So as we enter the last week of the CIPR election the candidates have not been short of official opportunities to state their case. The CIPR's Conversation web site gave each candidate a chance to write a blog and then the excellent Phillip Sheldrake hosted a Presidential Debate on CIPR TV.
Two of the candidates - Rob and Lionel - have also taken to the business networking site Linked In and formed campaign groups which they have been inviting people to join.
Looking at these sites, one thing stood out for me, and it further strengthened my support for Rob.
Both sites are obviously intended to help the candidate win votes and win the election. But the sites are very different in other ways - and I think the difference is quite telling.
On Rob's site there are a number of discussion threads with comments and opinions waging back and forth across the contributors. The future of our industry and the skills we will need are being debated.
The site mirrors Rob and what he brings to the party and is all about engagement. On the the other hand, Lionel's linked in group consists largely of messages saying you have my vote - it is more about endorsement than engagement.
My view is that if you care about the direction of our industry and the Institute then you need to get engaged. I would urge you to visit Rob's Linked In group, and his campaign website and to join in with the debate.
I think the Institute will be in safe hands after this election which I hope gets the largest turnout for many a year.
But I believe that Rob is the candidate that is the most progressive, the most inclusive and the one best able to secure the engagement of the wider membership - and I hope he gets your vote.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Poppycock, FIFA and other dubious matters
So, the FA (and Govt and Royalty and the outraged writers and readers of many of our national newspapers) didn't quite get their desire and England's shirts remain poppyless; however, the spirit of compromise is alive and well and to be found in a poppy emblazoned on a black armband to be worn by the players on Saturday.
FIFA generally gets a bad press in the UK - and usually deserves it. But time spent this week in the company of a German client and some visitors from Austria had me changing my outraged mind and siding with the FIFA mandarins.
It was in particular enlightening to hear my German colleague say that there was still an issue with remembering the war dead in Germany because the nation was so embarassed by its war past that "honouring the fallen" was actually something that was almost impossible to imagine.
So, despite my own desire - and I think the wish of the Royal British Legion - for the Remembrance movement to reflect sadly on the tragic loss of lives on all sides of the past conflicts; things are not always what they seem and maybe FIFA were right to stick to their guns and not allow an addition to player shirts that could create an unwanted precedent. Such as Argentina playing at Wembley with a Malvinas war dead emblem for example.
I also found it ironic that at the height of this debate, our Government could find time to proscribe an admittedly extremist Muslim movement and prevent their gathering on Sunday in an "anti-poppy" rally which aimed (among other less savoury points) to highlight the numerous civilian casualties during the war on terrorism waged, in the main by US and UK forces.
Let me be clear on this before the hate mail starts. There is no common ground between what appears to be a hateful extremist group and the Royal British Legion and its Poppy day movement. And freedom of speech and expression does not include freedom to incite violence which the Govt has a duty to guard against.
But there are two sides to most stories and we should try wherever possible to listen to both.
Speaking of stories... James Murdoch was telling his version of events to the House of Commons committee again yesterday. He appears to be very consistent and insists that he did not know the extent of the hacking or the reason why the pay-off to Gordon Taylor was so high for example.
Given the number of people who argue to the contrary, one can only conclude he either wasn't listening, wasn't paying attention, didn't understand, didn't care, or simply got confused poor lad. Whichever it was: he shouldn't be allowed control of the cheque book.
FIFA generally gets a bad press in the UK - and usually deserves it. But time spent this week in the company of a German client and some visitors from Austria had me changing my outraged mind and siding with the FIFA mandarins.
It was in particular enlightening to hear my German colleague say that there was still an issue with remembering the war dead in Germany because the nation was so embarassed by its war past that "honouring the fallen" was actually something that was almost impossible to imagine.
So, despite my own desire - and I think the wish of the Royal British Legion - for the Remembrance movement to reflect sadly on the tragic loss of lives on all sides of the past conflicts; things are not always what they seem and maybe FIFA were right to stick to their guns and not allow an addition to player shirts that could create an unwanted precedent. Such as Argentina playing at Wembley with a Malvinas war dead emblem for example.
I also found it ironic that at the height of this debate, our Government could find time to proscribe an admittedly extremist Muslim movement and prevent their gathering on Sunday in an "anti-poppy" rally which aimed (among other less savoury points) to highlight the numerous civilian casualties during the war on terrorism waged, in the main by US and UK forces.
Let me be clear on this before the hate mail starts. There is no common ground between what appears to be a hateful extremist group and the Royal British Legion and its Poppy day movement. And freedom of speech and expression does not include freedom to incite violence which the Govt has a duty to guard against.
But there are two sides to most stories and we should try wherever possible to listen to both.
Speaking of stories... James Murdoch was telling his version of events to the House of Commons committee again yesterday. He appears to be very consistent and insists that he did not know the extent of the hacking or the reason why the pay-off to Gordon Taylor was so high for example.
Given the number of people who argue to the contrary, one can only conclude he either wasn't listening, wasn't paying attention, didn't understand, didn't care, or simply got confused poor lad. Whichever it was: he shouldn't be allowed control of the cheque book.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Some thinking explained...
Around a week ago - a long time in politics I know - I wrote and outlined my support for Rob Brown in the upcoming CIPR Presidential election.
I described Rob as the most progressive candidate and one that I felt was best able to continue to unite members, council, Board and staff on the upward path that I believe the Institute is now following.
Not surprisingly, I have had a couple of emails from friends and colleagues asking me to elaborate on those thoughts and querying whether that meant I regarded the other candidates as "unable" to unite those groups.
So - for the record - no I do not believe the other candidates would be "unable" to gain across the board support, nor do I feel that they would not seek a progressive agenda. That doesn't change my view however, that Rob is the candidate in the best place to continue the progression.
At various stages I have worked closely with all three candidates for the Presidency and I know the strengths they would bring to the task at hand - in terms of their management style and business acumen; their PR background; their relationships with the broad church of the existing membership; their appeal to the next generation; their ability to work through, around or past the current PRCA difficulties; and the contribution they can make personally to the image and progression of the CIPR and indeed the profession itself as it faces up to the challenge of the digital era.
So, and with apologies to Lionel and Sue, when I look across all those requirements, Rob gets more "first place" votes from me and emerges as the strongest candidate.
You will probably be delighted to know that those are my final thoughts on the subject. I would urge you to use your vote, and to read the statements of all the candidates. I wish all the candidates well and I know that whoever triumphs will strive hard on behalf of the membership.
I described Rob as the most progressive candidate and one that I felt was best able to continue to unite members, council, Board and staff on the upward path that I believe the Institute is now following.
Not surprisingly, I have had a couple of emails from friends and colleagues asking me to elaborate on those thoughts and querying whether that meant I regarded the other candidates as "unable" to unite those groups.
So - for the record - no I do not believe the other candidates would be "unable" to gain across the board support, nor do I feel that they would not seek a progressive agenda. That doesn't change my view however, that Rob is the candidate in the best place to continue the progression.
At various stages I have worked closely with all three candidates for the Presidency and I know the strengths they would bring to the task at hand - in terms of their management style and business acumen; their PR background; their relationships with the broad church of the existing membership; their appeal to the next generation; their ability to work through, around or past the current PRCA difficulties; and the contribution they can make personally to the image and progression of the CIPR and indeed the profession itself as it faces up to the challenge of the digital era.
So, and with apologies to Lionel and Sue, when I look across all those requirements, Rob gets more "first place" votes from me and emerges as the strongest candidate.
You will probably be delighted to know that those are my final thoughts on the subject. I would urge you to use your vote, and to read the statements of all the candidates. I wish all the candidates well and I know that whoever triumphs will strive hard on behalf of the membership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)