment. It devalued their homes, broke up
communities, resulted in few new affordable homes and caused considerable hardship for many people. The
main beneficiaries were not local people but developers, councils and housing trusts.
The so-called urban “Renaissance“ by Business Improvement Districts created huge shopping complexes in
former public spaces now owned and controlled by large property companies, posing threats to civil liberties
and local democracy – Liverpool One, Blue Water, Cardinal Place Victoria, Paddington Waterside, west
London’s Westfield shopping centre, Metro Centre Gateshead and Cardiff Bay. These schemes destroy the
unique character of place; they sweep away much loved buildings. Such approaches led to a greater increase
in poverty under New Labour than under Mrs Thatcher. These big ideas were imported from USA. Read
about how the needs and wishes of local people were ignored in Anna Minton’s revealing book, Ground
Control – Fear and happiness in the twenty –first –century city.
Too few political leaders are qualified for the job. Government lags behind. It doesn’t do what the majority
of enlightened citizens want. They don’t have the necessary holistic or ecological education. They lack
experience of leading people or leading change. They don’t understand what it is to be a servant leader; how
change comes about; how to include people; how to reach good decisions by listening to diverse views; how
to get people to take responsibility by devolving power. They withhold information; to be blunt, they lie, are
stubbornly defensive, unaware they are in denial. They underestimate the public. They hold onto power and
centralise. They concede reforms reluctantly because it means letting go. Too often, they over-react to
dramatic media reports. They deal with symptoms instead of underlying causes. They rely too much on
business for briefings, rather than people who have in-depth, on the ground experience and have done
research. Political power, manipulation and adversarial, often abusive debate are no way to reach wise
decisions.
The behaviour of political leaders is unedifying and sets a bad example. “Big hitters”, “big beasts” and “bully
boys” get promoted. They behave like bruisers. Remember the treatment of David Kelly? Politicians are
constantly playing the blame game and “trashing” their “opponents” instead of working together to create a
new possibility. It is a deplorable spectacle, aided and abetted by the media, especially television and radio
interviewers with their silly “Who’s to blame?” It is all about winning the argument, rather than seeking
truth and discovering what works. Most of these leaders have a patriarchal, combative, “macho” mindset
when a different blend, including more feminine values, is needed. We are entitled to expect better. Again
we have a choice – we voted them in.
31