Succession planning?  Not very sexy is it?  Planning for the day when you retire, die, get fired or pushed aside in a boardroom coup.  Yet it’s essential.  All organisations need someone to take on the mantle of the person that started, founded or built it up from nothing.

So why do companies chose family members to do the work?  Why is it “Somebody and sons” on the label.  Why do they believe the children have the ability that their parent had?

And it’s not just companies.  Take the Monarchy, the oldest “firm” in the UK.  We’re going to get Charles at the helm of his mother’s “empire” at some point soon.  Sooner rather than later if we were to believe reports earlier this week that the queen was, in fact, dead.  But is he up to the job?  He’s 71 at time of writing; an age when most people would be looking to retire.  But they are well looked after these royals and seem to go on forever.  Queenie is 93 and Phil “the Greek” is 98.  Unless of course they have been replaced by look-alikes sometime in the early 2000s?

But I ask again, is he up to the job?  Sure he’s been brought up to take on the role, with perhaps the longest apprenticeship in history, but all we know about him is he’s a tree-hugger, and critic of modern architecture and an adulterer.  But what is the role anyway?

As an aside, today we find that Eddie Stobart’s trucking business is in trouble.  Eddie gave up the business to his sons in 1989 and since then they have done the usual company shit:  expanded, contracted, sold bits off and floated as a public company. Now we have two members of the family fighting over what is the best plan to stop a collapse. Plans being decided over by shareholders that, typically, don’t give a toss about anything other than their dividend.

Unions have called it “bandit capitalism” and investors have offered to help with a loan with a 25% interest rate. Talk about wanting their pound of flesh.

Perhaps the whole idea of succession planning should not automatically include family members, or whether they want to the same school, or came from the same social class?  Perhaps all positions should be decided on merit alone.

I’m in a very lucky position.  I’m not starving.  I don’t have to use food banks.  I don’t have much money coming in, but I have some money put-by when I had better days.  I have a home, it’s warm and I have a loving family.

I’ve just been watching videos from people at food banks asking how they will vote on December 12th.  Their comments are all based on “what can this party do better for me than another party?”. It’s that simple.  Which party can help these poor people?

I don’t have to think this way.  I can think about which party benefits society as a whole.  I can think about which party can give money to help the poor, pay for the NHS, or decide what level of tax people and companies pay.

Some of my friends have lots of income, others have very little.  Some of the high earners save for a rainy day, others spend like there is no tomorrow.  They make themselves “poor” (in their eyes) because of the huge expenses they have to pay out as a result of their lifestyle.  It’s their choice, so who am I to tell them what to do? It’s a free society.

But when my wealth friends (and let’s face it, they are wealthy – they just spend a lot) tell me that they cannot afford to pay a higher income tax, or feel wealthy people (like them) should not be forced to pay for the poor, the scroungers, the benefits frauds, then I get cross. When I hear that they have earned their wages and they should not have to pay more for others that have not worked hard enough, I get very cross.

I have always been happy to pay my taxes.  I’ve declared all of my income even when I could have “kept quiet” about some additional earnings from podcasting came my way.  I would be happy to pay more taxes.  If we can shut down food banks because they’re not needed anymore I would be pleased to know it’s down to my tax – that’s the society I want my taxes to pay for.

So, if you, like me, are blessed by being “comfortable”, then think about what you want society to be.  Think about whether it’s all about YOU, or whether you are prepared to fund a better life for OTHERS.  

If you like that idea, then congratulations, you have become a socialist. Now you can vote Labour and get a caring government, with caring policies. Admittedly I’m voting tactically for the Liberal Democrats again this year, but that’s because I live in a part of the country where there are few people that think like me – and fewer act like me.  Maybe one day my area will be socialist? Nah, who am I kidding.

I can still dream can’t I?

You expect all the usual tropes during an election.  Candidates with their shirt sleeves rolled up (“I’m ready to do some work”), holding babies (“I’m a family person”) or shaking hands with supporters (“I’m one of the people).  And there’s the other one – in a boxing ring with gloves on.  “I’m ready to take on the fight and win” is the message of course, but how out-of-place do these candidates look in the ring?

The only politician known to have trained as a boxer was John Prescott and his most famous punch was outside the ring when an egg was thrown at him by a protester.

The others do look slightly ridiculous.  The only one that looks remotely like they have ever punched anyone is Boris Johnson, which is hardly a surprise, given his public school upbringing.

So why do we have these worn-out messages still being played out in 2019. Wouldn’t it be better is they showed someone replying to a facebook message with “LOL. Yeah Totes Babe! ROFL” or taking a selfie with a cat filter?

OK, just leave it to me then……

Update: 27th November 2019 Donald Trump himself sends out this picture.

You can’t make it up can you? Have you been reading this blog Donald?

Katie Hopkins, the ultra right-wing columnist and broadcaster recently said in an interview in The Times, that “Speaking my mind cost me my career” and that “her views have left her unemployable and living in the shadows”.  She was forced to sell her last house for £950,000 to pay off a legal bill in excess of £500,000. A bill she could have settled early by giving £5,000 to a migrant’s charity. Something she refused to do.

She is hated by many people and never really has a good word to say about anyone, apart from other ultra right-wingers, and, of course, Trump.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, in a quote often attributed to Voltaire said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it“. This is the foundation of the freedom of speech in a democracy.

But is it true to say she has lost her career as a result of her right to a freedom of speech? She claims that 50% of her income comes from public speaking engagements, so there are definitely some people out there who want to listen to her.

She lost her job at LBC after tweeting there needed to be a “final solution” after the Manchester Arena terrorist attack.  Since then she just tweets words and videos as she sees fit, mostly unpleasant attacks on other faiths, races or people.

But is it OK to say such things? In a free society we all should be allowed to say these things (or the complete opposite) and take the rough with the smooth. This, she obviously has done.  It’s not as OK for an organisation such as LBC to continue giving her a salary to say such things.  Although, that said, they continue to have Nigel Farrage on their station.

My view is she deliberately overstepped the mark, in the full knowledge of what would happen.  Losing a job and a house is a natural consequence of that deliberate action.

Should she be allowed to continue to overstep the mark?  In my view, yes.  We don’t need to silence her. The more rubbish she spouts the less likely she is going to be listened to.  Let her dig her own hole.