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

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working