The Milliband of Brothers

The Milliband of Brothers-Equality Gets a ‘name check’-But Some Are More Equal Than Others.

For those of us who love politics, the saga of the Milliband of Brothers and their tussle for power, -as though it were a much loved Action Man with one eye and a parachute that doesn’t open, has had just the right balance of petulance, drama, intrigue and pathos to have us salivating over our cornflakes. It has not however been enough to set the country alight in the way that politics should.

I remember, being the political nerd that I am, sitting in front of more party conference speeches than I care to remember. Whilst Ed’s effort yesterday was not the best-, not even his best,- his blatant steal of Jack Kennedy’s ‘Let The Word Go Forth’ had all the hallmarks of the speech writing cabal of a youthful Blair- it was heartfelt and personal and nailed his colours to the mast. If one doesn’t like his colours, red or not…fair enough….don’t vote for him.

I am reminded of McCartney’s acid comment that Ringo wasn’t the best drummer in the world, that he wasn’t even the best drummer in The Beatles. Underlying that apparent barb was a real affection and recognition that Ringo was, if not the best man, he was the right man….and he was there.

Ed Milliband is sitting right now on the drum stool of the rather ragged middle of the road rock ‘n’ roll band that is the 21st Century Labour Party. Several classic albums behind them, one lead singer lost to drugs, another to musical differences, a guitar player who thinks he should have the only spotlight and a bass player that no one has heard of. They are reforming for one last stab at the charts, and agonising over whether to take a new direction…’Trance’ …maybe ‘Death Metal’ or ‘Alt Country’ It always was a broad church.

He may not be the best leader, but he may well be the right leader for the Labour Party at this point in its political journey. He has struck the right balance of leftward sashay, ‘mea culpa’, new generation optimism and ruthlessness to give us a sense of anticipation.. After three days in the job, it’s not a bad record. As someone once sang in the dim and distant past…’things can only get better’.

Or can they? There is the thorny issue of Jacob and Esau to deal with. It shouldn’t matter but it does. Milliband Junior did not steal his elder brother’s birthright, nor has it been sold to the Trade Unions for a mess of pottage. But there is a lingering sense that fraternal tension is going to loom over the formation of the younger Milliband’s shadow cabinet, like a bad smell in an elevator. It should not matter whether David takes a job at the UN, or runs off to Harvard to give the benefit of his accumulated Blair Witch years to eager policy wonks destined for the State Department…..but it does. It should be of no consequence if Milliband Major deigns to serve in any post of his own choosing, in a UK shadow cabinet, a slim consolation for having been ‘pipped’ at the post.

Even Shadow Chancellor, despite the enticing possibility of ‘pissing off’ Ed Balls yet again, would be the political equivalent of an ice cream, proffered to the quaver-lipped schoolboy who has fluffed his Grade 8 cello on the day his kid brother has blown away the assembled Bluecoats with a resounding rendition of Purcell with one hand tied behind his back. A classic case of what my mother would have called , ‘losing a shilling and finding a tanner’. Small consolation indeed.

It should not matter but it does. There is nothing dynastic about the Millibands, as there was with the Kennedys. Perhaps it was age..With Joe the beloved and anointed elder son taken by the war, as a hero no less, on clandestine European flying missions, the next in line, predestined almost, Jack stepped up to the plate. His younger brother Bobby served with distinction as Attorney General and 'consigliere' to Camelot at the very centre of the kitchen cabinet, only to himself be anointed when tragedy struck yet again.

Why no such sibling ‘hand in glove’, lockstep, stiff upper lip politics between Millibands Major and Minor? Perhaps it is an issue of age, or rather chronology. A sense of ‘jumping the queue’. There is nothing more guaranteed to start a fight amongst the British than a queue jumper. Maybe it is the ruthlessness with which Ed exploited David’s Cabinet role in support of the Iraq war, the genesis and taint of which, he had the good fortune to avoid Let us see how the drama unfolds.

I must confess to having been agnostic about the Brothers Milliband previously. I admire a political brain. I appreciate a compassionate voice, especially when it calls for greater equality. I appreciate the vigour of youth, especially when it is sufficiently devoid of hubris to seek the counsel of grey hairs and cross party wisdom.

What is undeniable is the chutzpah that has been displayed by Ed Milliband ,in not only surviving the renaissance court environment that is a post defeat Labour Party in transition, but in floating to the top. How much was floating and how much was swimming? We will have to wait and see. For now I will keep my powder dry.

So What, Who Cares, Says Who? Well the future of UK plc lies in a delicate balance. It is dependent now upon a vigorous, intellectually rigorous, visionary and courageous opposition led with passion and compassion, to provide a contrapuntal note to the coalition at every turn. We should all watch and learn from the unfolding soap opera which is the Milliband of Brothers.

Mike Waldron
Inter-pares
September 29th 2010

Well, once again it seems that immigration has landed fairly and squarely, like a burning meteorite at the heart of the UK election campaign. This time it is not being toted as the domain of the radical and rabid far right, or even the left leaning liberal chattering classes. This time, it has been snatched from the mouth of a Rochdale pensioner, off for a loaf of bread no less, and splashed across the global media, like a worm snatched from the mouth of a baby bird- still warm, still wriggling and still as indigestible for most politicians.

There is no doubt that immigration is a political hot potato, and that a reasonable well informed debate about controls on who comes and goes into a country is necessary for security, planning and social cohesion. I am however, amazed at the reactionary nature of the popular debate, as politicians and political commentators alike 'flip flap' from being 'tough on immigration- tough on the causes of immigration' to 'valuing' the contribution of newcomers to our shores. This has at least given me one of my favorite soundbites from the campaign to date.

"What I want to know" spat one irate burgher, "is where are all these Eastern Europeans coming from" **~~""!!!!!

I know that I have given up throwing things at the television each time I here a diatribe prefaced with the remarkably hackneyed justification...."I'M NOT RACIST BUT..." . I am however beginning to wind up my pitcher's arm to let fly with a steady aim, the next time I hear one of those jockeying for power and influence, seek to prove that they are in touch with 'the mood of the people' by proving how illogical and mean-spirited they can be, and how they can catch the wave of popular` opinion by aligning themselves with 'us' rather than 'them'

I have declared my colors in the past, as being for integration over assimilation, but I am now beginning to lose patience with the argument which says that the UK should put the wagons in a circle, pull up the drawbridge and man the barricades [ a great opportunity for multi-tasking there]. This would be a weak enough approach on its own merits, but when loaded with the inevitable caveats that those within our shores should be entitled to leave and settle at will, any other part of the planet, without restriction, it leaves me with my jaw on the floor.

So what, says who, who cares? More than we think I suggest. It is time now for those who have a more open minded approach to internationalism to stand up and be counted, in order that those who talk tough and would lead the UK towards an isolationist agenda do not win the day.

Mike

Home Thoughts From Abroad

I am still stranded in Helsinki, with little sense of when I will be able to return home. I have run the gamut of emotions, from anger, to frustration, gallows humor to resignedness. I am now philosophical about my position. Most of all I am missing my family.

Being marooned [I have been here for ten days] has left me ultimately philosophical. It has been, in one sense, a bittersweet experience. Bitter -because it has been personally, financially and professionally hugely disruptive Sweet -because I have had the support of friends, old and new, so far away from home, which has burnished my already quietly dulling faith in human nature.

I came to Finland to facilitate events for high profile clients, intending to be here for three days. I traveled light, as is my pattern, and was preparing to leave courtesy of British Airways last Thursday. By Wednesday, news of the volcanic eruption in Iceland was filtering through, and as cancellation after cancellation led to a flurry of rescheduling activity, it dawned on me that I was due for an unscheduled weekend in Finland.

It has always been my approach to make the most of things, and having been welcomed into a beautiful and warm Finnish home, for great company, music and a leisurely delicious breakfast, I was able to see some of the beautiful coastline, sample some great food, see live music, and meet new friends, whom I would otherwise not have met.
The fascination with ‘that damned volcano’, and the feverish activity to reschedule, further rearrange, postpone and ultimately cancel a series of Ukrainian Parliamentary delegations who were due to join me in UK for the next two weeks, have kept me busy. And I have to admit to moments in which I started to despair of ever getting away from Helsinki.

I have spent a lot of time and activity exploring how to get off Finland, physically and on to the UK mainland. It has taken on the precision and attention to detailed questions of a military campaign. Will I make a flight? Can we track air traffic across Europe live by RADAR, [yes we can] Can we approach UK by sea to Sweden and then overland to the Channel Ports? When I received an SMS from home saying that ‘British Navy to be deployed to Channel to repatriate citizens stranded overseas’ I assumed that it was a telegram delayed since the 1950s. But such is life. I may begin to dig the tunnel link to Estonia myself, with a tea-spoon. One friend has already suggested that the British Navy will commence rescue FLIGHTS, to which I look forward with great anticipation.

I am at times frustrated, depressed and feel unable to control my own destiny. This is something we have grown unused to in some sections of society. But this has also been a fascinating intercultural experience,-- beyond the norm- and often great fun in unexpected ways. I have, thanks to the support of my friends, lived like a citizen of Helsinki. I go to the office everyday. I take the bus and the tram, I have been to the movies, to see a band, done my laundry, bought groceries, found a local bar, and discovered a favorite brand of beer.

In this respect it has been an extraordinary and rare intercultural experience. It is not over yet. If I do not fly tomorrow, I have a likely odyssey by sea and land through Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Belgium, before I try to reach landfall at UK maybe by the weekend. A road-trip no less! Who knows what challenges await.

And of course, I am better off than many. I am not ill. I have not missed a wedding or baptism or funeral. I am amongst friends, old and new. The experience is making me re-evaluate our dependence on aviation, and consider the need for investment in other forms of travel and communication. It has made me grow to love Finnish hospitality, to see the perspective of the role of work in our lives. but above all, to realize how much I miss my beautiful family and home , when I am over the sea.

As Frank Sinatra memorably sang.. “It’s nice to go traveling, but it’s so much nicer, yes it’s so much nicer to come home. “
So this weeks blog is dedicated to, Mark, Jari, Mervi, Marjo, Kata, Eino, Petra, Johanna, Taina, Mikko, and Tuija who have made my enforced sojourn in Finland a richer experience. But a heartfelt and unending gratitude is due to Annina, Maria and Joose, who have given up their homes and their time and energy to make my life more than bearable.

Here’s to the next leg!!!Until I’m “homeward winging, ‘cross the foam” Kiitos!

So What, Says Who? Who Cares? In this instance the many hundreds of thousands stranded away from home.

The Class of 2010: Faith and Identity

The Class of 2010: Faith and Identity

I am beginning to feel ever more strongly, that the issue of identity is still at the centre of the work that we are doing here at inter-pares, and that faith and social class are orbiting identity; like two satellites; moons around a planet of ever evolving size and shape.
I suspect that there are few signs of the challenges associated with the much- rehearsed single dimension personal and social identity, slowing down. They may however be crystallizing, around a new and emerging set of identities particularly those around faith and social mobility. There is a sense for me, that seeking to understand the inter-related roles of faith and identity, is becoming a fertile ground, for those who would previously have used class and socioeconomic indicators as proxies for social position. I am not sure that this is altogether healthy. I think that faith identity is an added and ‘louder ‘dimension than it once was, rather than a straightforward replacement for class. It should perhaps be seen as a second ball on the pitch, which can cause confusion if not immediately understood and dealt with.

Faith is of course for many, a matter of choice, whereas, despite the cultural baggage attached to so many of our choices, socioeconomic class often is not. I would argue that the largely mono-cultural, traditionally Christian faith of the immediate post-war period in UK, was certainly very influential in public, social, civic and it could be argued, moral life of the nation. There was perhaps less focus on the role of spirituality and faith identity, and more engagement with the symbolic, pastoral and establishment role of the church. I think we have seen, with the rise of more evangelical churches, the decrease in overall traditional Christian worship and the prevalence of other faith communities, an increased focus on faith and identity as both a definer of and a signifier of difference.

I recall my father’s generation. He left school at fourteen, took up an apprenticeship, fought in the Far East and then married and ‘settled down’ with a family, in fairly short order- He and the majority of his friends, Irish Catholic, working class Mancunians to a man,[and woman] followed similar life paths, which were very much one dimensional in terms of their identities ,both self-perceived and externally communicated . True, they were less impacted upon by mobility and migration to the UK, and had no ‘virtual world’ challenges to take up, but they did live through the cataclysmic events of World War 2. There was however, a sense that they were comfortable with the single amalgamated dimension to their identities, and did not seek actively to break out of the confines of what seemed perhaps ‘preordained’

I on the other hand, have been a part of that generation which was; first to go to University, first to own a home, first to travel widely both nationally and internationally and first to stray from the traditional faith and break out of the socioeconomic grouping that had been our allotted position. This series of ‘firsts’, [and it is axiomatic that they were bought and paid for by the sacrifices of those earlier generations], has seen my identity crystallize around a much more multifaceted core.

I am of course aware because of the nature of the work that we do here at inter-pares, that I have a series of identities that I recognize as ‘me’. Equally, I am aware that there are identities, which are imposed upon me, others that I choose to share, and others that people both close and distant assume about me, either through first glance or through some form of stereotype or cultural modeling. However, I think that there is a greater likelihood today, that these, assumed, presumed and advertised identities will be multidimensional. That I believe is a good thing.
As for my children’s generation, I share the view that they will be faced much more with the challenge of multiple identities. I am inclined however to see this as both a challenge, [and of course a noisy one], and an enormous opportunity.

I understand the questions raised by some social scientists about the supposed growing pace of ethnic and cultural hybridity amongst the UK population. Whilst I do not share the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s celebratory tone, I certainly do not see it in such alarmist terms as some. I am convinced that the UK population will, as populations have always done, find a way to integrate, rather than assimilate, and that cultural heritage in our children’s generation will be stronger even than it is now. The cultures which are being celebrated however, may well be more mixed, and will not be those monotypes that we saw in the 1950s, trying to mix like oil and water, but will be perhaps more successful emulsions, less preserved in aspic- rather more distilled and ready to enjoy!

I am intrigued by the capacity inherent in the increasing diversity of our multiple identities. I see this as not only a capacity to inter-connect and create either fusion or fission in the present, but as both the building blocks of a future rich in unknowns, and a series of new legacies. I imagine that each of our multiple identities, has the capacity to leave a comet’s tail in its wake, slowly diffusing and becoming less visible like the vapour trail of a jet in the sky.
However, I believe that there is a case to be had, in casting an eye over the effect of these comet tails intersected over time. That is to say, the effect on our cultural life will come not just from the contacts that we have in the present with our multiple identities, but will leave ghosts and echoes in our social, cultural, spiritual and intellectual lives which themselves have the capacity to intersect and fossilize, forming a shadow socioeconomic history, of which we understand or predict rather little.

As for identity as a theoretical concept that we wrestle with, I feel that there is inevitably a set of ‘features and social memberships’, which are claimed, but perhaps an equal number which are disguised by individuals, or are assumed, presumed or imposed on individuals or cultural groups. I am very interested in the dynamics where difference is articulated, but also in the dynamics around claimed and imposed identities and the stresses and tensions this can cause.
My identity is something that has shifted over time, both in how I see it, and how others see me. That said, I believe that the need for genuine dialogue, based upon the zeal of curiosity across cultural identities, is ever more pressing.

So What? Says Who? Who Cares? On this issue we all have to.

Mike Waldron

© inter-pares associates

Is God Back?

Last week I was privileged to contribute to an excellent debate hosted by the British Council, in which John Micklethwait, Editor in Chief of The Economist, was quizzed by John Worne, The Council’s Director of Strategy, about some of the thinking underpinning his new book ‘God Is Back.’

This encounter prompted me to thinking around this whole issue. If 'God is Back', where has he been? Is he, as the British Boy/Man band 'Take That' have it, 'Back for Good' or is he like Sinatra, on one of a number of comebacks, that is to say,- is there a cyclical component to the rise and fall of religion as a dominant force in social, civic, political and cultural life?

I was very interested in the make up of the audience for the debate, who seemed to be fairly evenly split on the issue of secularism or religion as the rising star in our 21st century firmament. It is fair to say that, broadly speaking, religionists and people of faith have a tendency to believe that 'God made Man', whereas secularists and others on that wing, have a tendency to believe that 'Man made God'. If this is true, why did Man feel the need to 'make God"? Was it to fulfill some innate desire to have something to believe in, to make sense of our world,- or was it perhaps to have something to blame when the crops failed, or maybe a bit of both? I am intrigued.

In the UK in particular, we have seen significant shifts in the demographics and spread of our religious communities. What effect has the decline in the UK of traditional Anglo-Catholic forms of Christian worship, and the parallel rise of evangelical Christianity, along with the increase in other faiths, had on the daily life of the UK? I think this may be worth exploring.

I found myself, as I listened intently to contributors to the debate, whether there might be such a thing as extreme secularism, and if so, how might it be manifest? We have seen an increase in the secular lobby of recent times, perhaps as a response to the rise of religion in public profile. If religion, is as Marx has said, 'the opium of the people' is secularism, perhaps the latest designer drug, or is it here to stay? Have we seen a genuine mature debate about the role of secularism and faith in society? I don’t yet think so.

In the US, I think things have been shaping up rather differently. Pollsters and political kingmakers such as Karl Rove, the 'eminence gris' behind George Bush's political successes, has been adept at 'micro-polling' communities, and targeting them, based upon religious affiliation and belief. How long if ever, before this becomes a significant reality in the UK? It seems interesting that Alastair Campbell famously said on behalf of Tony Blair, "We don't do God" at the same time as George Bush was claiming divine intervention in his political motivations. Immediately after stepping down from public office, TB set up his Faith Foundation, with a speech in New York, and a speech at the Catholic Westminster Cathedral. Why do you think that religion and politics so often make such awkward bedfellows in some territories, and natural allies in others.


Given that religion, faith or belief are such important drivers in the lives of billions of people, one wonders why bodies such as the World Congress of Faiths, or the Council For A Parliament of the World's Religions are so little known, and perhaps lacking in influence, compared to say, the UN, EU, NATO or the WHO or the various Commonwealth Institutions?

So What, Who Cares? Says Who? Perhaps on this topic we all need to think more carefully. The more people move, migrate and settle in new places, the more the debate around secularism and religion will be pertinent.
Mike Waldron
Inter-pares

Grumpy Old Men

A friend of mine recently gave me the liberty to be a 'grumpy old man' [Thanks Sandra]-on the basis that my complaining about the world, is a form of 'appreciative communication' As I stand on the cusp of my 45th birthday, and stare into the abyss of undeniable middle age--I find that actually I'm quite looking forward to it.

It is I believe, a truism, that young people, don't too often use the term 'young people'. It is usually people like me, who use it, in I hope, a non-condescending way. Those of us who are in the grip of middle age, use that term even less. As though the cult of youth will wrap itself around our ankles, and drag us into a Hades of 150 BPM dance music and text slang, if we pop our heads over the parapet and the phrase issues forth, even in a whisper.

I think it is time that the middle aged cadre, that large and increasingly hidden mass, caught between an ever expanding youth, which seems to have planted its flag amongst the thirty something trenches, and the so called 'senior generation', stands loud and proud and declares itself. This way- we can revel in our grumpiness, and complain in an 'appreciative' way, about every slight, each irritation ,and the vast array of life's little obstacles, which appear to conspire against us.

And so to today's gripe, and minor irritation, which comes about as I peruse the listings of the UK's most popular, [as in purchased] book titles. Of the 'top ten' non-fiction titles, all ten of them are 'spin offs' from television shows.

I love TV, I am watching it now, as I write this - yes I can multitask- but is this not a worrying indication of the laziness of some of our reading habits.. No it's not..it's a frightening sign of how so many of us are conspiring, in a time of unbelievable choice, to limit our own channels of cultural and educational information.

So What? Says who? Who cares? I do. I'm off to read the classics.


Mike Waldron

www.inter-pares.co.uk

In Search of Difference!

“So what? Who says? Who cares?”: In Search of Difference


“So what?” “Who says?” “Who cares?” These have come to be something of a mantra for me. The reasoning behind that is complex, but I well recall when and where these three powerful questions first crossed my horizon.
I was working with a group of so-called “disenfranchised and at risk” young men in South Liverpool in the mid-1990s. I had spent some time delivering what I thought was a considered and impassioned plea for us all to work together on a community development project. Every time I put forward what I thought was a ‘killer’ argument sufficient to persuade even the most recalcitrant listener, I was met with a response that took the wind from my sails and left me with nowhere to go. “So what?” “Who cares?” “Who says?”
They were right; I was wrong. I clearly hadn’t lined up my points. I clearly hadn’t been persuasive. I clearly hadn’t considered and honed my argument to see what was in it for them. Since then, I have always sought to test any idea, to proof it, by asking these questions of my concept numerous times.
In doing this, it has amazed me how strong an argument can emerge, like muddy water passing thorough a rudimentary filtration system: through the “Who says?” of small rocks; into the “Who cares?” of rough gravel; down through the “So what?” of sand; and finally emerging with crystal clarity as an argument or idea that makes sense, and one that we have truly thought through. I have since applied this approach regularly to one of my great passions - diversity and intercultural collaboration.
The Penguin English Dictionary defines diversity as “the condition of being different or having differences.” In recent years, those driving the public policy agendas have come to look upon diversity either as a philosophical concept – one that must be embraced at all costs, on pain of sanction - or as the upstart offspring of the equal opportunities drive of the late 1980s and early 1990s. For others, it is synonymous with an industry that sprang up to promote a series of ideals and practices, to which organisations really are expected to adhere: a code for good race relations.
I suspect that across the broad spectrum within which many of us operate, all of these perspectives will find their sympathisers. So, where do I stand? How do I define diversity, and how do I think it affects our lives?
I take the view that genuine diversity is the acceptance of an ongoing journey. It is as much about how we travel as it is about where we come to rest and what we do when we get there. Most organisations and practitioners, whatever sector they are operating in - commercial, public, or third, will find themselves somewhere along that road. Diversity is also an umbrella term for a whole raft of differences: race and ethnicity; gender; ability and disability; sexual orientation; and, of course, faith, culture and status.
And why is it important? Well, the business case for embracing diversity can seem very unclear. It gets lost in the muddy waters of political correctness, day-to-day deadlines and targets. It gets stranded in the shark-infested inlets of sanction and litigation, or becalmed in the sheltered lagoons of complacency and ignorance. In reality, the business case is powerful and clear: yes, there are moral and reputational imperatives (the “carrot”); and yes, there are legal sanctions and economic penalties involved (the “stick”); but the clear bottom line is this - it makes no sense to fail to employ, draw upon, serve or engage with the broadest, deepest and most widely representative reservoir of humanity. The advantages of doing so are obvious: we get to fish in the biggest pool of talent, to catch the better fish, to provide services to the widest community – and all the while increasing our personal and organisational understanding along the way. Diversity is about valuing difference wherever it is found. And were we not to value difference, none of us could truly claim to be living or working in a meritocracy (as, of course, very many of us believe we do).
The major challenges often arise when we seem to have come within touching distance of the goal of diversity, then it somehow recedes and we are left with a sense of frustration, confusion and disappointment. So, how can we avoid losing heart at this point? And, having tried but perhaps having valiantly failed to embrace diversity in all its forms, how should we steel ourselves to make continued progress? And, indeed, why should we?
For me, the real motivator (beyond any sense of social justice or recognition of the common sense enshrined in embracing diversity) has been my exposure, through my work, to the real “lived” experience of so many people, especially young people.
It is here that I often hear the voices of those young men in Liverpool echoing in my ears, or of the British Council’s Intercultural Navigators and other young leaders, in whose hands the future of European dialogue rests. It has been particularly affecting to hear the voice of youth, especially those from minority, embattled or vulnerable backgrounds. There is an authentic resonance often to be found in the voice of those needlessly faced with disadvantage, prejudice, misunderstanding and misrepresentation. They are the reason why we should steel ourselves to succeed at embracing diversity.
It is frustrating to witness every day, not so much injustice per se, but a simple lack of appreciation of difference and the inequality and subsequently missed opportunity to which it so often leads. The team at inter-pares has, since our inception, sought to tackle these challenges head on.
Of course, it’s far from easy. There are a myriad reasons why we fail to make the paradigm shift from “What is the bottom line for me?” to “How can I appreciate the value of the individual alongside me?” These reasons range from a lack of information to straightforward prejudice, from inherent cultural barriers to a failure to see the logic enshrined within the business case for participation, collaboration and change.
It strikes me that, if we are to make the necessary paradigm shift that will allow us all, as individuals and organisations, to appreciate, value and gain from difference, then it is important to consider how and why certain experiences and perceptions combine to affect an individual’s opportunities.
The politically high-profile issues of race, faith and ethnicity, in combination with geography and demography, have been shown both to determine life chances and to exercise the media in equal measure. In the UK, the concentration of black and minority ethnic populations in the main urban centres has led to some distinct challenges - isolation, alienation, cultural marginalisation, lack of resources - and occasionally this tips over into outright hostility and violence
Two recent official UK reports on the social unrest that led to civil disturbances in some of our northern cities both pointed to a lack of understanding between communities. This gap inevitably has led to misinformation, misconceptions, tension and mistrust; and ultimately to violence across faith, ethnic and territorial boundaries. How are we to mitigate against such challenges if not through increased, but sensitively facilitated, intercultural encounter, exposure and engagement.
It is down to all of us to endeavour to understand and value diversity and to take account of different needs, in the interests of all of us – our peace, our health, our safety, our success, our happiness.
So, what do we need to do differently tomorrow? We need to ask ourselves these powerful questions:
• What do I think true diversity is?
• How can I appreciate and anticipate the needs of the person with whom I am working or to whom I provide a service?
• What is stopping me from really appreciating the diversity of the population around me – this group of people with all their uniting and dividing characteristics and experiences?
• And, finally, how can I remove those barriers, whatever they are?
Of course, there are no right answers, no silver bullet. We all will have our own contexts, barriers and solutions. We all will have our own destinations on our journey towards unlocking the magic of difference. The critical factor is, perhaps, that we must travel optimistically, with the sun in our faces and the wind at our backs -and always aware that journeying with an open mind and a sense of social justice is as important as arriving at some mystical Holy Grail of diversity.
“So what?” “Who says?” “Who cares?” That’s up to you.

©Mike Waldron
MD inter-pares associates
Oct 2009