In my job as a social work lecturer I had a conversation the other day about Facebook and employment. Several of the students told me they had become aware of problems associated with use of Facebook and people's employment. One was a situation in which someone had made a comment which might have been seen to be critical of the persons employer. In this case the employer had not been mentioned on Facebook. I think the employer had a legitimate issue about it not being appropriate to put info about one's employment on Facebook. However, I think their response was disproportionate to the employee's error oif judgement. More concerning, was the fact that a number of people who work in social care are apparently being told that they should not have Facebbok accounts at all. A certain amount of caution and use of privacy settings is appropriate due to the nature of social work and the fact that making too much of one's own information publicly accessible is a potential risk for employees. There is also the fact that people should not discuss details of their work or their attitudes to it in a forum where they (and by extension their employer and/or service users) can be identified.
However, nothwithstanding the above, banning people from using Facebook and social networking is a serious violation of people's civil liberties and could have serious negative consequences for their ability to socialise and have a normal life outside work., As the number of people with Facebbok accounts mushrooms it is becoming a mainstream way of communicating with people. Facebook is a faster, easier and more effective way of communicating with friends than email, telephone or amy other communication platform. It allows people to talk in real time, share photos, share one's present location, arrange outings, share photos,inform large numbers of people news at the same time, share conversations and leave comments,and act as a portal to other platforms such as this blog. Even more importantly it allows all these things to be done at the same time with minimal hassle. It is genuinely frictionless communication. It has great potential for business and professional networking which so far has hardly been exploited. It is a better vehicle for sharing examples of good practice and promoting collaboration than any alternative conduits available in most businesses. On the commercial front many businesses are considering scaling down their websites in favour of using Facebook as main platform for building rlationships with their customers. For purely social purposes it allows people with similar interests to make new friends across countries and time zones and develop new communities electonically.
Much of the moral panic and technophobia surrounding Facebook relates to the perceived lack of privacy. These comments miss the point completely. Facebook is like any other form of communication- it can be as private or as public as you like. If you are standing in a busy street you can shout a message to everyone on the street or whisper a message to the person beside you. The analogy with a street, is I think very appropriate. Banning people from Facebook is like forbidding them to walk out on the street or go to the local pub. It is a form of digital house arrest. I find myself building closer links with people who use Facebook and find it more difficult to keep up with people who aren't. When people ask me about a trip or something I have been doing I find it slightly irritating that they haven't accessed the information I have put up electronically. The divide between people who use it and people who don't is going to become a new digital divide- with people who don't use social networking being more and more excluded. Being banned from social networking is a form of digital house arrest- you are banned from taking part in an important part of the social environment. It is in fact a denial of human rights to take part in the life of one's community.
Of course, eventually these social work/social care employers will have to capitulate- just as they had to in relation to accessing the internet at work. It is a shame, however, that parts of the sector has to start from a position of Luddism and fear- rather than a willingness to embrace the potential of powerful technologies.
Meanwhile I think it is just a matter of time before someone challenges the issue on a human rights basis.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Murdoch- Just How Gullible Are You
Murdoch Jr and Sr and Reb Brooks made their appearances in Parliament yesterday. Far from being the necktie party that many expected, the Murdoch's have come out of this with a soaraway share price and some sympathy for a kindly old man who got pied.
Lets examine some of the ridiculous ideas which have emerged from the not very penetrating questioning.
1. THE OWNER OF ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MEDIA COMAPANIES IN THE WORLD IS DODDERY 0LD MAN WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND HIM.
This man is paid £7 million dollars a year. He is not a figurehead president for life who is paid a retainer. He is CEO and manages the company day to day. He could not retain his position if he did not have the confidence of shareholders.
He has been regularly received in Downing Street by this and a string of previous Prime Ministers.
2. MONEY JUST DISAPPEARS OUT OF THE DOOR AT NEWS INTERNATIONAL AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT IS BEING PAID FOR.
We got the impression from R Brooks that journalists can simply pay anyone (by cash or some other means not yet specified) bungs for information and the Editor does not know what sort of people are being paid or what they are being paid for.
This is a highly successful company with profits in the billions. If there was really such financial lax governance it would have been cleaned out in a few days.
3. NOBODY IN NEWS INTERNATIONAL TELLS THEIR MANAGERS ABOUT SERIOUS MAL-PRACTICE THAT COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE COMPANY.
Rupert murdoch said that News of the World is a tiny part of his whole company as if this is a valid reason why he did not get to know about the hacking.
In a properly run company no hazard or incidence of unsafe practice from a loose carpet to a dodgy smoke detector is too small to ignore. As the recent incidents have proven, illegal and bad practice in any part of your company can get you into serious trouble. This is why in any modern public or private organisation people at all levels report anything they have serious concerns about to their superiors.
The idea that Rupert Murdoch was having phone conversations with editors and nobody thought that it was worth mentioning cases of phone hacking beggars belief.
UNDER STRICT U.S. LAW EXECUTIVES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRUPTION IN OTHER COUNTRIES BY THEIR EMPLOYEES(and can go to jail for it)EVEN IF THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
This is strict law is there to ensure the highest standards of ethics and governance are present in all parts of a company. No responsible corporation can afford to ignore this law or fail to seriously address any suggestion that they may be guilty of wrongdoing. Ignorance is no defence. The idea that News Corp executives have no scrutinised every detail of this case beggars belief. THEY ARE NOT AMATUERS!!!
4. SENIOR MANAGEMENT WERE NOT AWARE THAT THEY ARE PAYING THE LEGAL EXPENSES OF A CONVICTED FELLON AND ARE NOT SURE WHETHER THEY HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
No comment necessary.
5.NEWS INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTARILY PAID OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENTS TO VICTIMS OF PHONE HACKING MANY TIMES THAT WHICH A COURT WOULD HAVE PAID.
In his evidence Murdoch Jr said that this was partly because if the matter had gone to court then they would have had to have paid several thousands of pounds in addition to the any pay out for the costs of the victims' solicitors. The Select Committee seemed to have accepted this. However, the whole point is that the victims did not have several hundreds of thousands of pounds legal fees because News International settled out of court. They are asking us to believe that they gave people money willingly for damages they did not sustain. We are being told that this was not hush money but rather, was a case of generosity or ignorance about what level of damages was reasonable.
6. NEWS CORP DID NOT THINK IT WAS PRUDENT TO CARRY OUT A COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION AFTER SOME EVIENCE OF PHONE HACKING WAS UNCOVERED.
James Murdoch said in his evidence that they did not carry out further investigation of phone hacking because they were assured by solicitors and by the Police that there was no need to investigate further.
This is plain ridiculous. It is not up to the Police or external solicitors to tell people that there are problems in their own company. Murdoch Senior made a number of references to external governance on ethics. Boards can only advise on issues that are brought to their atttention and Police only investigate after an offence has happened and it has come to their attention. The responsibility for what went on in this company is with the Managers.
7. EDITORS DO NOT CHECK WHERE INFORMATION HAS COME FROM OR WHETHER IT'S AQUISITION IS LEGAL.
Anyone who has ever had any contact with the media will know that this is nonsense. Even the most trivial story on a local rag is checked for legality.
8. THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT OF NEWS CORP ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED (DESPITE BEING PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR FOR THEIR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS)AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IS ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Prepare for the revelation that it was the office cat wot did it.
The media attention has now refocussed on David Cameron. Much as I dislike Cameron's Govt, I don't think he has done anything that is worse than the previous 4 Prime Ministers in relation currying favour with the Murdoch media empire. In fact he has actually shown a willingness to split with the past and introduce transparency and acccountability. And this is of course this is why he will have to go- to make way for the next corporate appointee puppet.
Look at the Dow Jones. Shares in News Corp have rallied today. The invisible hand of the market understands what is happening. This would not be the case if shareholders really thought that the company was run by people who were senile or incompetent. Murdoch stock is up and Cameron stock is down and the credibility of our Police force and our Parliament have been shattered.
Sounds like good business.
Lets examine some of the ridiculous ideas which have emerged from the not very penetrating questioning.
1. THE OWNER OF ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MEDIA COMAPANIES IN THE WORLD IS DODDERY 0LD MAN WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND HIM.
This man is paid £7 million dollars a year. He is not a figurehead president for life who is paid a retainer. He is CEO and manages the company day to day. He could not retain his position if he did not have the confidence of shareholders.
He has been regularly received in Downing Street by this and a string of previous Prime Ministers.
2. MONEY JUST DISAPPEARS OUT OF THE DOOR AT NEWS INTERNATIONAL AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT IS BEING PAID FOR.
We got the impression from R Brooks that journalists can simply pay anyone (by cash or some other means not yet specified) bungs for information and the Editor does not know what sort of people are being paid or what they are being paid for.
This is a highly successful company with profits in the billions. If there was really such financial lax governance it would have been cleaned out in a few days.
3. NOBODY IN NEWS INTERNATIONAL TELLS THEIR MANAGERS ABOUT SERIOUS MAL-PRACTICE THAT COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE COMPANY.
Rupert murdoch said that News of the World is a tiny part of his whole company as if this is a valid reason why he did not get to know about the hacking.
In a properly run company no hazard or incidence of unsafe practice from a loose carpet to a dodgy smoke detector is too small to ignore. As the recent incidents have proven, illegal and bad practice in any part of your company can get you into serious trouble. This is why in any modern public or private organisation people at all levels report anything they have serious concerns about to their superiors.
The idea that Rupert Murdoch was having phone conversations with editors and nobody thought that it was worth mentioning cases of phone hacking beggars belief.
UNDER STRICT U.S. LAW EXECUTIVES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRUPTION IN OTHER COUNTRIES BY THEIR EMPLOYEES(and can go to jail for it)EVEN IF THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
This is strict law is there to ensure the highest standards of ethics and governance are present in all parts of a company. No responsible corporation can afford to ignore this law or fail to seriously address any suggestion that they may be guilty of wrongdoing. Ignorance is no defence. The idea that News Corp executives have no scrutinised every detail of this case beggars belief. THEY ARE NOT AMATUERS!!!
4. SENIOR MANAGEMENT WERE NOT AWARE THAT THEY ARE PAYING THE LEGAL EXPENSES OF A CONVICTED FELLON AND ARE NOT SURE WHETHER THEY HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
No comment necessary.
5.NEWS INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTARILY PAID OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENTS TO VICTIMS OF PHONE HACKING MANY TIMES THAT WHICH A COURT WOULD HAVE PAID.
In his evidence Murdoch Jr said that this was partly because if the matter had gone to court then they would have had to have paid several thousands of pounds in addition to the any pay out for the costs of the victims' solicitors. The Select Committee seemed to have accepted this. However, the whole point is that the victims did not have several hundreds of thousands of pounds legal fees because News International settled out of court. They are asking us to believe that they gave people money willingly for damages they did not sustain. We are being told that this was not hush money but rather, was a case of generosity or ignorance about what level of damages was reasonable.
6. NEWS CORP DID NOT THINK IT WAS PRUDENT TO CARRY OUT A COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION AFTER SOME EVIENCE OF PHONE HACKING WAS UNCOVERED.
James Murdoch said in his evidence that they did not carry out further investigation of phone hacking because they were assured by solicitors and by the Police that there was no need to investigate further.
This is plain ridiculous. It is not up to the Police or external solicitors to tell people that there are problems in their own company. Murdoch Senior made a number of references to external governance on ethics. Boards can only advise on issues that are brought to their atttention and Police only investigate after an offence has happened and it has come to their attention. The responsibility for what went on in this company is with the Managers.
7. EDITORS DO NOT CHECK WHERE INFORMATION HAS COME FROM OR WHETHER IT'S AQUISITION IS LEGAL.
Anyone who has ever had any contact with the media will know that this is nonsense. Even the most trivial story on a local rag is checked for legality.
8. THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT OF NEWS CORP ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED (DESPITE BEING PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR FOR THEIR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS)AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IS ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Prepare for the revelation that it was the office cat wot did it.
The media attention has now refocussed on David Cameron. Much as I dislike Cameron's Govt, I don't think he has done anything that is worse than the previous 4 Prime Ministers in relation currying favour with the Murdoch media empire. In fact he has actually shown a willingness to split with the past and introduce transparency and acccountability. And this is of course this is why he will have to go- to make way for the next corporate appointee puppet.
Look at the Dow Jones. Shares in News Corp have rallied today. The invisible hand of the market understands what is happening. This would not be the case if shareholders really thought that the company was run by people who were senile or incompetent. Murdoch stock is up and Cameron stock is down and the credibility of our Police force and our Parliament have been shattered.
Sounds like good business.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Public Sector Workers Need a New Type of Strike to Win Pensions Battle
Writing in The Times recently, Matthew Parish stated that public sector workers will not win the battle over changes to their pensions through striking. The basis for his view was the comments which readers have been posting on the end of online newspaper articles. I had noticed these postings myself. They are not very favourable to public sector workers. Of course people who write on newspaper websites are not necessarily representative of the wider public. However, large numbers of negative comments appear across websites representing a range of political opinions. Even articles on the Guardian website have negative postings. The coalition Government has been pumping out propaganda for ages about gold plated public pensions and it sems to have sunk into the popular consciousness. Contrast this with Greece. Their public sector workers have much more privileges than we do in the U.K. However, the population as a whole blame the Government and the banks for their problems. Please bear in mind that I am basing my observations only on news items. However, from what I can see workers in different sectors do not appear to gave turned on each other.
This lack of popular support in the U.K. is a major obstacle for public sector workers. A second obstacle is fear. Local authorities are likely to lose about a quarter of their workforces over the next four years. People are already experiencing wage freezes and are worried about their jobs. They may feel that poorer pension provision is better than no job. They may also feel that they cannot afford financially to take part in a protracted strike which may end up in defeat. Many other workers are concerned about the effect of public spending cuts on the people they work with and will not want to add to this by withdrawing services.
Then there is the Government's need to look tough. Ed Balls suggested that the Tories were spoiling for a fight and that public sector workers would be falling into a trap by striking. He is possibly right. However, he offers no suggestions for what public sector workers ought to do. Does he think they should just rollover and accept these attacks on their terms and conditions? The Labour party has no answers and no leadership for public sector workers. This is why I don't pay a political levy.
So- Is it hopeless? I would say definately not. However there needs to be new strategies.
Firstly, I feel there needs to be a change in accent to how the arguments are presented to the public. Changes in public sector pensions are just part of a larger attack on public services. This includes cuts in spending on health and social care, moves towards greater privitisation, ill-thought out health reforms and possible reductions in the responsibilities of local authorities. Unions need to make common cause with service users, patients, and the public at large. Protests on pensions needs to be part of a wider protest about cuts in services, protests against job losses etc.
Secondly, I feel that a new type of strike is needed. This would be a strike which does not have any of the chartacteristics of strikes as we know them. The type of strike I am suggesting would have no negative impacts on the public or service users. It would involve no loss of money for workers or any other type of loss. In fact, it would leave them better off. It would not require a ballot. It would not be illegal or break any laws. Anyone could join in-even people who were not in the public service or in the unions.It would however, have a very dramatic effect on the Government and the financial markets. It would result in front page headlines and send the Conservatives and their friends in the city into a spin.
So what is this strike and how would it work?
What I am suggesting is a strike on spending. One day a week every public sector worker in the country should refuse to spend any money other than their bus/train fare to work (or up to £5 worth of petrol), a pint of milk and a sandwich. We could call, this #spendingstrikethursday if we decided to do it on a Thursday. On this day public sector workers would not go shopping for clothes, groceries, books, haircuts, outings to cinema or restaurants, holiday bookings, online spending or anything else which is not essential for that day. Obviously rent, mortgage, utilities and anything on a direct debit would still be paid.
The effect of this spending strike would be a massive blow to the economic figures. The snow last winter was extimated to cost the economy £1.2 billion per day. A soending strike would have a similiar effect. Of course, some spending would just be delayed one day but much spending would not take place at all. For example nobody is going to order two days worth of coffees the next day and a lot of impulse purchases would not happen. Also,many impulse purchases would not take place. For workers the spending strike days allow them to save money to go into a war chest for their family to help get them through the recession or to save for something special. There would also be benfits for people's health from sweets and alcohol not purchased. Over time it may result in people changing lifestyle habits as they see that they can get through the day without buying lots of coffee or chocolate and that they can enjoy saving some money.
However, the biggest impact of the spending strike will be on on the Government and the city. The only thing which the coalition appear to be concerned about is how Britain is regarded by credit ratings agencies and the financial markets. A protracted spending strike of one or two days per week would blow a hole under the water in the Government's hopes for the kind of results which suggest an economic recovery. This would be front page in FT. It would also send Britain's retail and service sector (which makes up a very large part of the economy) into despair. There would be fear on the part of big business that people's habits would change permanaently and they would get less used to spending lots of money and being addicted to consumerism. Workers to wear badges stating that they were takimg part in the spending strike and they could call in at or phone places that they would normally spend money in that day to explain why they had withdrawn their purchasing power.
One possible objection to this plan would be that people might think that public sector workers were sabotaging the economy. However, the defense against this criticism is that public sector workers are just demonstrating what is going to happen when they lose their jobs or enter the retirement in poverty. Another objection is that people will not have the discipline not to spend. However, a spending strike involves a lot less hardship that going on normal strike.
Today's FT carries a story that the Bank of England is considering another round of quantitiative easing. This is a sign of desperation. It shows that Osborne's economic medicine is not working. Economic growth is in the doldrums. #spendingstrikethursday could push economic growth figures over the edge into double dip recession territory. The Government would fear it a lot more than a normal strike. Workers have nothing at all to lose. Anyone who supports public services can join in. It could become part of a wider protest against current Govt policies and form part of a move to unite workers in different sectors and industries against the politics of austerity. After all, an increase in public spending could involve increased investment in public sector construction projects and other measures to get people back into work- so there is something in it for proivate sector workers to join in and demand a change in course by the Government.
If you like this idea and think it has potential then tweet a link to this article, tweet about #spendingstrikethursday,suggest the idea to your union rep, talk about it on Facebook etc.
Please let me know what you think of this idea and leave a comment.
This lack of popular support in the U.K. is a major obstacle for public sector workers. A second obstacle is fear. Local authorities are likely to lose about a quarter of their workforces over the next four years. People are already experiencing wage freezes and are worried about their jobs. They may feel that poorer pension provision is better than no job. They may also feel that they cannot afford financially to take part in a protracted strike which may end up in defeat. Many other workers are concerned about the effect of public spending cuts on the people they work with and will not want to add to this by withdrawing services.
Then there is the Government's need to look tough. Ed Balls suggested that the Tories were spoiling for a fight and that public sector workers would be falling into a trap by striking. He is possibly right. However, he offers no suggestions for what public sector workers ought to do. Does he think they should just rollover and accept these attacks on their terms and conditions? The Labour party has no answers and no leadership for public sector workers. This is why I don't pay a political levy.
So- Is it hopeless? I would say definately not. However there needs to be new strategies.
Firstly, I feel there needs to be a change in accent to how the arguments are presented to the public. Changes in public sector pensions are just part of a larger attack on public services. This includes cuts in spending on health and social care, moves towards greater privitisation, ill-thought out health reforms and possible reductions in the responsibilities of local authorities. Unions need to make common cause with service users, patients, and the public at large. Protests on pensions needs to be part of a wider protest about cuts in services, protests against job losses etc.
Secondly, I feel that a new type of strike is needed. This would be a strike which does not have any of the chartacteristics of strikes as we know them. The type of strike I am suggesting would have no negative impacts on the public or service users. It would involve no loss of money for workers or any other type of loss. In fact, it would leave them better off. It would not require a ballot. It would not be illegal or break any laws. Anyone could join in-even people who were not in the public service or in the unions.It would however, have a very dramatic effect on the Government and the financial markets. It would result in front page headlines and send the Conservatives and their friends in the city into a spin.
So what is this strike and how would it work?
What I am suggesting is a strike on spending. One day a week every public sector worker in the country should refuse to spend any money other than their bus/train fare to work (or up to £5 worth of petrol), a pint of milk and a sandwich. We could call, this #spendingstrikethursday if we decided to do it on a Thursday. On this day public sector workers would not go shopping for clothes, groceries, books, haircuts, outings to cinema or restaurants, holiday bookings, online spending or anything else which is not essential for that day. Obviously rent, mortgage, utilities and anything on a direct debit would still be paid.
The effect of this spending strike would be a massive blow to the economic figures. The snow last winter was extimated to cost the economy £1.2 billion per day. A soending strike would have a similiar effect. Of course, some spending would just be delayed one day but much spending would not take place at all. For example nobody is going to order two days worth of coffees the next day and a lot of impulse purchases would not happen. Also,many impulse purchases would not take place. For workers the spending strike days allow them to save money to go into a war chest for their family to help get them through the recession or to save for something special. There would also be benfits for people's health from sweets and alcohol not purchased. Over time it may result in people changing lifestyle habits as they see that they can get through the day without buying lots of coffee or chocolate and that they can enjoy saving some money.
However, the biggest impact of the spending strike will be on on the Government and the city. The only thing which the coalition appear to be concerned about is how Britain is regarded by credit ratings agencies and the financial markets. A protracted spending strike of one or two days per week would blow a hole under the water in the Government's hopes for the kind of results which suggest an economic recovery. This would be front page in FT. It would also send Britain's retail and service sector (which makes up a very large part of the economy) into despair. There would be fear on the part of big business that people's habits would change permanaently and they would get less used to spending lots of money and being addicted to consumerism. Workers to wear badges stating that they were takimg part in the spending strike and they could call in at or phone places that they would normally spend money in that day to explain why they had withdrawn their purchasing power.
One possible objection to this plan would be that people might think that public sector workers were sabotaging the economy. However, the defense against this criticism is that public sector workers are just demonstrating what is going to happen when they lose their jobs or enter the retirement in poverty. Another objection is that people will not have the discipline not to spend. However, a spending strike involves a lot less hardship that going on normal strike.
Today's FT carries a story that the Bank of England is considering another round of quantitiative easing. This is a sign of desperation. It shows that Osborne's economic medicine is not working. Economic growth is in the doldrums. #spendingstrikethursday could push economic growth figures over the edge into double dip recession territory. The Government would fear it a lot more than a normal strike. Workers have nothing at all to lose. Anyone who supports public services can join in. It could become part of a wider protest against current Govt policies and form part of a move to unite workers in different sectors and industries against the politics of austerity. After all, an increase in public spending could involve increased investment in public sector construction projects and other measures to get people back into work- so there is something in it for proivate sector workers to join in and demand a change in course by the Government.
If you like this idea and think it has potential then tweet a link to this article, tweet about #spendingstrikethursday,suggest the idea to your union rep, talk about it on Facebook etc.
Please let me know what you think of this idea and leave a comment.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Important Lesson From the Southern Cross care home crisis
The current crisis at Southern Cross is a cause for great concern and has been the subject of much debate. It has come at a time when there is huge concern about the health and social care sector being opened up to more competition,concern about the quality of care in residential care and hospitals and concern about NHS Hospital Trusts in financial crisis.
Unfortunately (though predictably) much of the debate about these important issues involves simplistic arguments about the unsuitability of applying the 'profit motive' to social care. These arguments ignore the fact that the majority of people involved in private sector social care (including most of the managers) are employees and never see any profit. Like their public sector counterparts they are likely to be motivated by wanting to provide a good service to the people they care for. Certainly, they could forced to cut corners by owners to save money- but this is equally true of people working for cash strapped public services.
There ARE reasons to be concerned about the private sector involvement in social care. However, to examine them requires a much more nuanced approach than that on display in some parts of the media.
The current problems with Southern Cross would appear to derive from the business model which the company has been saddled with since 2007.
Southern Cross was purchased in 2004 for £162 million by an American private equity firm called Blackstone. It was floated in 2007 on the stockmarket with a valuation of £423 million. The business model was called sale and leaseback. The company would sell off its valuable property assets, (ie the buildings which housed the care homes) to property investors. These investors apparently include the Qatar Investment Authority and other wealthy landlords who were guaranteed steeply rising returns. The careccompany would then lease back the properties from their rich landlords with 30 year leases which required them to pay ever increasing amounts of money in rent each year. This arrangement assumed that the demand for residential care would increase year on year and that local authorities would be willing to continue to pay increasing amounts of money for residential care.
The money that the company made from the property sales was used as finance for the purchase of additional care homes which were then in turn sold and leased back. As long as property values kept rising and there was the ongoing income from new residents the flow of money continued.
Blackstone made a 300% return on investment from this deal.Four executives at Southern Cross sold their entire holding of the company in December 2007 when the share price was £5.50 per share netting them personally a combined £35 million. The share price plunged just 6 months later and stood at £0.063 per share on 3rd June 2011.
Now the company cannot afford to go on paying the steep rents and local authorities are facing the prospect of having to rehome large numbers of vulnerable older in the event of a collapse.
The Southern Cross collapse was a result of high risk business strategy which had reaped huge profits for a small number of people and a private equity firm. The model was vulnerable to economic and political changes. In any case it would have been cheaper to have funded expansion from loans than from sale and leaseback of peperty.
The long term fallout from this is going to place a great deal of anxiety for vulnerable older people and their relatives, local authorities, council tax payers and current investors.
This is likely to be especially felt in the north east where the care home chain has a strong presence. So far central Govt has shown very little leadership. Their localism agenda seeming to allow them to bail out of any responsibility for anything which they consider to be a 'local' issue. But Southern Cross is not a local issue. It is a regional and a national issue. It requires a national solution and new strategies in dealing with issues of private sector involvement in public sector provision.
I believe the lessons from Southern Cross are as follows:
1. Private sector involvement is not a panacea for the high costs of providing decent health and social care.Research by the Financial Times (4th June 2011 p2)suggests that PFI intiatives are imposing unstainably high costs on a number of hospital trusts accross the country. PFI was once thought to be an easy way iof raising money for capital projects but it is now being realised that PFI schemes have huge long term cost implications.
There is currently thought being given to new methods of funding of services such as social impact bonds. The advocates of these funding mechanisms suggest that they will offer reduced risk to the public sector and benefits for investors. However, all of these funding models seem to work on the assumption that it is possible to simultaneously save public money and generate good returns for investors. How these two objectives can co-exist has never been explained to my satisfaction and I challenge anyone to explain how this can happen.
2. Greater regulation and oversight is needed of private involvement in health and social care. This is needed not just in oversight of the quality of care but also in the business models used by providers. The Govt is rightly seeking to reduce some of the pre-qualification checks required of small and medium entrprises in bidding for public sector work. These checks on financial solvency etc. are often far too onerous for people bidding for small pieces of short term work. However, for the long term commitment required of companies who are going to care for vulnerable people, a higher degree of scrutiny is needed. Central Govt needs to act so that the interests of the city for short term profit do not overide the needs of vulnerable people for high quality and secure care. The Southern Cross business model should not have been allowed to operate.
3. A greater understanding of business models and finance is needed for all people involved in social care from social workers to senior managers. As long as local and central Govt are responsible for care of older people they will have to keep a careful watch on who is providing care and how it is being provided. It is not good enough just assume that existing regulatory mechanisms are sufficient.
4. Providing services to the public sector is a high risk endeavour. Many local authority staff are being encouraged to set up social entrprises and co-ops at a time when public sector bodies are cash strapped. These workers should be aware of the risks of being in busiess and the hazards which political and economic change hold for suppliers to the public sector. The Southern Cross business model was built on assumptions about the continued flow of new customers and year on year rises in charges. These have turned out to be ill-founded assumptions.
5. The old adage about not investing in anything you don't understand should apply here. I doubt that so many investors would have put money into the Southern Cross flotation of they understood the business model or just how risky it was. It is likely that the investors included pension funds. British institutional investors seem to be asleep at the wheel a lot. The fact that the executives sold their entire holdings shortly after the flotation should have raised some eyebrows.
6. A greater degree of financial literacy is needed amongst academics and social care managers. As this blog has hopefully illustrated the issues behind the Southern Cross debacle are complex. The need for debate is not served by reducing the issues to the level of public sector=good vs private sector=bad. Involvement of the private sector in health and social care is undoubtedly here to stay. Arguments about the viability of desireability of individual situations needs to be based on their own merits and not on prejudice towards the business sector. Neither are the needs of vulnerable people well served by the view that the private sector is always more efficient or better value for money than public sector provision. Whatever benefits have been achieved in the past by using Southern Cross as a provider are likely to be outweighed by the costs of a bail-out or a disasterous bankrupcy situation.
Southern Cross, the problems associated with PFI and the fragile state of many social care providers in the current austerity period suggest that private sector involvement in social care involves high levels of risk for both Government and investors alike. It is certainly not a panacea or easy solution for covering the rising costs of social care. Critically, it can involve high risks for the most vulnerable people in our society.
Factual information for this post was obtained from articles by Simon Mundy, Sarah O'Conner, Sally Gainsbury, Nicholas Timmins, Sarah Gordon, Jim Pickard and Elizabeth Rigby in the Financial Times on 1st and 4th June 2011. Opinions are my own and do not necessarilly reflect those of any body whom I have worked for or been associated with now or in the past.
Unfortunately (though predictably) much of the debate about these important issues involves simplistic arguments about the unsuitability of applying the 'profit motive' to social care. These arguments ignore the fact that the majority of people involved in private sector social care (including most of the managers) are employees and never see any profit. Like their public sector counterparts they are likely to be motivated by wanting to provide a good service to the people they care for. Certainly, they could forced to cut corners by owners to save money- but this is equally true of people working for cash strapped public services.
There ARE reasons to be concerned about the private sector involvement in social care. However, to examine them requires a much more nuanced approach than that on display in some parts of the media.
The current problems with Southern Cross would appear to derive from the business model which the company has been saddled with since 2007.
Southern Cross was purchased in 2004 for £162 million by an American private equity firm called Blackstone. It was floated in 2007 on the stockmarket with a valuation of £423 million. The business model was called sale and leaseback. The company would sell off its valuable property assets, (ie the buildings which housed the care homes) to property investors. These investors apparently include the Qatar Investment Authority and other wealthy landlords who were guaranteed steeply rising returns. The careccompany would then lease back the properties from their rich landlords with 30 year leases which required them to pay ever increasing amounts of money in rent each year. This arrangement assumed that the demand for residential care would increase year on year and that local authorities would be willing to continue to pay increasing amounts of money for residential care.
The money that the company made from the property sales was used as finance for the purchase of additional care homes which were then in turn sold and leased back. As long as property values kept rising and there was the ongoing income from new residents the flow of money continued.
Blackstone made a 300% return on investment from this deal.Four executives at Southern Cross sold their entire holding of the company in December 2007 when the share price was £5.50 per share netting them personally a combined £35 million. The share price plunged just 6 months later and stood at £0.063 per share on 3rd June 2011.
Now the company cannot afford to go on paying the steep rents and local authorities are facing the prospect of having to rehome large numbers of vulnerable older in the event of a collapse.
The Southern Cross collapse was a result of high risk business strategy which had reaped huge profits for a small number of people and a private equity firm. The model was vulnerable to economic and political changes. In any case it would have been cheaper to have funded expansion from loans than from sale and leaseback of peperty.
The long term fallout from this is going to place a great deal of anxiety for vulnerable older people and their relatives, local authorities, council tax payers and current investors.
This is likely to be especially felt in the north east where the care home chain has a strong presence. So far central Govt has shown very little leadership. Their localism agenda seeming to allow them to bail out of any responsibility for anything which they consider to be a 'local' issue. But Southern Cross is not a local issue. It is a regional and a national issue. It requires a national solution and new strategies in dealing with issues of private sector involvement in public sector provision.
I believe the lessons from Southern Cross are as follows:
1. Private sector involvement is not a panacea for the high costs of providing decent health and social care.Research by the Financial Times (4th June 2011 p2)suggests that PFI intiatives are imposing unstainably high costs on a number of hospital trusts accross the country. PFI was once thought to be an easy way iof raising money for capital projects but it is now being realised that PFI schemes have huge long term cost implications.
There is currently thought being given to new methods of funding of services such as social impact bonds. The advocates of these funding mechanisms suggest that they will offer reduced risk to the public sector and benefits for investors. However, all of these funding models seem to work on the assumption that it is possible to simultaneously save public money and generate good returns for investors. How these two objectives can co-exist has never been explained to my satisfaction and I challenge anyone to explain how this can happen.
2. Greater regulation and oversight is needed of private involvement in health and social care. This is needed not just in oversight of the quality of care but also in the business models used by providers. The Govt is rightly seeking to reduce some of the pre-qualification checks required of small and medium entrprises in bidding for public sector work. These checks on financial solvency etc. are often far too onerous for people bidding for small pieces of short term work. However, for the long term commitment required of companies who are going to care for vulnerable people, a higher degree of scrutiny is needed. Central Govt needs to act so that the interests of the city for short term profit do not overide the needs of vulnerable people for high quality and secure care. The Southern Cross business model should not have been allowed to operate.
3. A greater understanding of business models and finance is needed for all people involved in social care from social workers to senior managers. As long as local and central Govt are responsible for care of older people they will have to keep a careful watch on who is providing care and how it is being provided. It is not good enough just assume that existing regulatory mechanisms are sufficient.
4. Providing services to the public sector is a high risk endeavour. Many local authority staff are being encouraged to set up social entrprises and co-ops at a time when public sector bodies are cash strapped. These workers should be aware of the risks of being in busiess and the hazards which political and economic change hold for suppliers to the public sector. The Southern Cross business model was built on assumptions about the continued flow of new customers and year on year rises in charges. These have turned out to be ill-founded assumptions.
5. The old adage about not investing in anything you don't understand should apply here. I doubt that so many investors would have put money into the Southern Cross flotation of they understood the business model or just how risky it was. It is likely that the investors included pension funds. British institutional investors seem to be asleep at the wheel a lot. The fact that the executives sold their entire holdings shortly after the flotation should have raised some eyebrows.
6. A greater degree of financial literacy is needed amongst academics and social care managers. As this blog has hopefully illustrated the issues behind the Southern Cross debacle are complex. The need for debate is not served by reducing the issues to the level of public sector=good vs private sector=bad. Involvement of the private sector in health and social care is undoubtedly here to stay. Arguments about the viability of desireability of individual situations needs to be based on their own merits and not on prejudice towards the business sector. Neither are the needs of vulnerable people well served by the view that the private sector is always more efficient or better value for money than public sector provision. Whatever benefits have been achieved in the past by using Southern Cross as a provider are likely to be outweighed by the costs of a bail-out or a disasterous bankrupcy situation.
Southern Cross, the problems associated with PFI and the fragile state of many social care providers in the current austerity period suggest that private sector involvement in social care involves high levels of risk for both Government and investors alike. It is certainly not a panacea or easy solution for covering the rising costs of social care. Critically, it can involve high risks for the most vulnerable people in our society.
Factual information for this post was obtained from articles by Simon Mundy, Sarah O'Conner, Sally Gainsbury, Nicholas Timmins, Sarah Gordon, Jim Pickard and Elizabeth Rigby in the Financial Times on 1st and 4th June 2011. Opinions are my own and do not necessarilly reflect those of any body whom I have worked for or been associated with now or in the past.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Data in Today's FT reveal that reduction in health and social care spending is a serious threat to the economy as a whole
A report in today (11/05/11) reveals that the UK economy is in more serious danger of stagnating than was earlier thought. This is because the most productive sectors are the one's which are contracting the most. Notably the financial services sector is deleveraging at a rapid rate due to the current risk averse climate and the need for retrenchment.
Of interest, however, is the role of the health and social care sector. The report on p3 shows that this sector grew at 28.9% in the 2000-2008 period. Although this slowed to growth of 8.6% in the last quarter of 2010 it was labelled by the FT as the most recession proof area of the economy. This will now however, have changed markedly in the light of public sector cuts with very rapid reductions in spend in social care and reduction in health care in real terms.
Signs that the service sector improved in the first qurter of 2011 are now thought to be due to last minute run off spending from Govt depts before the cuts.
Allied to this is the policy of reducing central control on how public services are managed, organised and measured. Many experienced managers have been lost from health and social care during recent rounds of cutbacks. Another article on p4 of the same FT raises doubts about whether a Govt can bring about rapid service transformation and cost reduction in an environment of reducing management infrasturcture. Service transformation and intelligent cost reduction (as opposed to indiscriminate salami slicing) require skills such as project management and lean management. They need good accurate data and good managers to drive forward innovation and change.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that waiting lists are increasing in the face of the removal of targets.
KPMG are quoted on p4 in a separate article as saying that companies which supply the public sector are on a 'knife edge'.
The Govt is in serious danger of failing in its programme of public sector reform and seriously damaging the economy in the process.
Of interest, however, is the role of the health and social care sector. The report on p3 shows that this sector grew at 28.9% in the 2000-2008 period. Although this slowed to growth of 8.6% in the last quarter of 2010 it was labelled by the FT as the most recession proof area of the economy. This will now however, have changed markedly in the light of public sector cuts with very rapid reductions in spend in social care and reduction in health care in real terms.
Signs that the service sector improved in the first qurter of 2011 are now thought to be due to last minute run off spending from Govt depts before the cuts.
Allied to this is the policy of reducing central control on how public services are managed, organised and measured. Many experienced managers have been lost from health and social care during recent rounds of cutbacks. Another article on p4 of the same FT raises doubts about whether a Govt can bring about rapid service transformation and cost reduction in an environment of reducing management infrasturcture. Service transformation and intelligent cost reduction (as opposed to indiscriminate salami slicing) require skills such as project management and lean management. They need good accurate data and good managers to drive forward innovation and change.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that waiting lists are increasing in the face of the removal of targets.
KPMG are quoted on p4 in a separate article as saying that companies which supply the public sector are on a 'knife edge'.
The Govt is in serious danger of failing in its programme of public sector reform and seriously damaging the economy in the process.
Monday, 21 March 2011
A Very Middle Class Recession
There is a very interesting article in today's (21st March 2011) Financial Times. It is about the so called 'squeezed middle' of the U.K. Specifically it uses the term 'Austerity Britain's ultimate losers'to describe middle class public sector workers in the north of England. It gives a case study of a Newcastle City Council worker who is having to re-apply for her current Policy job. Sadly I am very familiar with the situation of people like her. I am doing a regional job and daily meet people who are losing their job, having to re-apply for their job, having their job downgraded or who are simply worried and uncertain. Some local authorities have put all their staff on redundancy notice so that they can later decide who to actually make redundant. As you can imagine this will not be doing much for staff morale or indeed sonsumer confidence- more on that later. It is not just local authority jobs which are being lost.Regional bodies are going or shedding staff including most of the staff at Government Office North East (G.O.N.E.). Agencies are awash with highly skilled middle age public sector workers. There are few new private sector jobs which can mop up all these public sector employees. A public sector manager is going to be overqualified for a job at Starbucks.
Most of these workers will be people who have devoted their whole career to public service, some because it was the best use of their talents or seemed like a good career and many because they also care passionately about public service. Unfortunately their job worries are being compounded by a campaign in rags such as the Daily Mail to characterise such people as bureauocrats with 'non jobs'. This tactic- together with the campaign against 'gold plated' public sector pensions are part of a deliberate strategy by the coalition and thge right wing press to poison the general public against public sector workers and soften people up to prevent them resisting job cuts.
There is a particularly nasty element to it. In the early days of the colaition Norman Tebbit wrote a sinister piece in The Times (I think) in which he said that front line nurses and social workers who read The Express had nothing to fear. Rather it was The Guardian reading classes who should be afraid of the coming cuts. This is of course not altogether true. All parts of the public sector will face massive cuts in pay, stafffing and conditions. However, the present Government seems to reseve a particular scorn for the the white collar part of the public sector workforce. I am not a huge fan of The Guardian but I probably fit into the demographic that Tebbit wants to tackle- bleeeding heart middle class liberal types who are interested in social issues and who work in Government or not for profit. There is an element to this which is of a kind of class war of the right wing upper classes against the left wing middle classes.
If one was inclined towards conspiracy theories one might wonder whether these workers need to be eliminated because they represent an intellectual buffer zone between the front line and senior management and therefore could be a barrier to rampant privitisation. However, I think the real reason is proabably that the present Government are incredibly niaive and don't realise how difficult it is going to be to achieve the widescale reforms and transformation they want to bring about in the public sector without any kind of middle management and without many of the senior managers who are going.
There is a huge brain drain currently going on in the public sector with many experienced people leaving the workforce for good. Some are taking early retirement. I know of one council manager who is buying a newsagent and another who is buying a sandwich shop. Interestingly, I don't know any who are setting up businesses to supply the public sector.
In the north east the public sector crisis has major implications for the wider economy. In some North East towns public sector workers make up almost 50% of the workforce. People who think they may lose their jobs become very risk averse about big purchases such as a new car or recarpeting their house. When I work at home I get a new type of hawker round the doors- People from up-market kitchen showrooms, roofing contractors, you name it - selling door to door with special offers. They deserve points for trying to make sales but it also smacks of desperate times. In the north east much of the middle class is accounted for pubclic sector managers. As these people become worried about their finances it will spell bad news for the housing market and falling house prives will erode confidence even more.
The Thatcher Government devastated the working class communities of the north east. The coalition are hell bent on detroying the North East's middle class.
This is my first blog in about a year. I am going to write another soon about my experiences in the local Govt. sector over the past year. I promise it will be a lot more chearful than this one. I am going back to the higher education sector on 1st April and I am going to try to blog daily from then.
Most of these workers will be people who have devoted their whole career to public service, some because it was the best use of their talents or seemed like a good career and many because they also care passionately about public service. Unfortunately their job worries are being compounded by a campaign in rags such as the Daily Mail to characterise such people as bureauocrats with 'non jobs'. This tactic- together with the campaign against 'gold plated' public sector pensions are part of a deliberate strategy by the coalition and thge right wing press to poison the general public against public sector workers and soften people up to prevent them resisting job cuts.
There is a particularly nasty element to it. In the early days of the colaition Norman Tebbit wrote a sinister piece in The Times (I think) in which he said that front line nurses and social workers who read The Express had nothing to fear. Rather it was The Guardian reading classes who should be afraid of the coming cuts. This is of course not altogether true. All parts of the public sector will face massive cuts in pay, stafffing and conditions. However, the present Government seems to reseve a particular scorn for the the white collar part of the public sector workforce. I am not a huge fan of The Guardian but I probably fit into the demographic that Tebbit wants to tackle- bleeeding heart middle class liberal types who are interested in social issues and who work in Government or not for profit. There is an element to this which is of a kind of class war of the right wing upper classes against the left wing middle classes.
If one was inclined towards conspiracy theories one might wonder whether these workers need to be eliminated because they represent an intellectual buffer zone between the front line and senior management and therefore could be a barrier to rampant privitisation. However, I think the real reason is proabably that the present Government are incredibly niaive and don't realise how difficult it is going to be to achieve the widescale reforms and transformation they want to bring about in the public sector without any kind of middle management and without many of the senior managers who are going.
There is a huge brain drain currently going on in the public sector with many experienced people leaving the workforce for good. Some are taking early retirement. I know of one council manager who is buying a newsagent and another who is buying a sandwich shop. Interestingly, I don't know any who are setting up businesses to supply the public sector.
In the north east the public sector crisis has major implications for the wider economy. In some North East towns public sector workers make up almost 50% of the workforce. People who think they may lose their jobs become very risk averse about big purchases such as a new car or recarpeting their house. When I work at home I get a new type of hawker round the doors- People from up-market kitchen showrooms, roofing contractors, you name it - selling door to door with special offers. They deserve points for trying to make sales but it also smacks of desperate times. In the north east much of the middle class is accounted for pubclic sector managers. As these people become worried about their finances it will spell bad news for the housing market and falling house prives will erode confidence even more.
The Thatcher Government devastated the working class communities of the north east. The coalition are hell bent on detroying the North East's middle class.
This is my first blog in about a year. I am going to write another soon about my experiences in the local Govt. sector over the past year. I promise it will be a lot more chearful than this one. I am going back to the higher education sector on 1st April and I am going to try to blog daily from then.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Remembering Skippy
If you are my sort of age then you may have watched the adventires of Skippy the Bush Kangeroo as a child. Apparently there was a kind of Skippy the next generation in the 1980s. However, I think that version was short lived and quickly forgotten. The 1960s Skippy was about a boy and his pet kangeroo who lived with his father (a park ranger) on a nature reserve in the Australian bush.
I got a nostalgic reminder of Skippy a few weeks ago when I was channel hopping (no pun intended) absent mindedly. One of the BBC channels was showing a Skippy documentry. I tuned in and was immedialty engrossed. They talked about how Skippy strange vocal clicking language was developed. Apparently real kangeroos don't make any kind of noise like this but they felt some sort of vocalisation was needed to imply that Skippy was communicating to and listening to humans interactions. Before shooting 'talking scenes' Skippy would be fed somethign which would require chewing and was then her 'voice' was dubbed on. Then they explained Skippy's amazing dexterity. Apparently a pair of kangeroo legs were used for close ups where Skippy apeared to be lifting or manipulating objects. Skippy did a fair bit of animal sleuthing and sometimes had to secrete important evidence in her pouch. Most amazing of all was a clip showing Skippy sitting in fronty of a set of drums- the artificial paws were manipulated in front of her to make it look like she was playing the drums.
The documetry did dig up some dirt on Skippy, however, -well on the pervy camera crew. Apparently during breaks in filming they would shoot up-skirt shots of the female guest stars. A compilation of this footage was shown sugggesting that did rather a lot of this.
The documentry went into some deep psychological and sociological territory. It was banned in some scandanavian countries because they thought that seeing animals with impossible levels of intelligence would be psychologically harmful for children.
For Australians Skippy was remarkable because it wasd the first Australian programme to be shown widely across the world and it showed the beauty of the Australian countryside to the worls with some excellent cinematography.
Germaine Greer considered the fact that the child companion of Skippy lived in completely adult domiated world at the ranger station and had no friends his own age to interact with. This experience was paralleled by the young actor who played him. There was also discussion of the the treatment of women in the show. Generally girls were the but of jokes, getting frightened by bush animals and not very competent.
Skippy did show some very progressive social credentials however, in relation to aboriginal people. At a time when Aboriginies were fighting for basic civil rights, they were portrayed realistically and sympathetically in a number of episides of Skippy. There were some positive messages about valuing diversity and equality between peoples.
No mention was made of what hapopened to the original Skippy though I understand that she was stuffed and can be seen in a Skippy museum somewhere. If you really want to experience the Skippy phenomenon first hand then it is available on a set of dvds packed with extras. Even I amn't nerdy enough to have them but they could be a good pouchfiller for someone you know.
I got a nostalgic reminder of Skippy a few weeks ago when I was channel hopping (no pun intended) absent mindedly. One of the BBC channels was showing a Skippy documentry. I tuned in and was immedialty engrossed. They talked about how Skippy strange vocal clicking language was developed. Apparently real kangeroos don't make any kind of noise like this but they felt some sort of vocalisation was needed to imply that Skippy was communicating to and listening to humans interactions. Before shooting 'talking scenes' Skippy would be fed somethign which would require chewing and was then her 'voice' was dubbed on. Then they explained Skippy's amazing dexterity. Apparently a pair of kangeroo legs were used for close ups where Skippy apeared to be lifting or manipulating objects. Skippy did a fair bit of animal sleuthing and sometimes had to secrete important evidence in her pouch. Most amazing of all was a clip showing Skippy sitting in fronty of a set of drums- the artificial paws were manipulated in front of her to make it look like she was playing the drums.
The documetry did dig up some dirt on Skippy, however, -well on the pervy camera crew. Apparently during breaks in filming they would shoot up-skirt shots of the female guest stars. A compilation of this footage was shown sugggesting that did rather a lot of this.
The documentry went into some deep psychological and sociological territory. It was banned in some scandanavian countries because they thought that seeing animals with impossible levels of intelligence would be psychologically harmful for children.
For Australians Skippy was remarkable because it wasd the first Australian programme to be shown widely across the world and it showed the beauty of the Australian countryside to the worls with some excellent cinematography.
Germaine Greer considered the fact that the child companion of Skippy lived in completely adult domiated world at the ranger station and had no friends his own age to interact with. This experience was paralleled by the young actor who played him. There was also discussion of the the treatment of women in the show. Generally girls were the but of jokes, getting frightened by bush animals and not very competent.
Skippy did show some very progressive social credentials however, in relation to aboriginal people. At a time when Aboriginies were fighting for basic civil rights, they were portrayed realistically and sympathetically in a number of episides of Skippy. There were some positive messages about valuing diversity and equality between peoples.
No mention was made of what hapopened to the original Skippy though I understand that she was stuffed and can be seen in a Skippy museum somewhere. If you really want to experience the Skippy phenomenon first hand then it is available on a set of dvds packed with extras. Even I amn't nerdy enough to have them but they could be a good pouchfiller for someone you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
