When a friend suggested I might like to join him in setting up a discussion group under the auspices of the University of the Third Age (U3A), he was spot-on, given that I am inclined to argue this or that topic just for intellectual exercise. I did have reservations about the formal commitment of my time, a commodity that is increasingly precious on account of its diminishing availability, but I went along to the inaugural meeting, where we discussed what we might discuss. I’m not sure this was fully resolved but we ticked off some admin, like choosing an organiser and a venue. It was at this point the U3A rep produced a venue safety-assessment form, causing several of us to roll our eyes. Days later, I got my come-uppance in an unlit car park, when I strode into a concrete bollard, bruising my left thigh and twisting my right knee. I was saved from a potentially more injurious fall only by my intuitive balance-recovery mechanism – still functioning but inevitably on the wane, I fear. Perhaps our group might like to discuss the proposition that Health and Safety hasn’t really “gone mad”?
Despite my injury, I was able to drive. We were off to a demonstration outside the HQ of our local water supply company, one of the many that has been called out repeatedly for polluting our waterways with raw sewage. Our message was simple: clean up your act. Our method of delivery was direct: raise a few banners and offer explanatory leaflets to employees arriving for work. Admittedly, the effectiveness of such actions can only be evaluated in the long term and in connection with pressure applied through other channels. Cumulatively, they might have the desired effect, but our single action produced no immediately visible response from the management on site. Some employees took the leaflets proffered, one or two engaged in brief exchanges but, for the most part they shouldered past and tried to ignore us, some wearing a look of disgust, such as you might when breast-stroking through sewage.
It seems inevitable that pollution, waste and under-investment in infrastructure are the inevitable outcomes of profiteering from the private provision of utilities, though there is no guarantee that public ownership would manage things better. That could prove to be another lively discussion for our U3A group but, unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I won’t be at the next session. In fact, my diary is getting busy to the point of crowding out my favourite pastime, loafing. This week, as part of my commitment to a local Community Interest Company, I signed up to a series of seminars on Alternative Business Models. The first meeting, like the one at U3A, was about defining the expectations of the participants. This didn’t take long, as we were outnumbered by the organiser’s representatives, a healthy ratio for efficient learning but a disappointing index of the extent of local social-entrepreneurial ambition. The purpose of the course is to provide guidance for people involved in running not-for-profit, co-operative or charitable companies, of which there are many legally allowable types. Understandably, HMRC doesn’t want any tax-dodging so it has woven a tight mesh of regulations for these small-scale, socially responsible companies. Meanwhile, multi-national corporations, whose sole purpose is the generation of private wealth, are able to avoid HMRC’s attention by off-shoring their profits. Not that I’m carping, but the resulting accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the many has socially adverse effects that are quantifiably undesirable.
If it ever came up, Alternative Economic Models is a seminar I would like to join. Would a sustainable economy serve humanity better than an extractive and – by definition – unsustainable economy? Whether at a U3A group or elsewhere, I would be interested to hear anybody argue for the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment