Skip to main content

If we invest in people we can win

It seems a bit late to talk about the Olympics. That was last year's news. But I was always concerned we would take the wrong message from the Olympics and Paralympics. It has been revealed that half a million soldiers, nurses and teachers will have their incomes slashed in the coalition's benefits crackdown. That is half a million 'strivers'; half a million winners. Mr Cameron clearly has learned very little from the Olympics. If you want winners then you have to support them. 

 Like many others I was enthralled by the wonderful success of British athletes. Each day I would clap with joy at each new medal added to the tally. I didn't expect to be so riveted by it all. "Isn't it fantastic?" friends and relatives would say. And I would say "Yes! Fantastic! Wonderful!" But even as I expressed my enthusiasm, I had nagging doubts. Not doubts that it was fantastic, or about the effort and achievement of the athletes. I shared their joy. I shared their emotion. Often tears came to my eyes as they lifted their medals for all to see on the podium.  No, my doubts were about the message. 

It was inevitable that the Olympics would mint political coinage. After all, as well as being a competition, it is a political event, a political circus. And politicians were there beaming away at medal ceremonies, if only to show what good blokes they are. Some for their pains got booed; oh the joy. Almost immediately  the Olympic spirit was turned into political rhetoric. The prime minister in his Party conference speech referred to the 'lesson'. Britain's Olympians and Paralympians he told us

"have taught us another lesson: graft equals success. You don’t get to the podium without making huge sacrifices and really wanting to win. That lesson can be applied to our country. It will be a hard road to success – but that’s the road we must take."

What he meant was the pain of cuts in spending and welfare will be the price worth paying for success. Hard work and dedication are certainly needed to achieve any ambition.  But the idea that this is all it needs is very wide of the mark. Furthermore, it offers a false prospectus. 

Olympic success did not come from hard work and dedication alone. It had a vital ingredient; funding, investment. Success in the velodrome wasn't due to the hard work and dedication of the athletes alone. It came at least in part because of investment of many years.  Hard work and dedication won't win gold without it. If talent is not spotted, nurtured, supported, then it will wither on the vine, no matter how much hard work and dedication a talented individual puts in. Going for gold is not itself sufficient. As UK Sport says it takes the provision of support services "without which the UK's top athletes would find it difficult to be competitive on the world stage." Olympic athletes have what most of us can't have, even those of us who are equally talented. They have a team dedicated to improving  performance. 

In the London Olympics British cyclists won 8 golds, 2 silver and 2 Bronze. This was achieved with funding between 2009 - 2012 of £26m. As Sir Chris Hoy says of his achievements in the sport, without the funding and support "there's no chance I would have achieved these goals."

Physiotherapists, sports masseuse, nutritionists, sports psychologists, strength and conditioning coaches, lifestyles advisers, biomechanicists, technical coaches, the list goes on.And then there are the researchers developing new sports gear just to give the team the edge; certainly true of cycling.  All working with the hope that the hard work of just one or two, or perhaps just a few individuals will win. Just a few, not the many. For every winner there are many more who don't win; for every athlete who gets to the games, there a many who do not. No the Olympics is not where we find the answers. It has very little to tell us about the real world. We can be 'inspired' by Olympic athletes, but they are exceptional, and no matter how inspired we might be, on the whole we won't have access to the kind of support they need. 

So, the real lesson is not the hard work and pain. That is a given. There are many hard working people doing that day in and day out to keep a roof over the heads and feed their families. Contrary to the portrayal by Mr Cameron and his colleagues, the majority of those receiving welfare benefits are hard working and dedicated, day in and day out. But, for the poorest of them, he is cutting their support. They are winners and yet he is taking away from them the support they need to go on being winners; bread winners for their families. 

They keep the engine of Britain going day in and day out. They are striving, working hard. They deserve to be supported. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As