The Language Business

Building Trust with the Islamic States and China

Believe it or not – and I have to say I find it difficult – the words above were reportedly uttered in recent hours by the Director General designate of the British Council, Martin Davidson, as how the organisation now sees its role. The quotation from the Press Association goes on:

The Council would scrap "traditional arts activities" in Europe, such as orchestral tours and artistic commissions, in favour of projects "designed to prevent Muslim youths from being indoctrinated by extremists sympathetic to al-Qaeda," the Times said.

OK, so no more dancing on Armenian flags, or Morris Dancers in the Canaries or whatever which I agree the world will not miss, and more… well, what exactly? Projects to prevent Muslim youths from being indoctrinated by extremists. Do you smell the role of the British government in this? Is there in fact anybody who does not? Can anybody miss the irony?

My own position in this doesn’t matter at all, but let me make it clear anyway. I have had the pleasure and privilege of working in Moslem countries, and am glad to count Moslems among my friends. I am, as they are, appalled by the actions of extremists, and seek a more peaceful world. But now we have the prospect of the British Council, a half-arsed organisation if ever there was one, apparently abandoning any idea of a generally harmless cultural role, and targeting Moslem extremists. Please can somebody – Margaret Beckett perhaps – get a grip? The British Council does not have a clue what it is doing, is seriously compromised as a representative organisation, and is in any case mainly motivated by getting hold of other people’s money. And how on earth can you "build trust" with an organisation that is itself so untrustworthy? We in Britain have enough cock-ups ongoing – let us not add to them.

Oh dear.

Wary of working with government bodies?

“As we operate at arm's length from the UK government, we are able to build relationships with those who may be wary of working with government bodies.”

The British Council wants, and generally gets, everything its own way. The organisation is a charity; this is despite the fact that it is in clear breach of the Charity Commission “key legal principle” that charities must be independent of government  (and of course the rather more basic point that nobody in their right mind would make a donation to this “charity” voluntarily; we British taxpayers make our “donations” compulsorily). As a government funded organisation the British Council gets half a mill a day from the FCO, plus many millions in public money from contracts from MoD, DFES and DFID, and early retirement for its officers with publicly funded index-linked civil service pensions (and the odd gong). As a charity it gets tax privileges. It also makes money from selling English language courses, selling examinations, selling space at fairs and exhibitions, and selling access to various other goods and services from its international network of state sponsored outlets, thereby distorting the free market economy at home, and also abroad, where, as we have noted, it gets the additional bunce of diplomatic status.

This miracle of contortion is achieved “at arm’s length” from the UK government. It’s a great turn of phrase, is it not? They don’t claim to be independent of government, because of course even they know they can’t get away with that one, neither can they admit they are dependent on government because that would dish the charitable status. (They have got close mind you, when the Director-General gave a monosyllabic “No” response to the question from the FAC about whether the organisation might be able to manage without the taxpayers’ funds, referring here simply to the grant-in-aid, rather than the massive support given via other government contracts, tax breaks and pensions). So in order to keep everybody on board this increasingly rocky ship they ask us to swallow the phrase “at arm’s length”, and offer this formula as a way of squirming out of their role as an arm of government.

Don’t be deceived. While the British Council holds that the organisation “receives strategic direction from a board of trustees”, the FCO site makes it clear a) that the British Council is its medium for cultural relations / public diplomacy and b) that the strategic direction for public diplomacy is set by the FCO’s Public Diplomacy Board. Government. Two lots of strategic direction? Well no. The Board of Trustees plays second fiddle. They could hardly set strategic direction which was in any way at odds with the strategic direction set by the British Council’s government paymasters, so the trustees have settled for honorary, phatic, cipher roles.  As indeed has been our experience. If you harbour any doubts about the British Council’s “arm’s length” claim, just read again the evidence given by the Director General to the FAC, where he falls over himself to point out how strategic planning and operational considerations are a function of the organisation’s intimate client relationship with government.

You dear reader, wherever you may be, may for whatever reason be “wary” of dealing with government bodies. You would in that case be well advised to be wary of the British Council too a) because it is a government body, b) because it claims not to be, and c) because it is parasitical, self-serving and secretive, and uses this slimy “arm’s length” formula to avoid accountability.

Don’t just keep the British Council at arm’s length; stay well clear.

Leveraging Privilege

The British Council rests four square, and comfortably, on a base constructed out of privilege. At one corner it has the privilege of diplomatic status, with privileges, including tax privileges, for employees overseas, and for “business” activities. At a second corner it has, despite its clear dependency on government, charitable status, which means that it has privileges at home, including tax privileges. At a third corner its officers enjoy retirement at 60 (or five years paid holiday) and civil service pension arrangements, meaning that the taxpayer underwrites the government’s commitment to index-link their pensions sine die. And at the fourth corner, the British taxpayer pays them a subsidy of over half a million pounds a day. 365.

Armed with all that privilege, this organisation is then able to “compete” with private enterprise at home and abroad. As noted in our “Economy with the Truth” article they know that it’s stitch-up, and now they know too that we know that they know. In October 2005, in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Lord Kinnock, British Council chair, answering a question about whether the Council might perhaps be able to manage with less of a subsidy, said  “The second reason why a reduction would not be justified is the very one that we started the question with: the fact that we leverage the resource that is utterly dependable from grant-in-aid resources so that we are an organisation that can generate that additional value and those additional resources.” Elsewhere in his evidence, Lord Kinnock refers to the British Council as “as an organisation that generates £1.76 for every £1 we get in public support”.

About nine months later, the Director-General was asked a similar question by the same parliamentary body, and he answered thus: “First, can I nail one thing and that is that all of the work we do in terms of teaching English through our language schools and the examinations that we promote on behalf of examination boards is not in any way subsidised by the grant-in-aid. It is a completely separate operation and there is no subsidy of those operations by the grant. I would put it the other way, that the value that the UK gets and the UK Government gets is that for every pound that the British Council receives in grant-in-aid, we turned that into ₤2.74p last year. That was because we were able to bring in students to study English, we were able to promote examinations, we won contracts through the European Commission and DfID, and we did work for the DfES, et cetera. I think if the grant were removed or reduced, it would also remove that ability to leverage those funds, which are so beneficial.”

Setting aside the 2p discrepancy, the Chair and the executive sing from the same hymn sheet which says give us your money so that we can use it to make more. But whereas the seasoned politician Kinnock does not say here how it is “leveraged”, the Director General - somewhat rashly we might think - refers to selling examinations, getting fees for student recruitment, and winning DFID contracts. Put that another way, and they appear to be saying that unless they can count on that fourth leg of privilege of a daily half million pounds they might not be able to win those contracts to sell examinations, recruit students or get millions from DFID. Why should that be? Because of course the organisation would then have only the three legs of privilege – charitable status, diplomatic status and taxpayer funded pensions on early retirement – and that’s not enough (for them) with which to compete with genuine, real-world, tax-paying, risk-based, enterprise businesses. Which are therefore less able to grow their businesses, or fund their pensions, or pay tax.

Even after apparent rehearsal the Chair and the Director-General did well to get within 2p of each other, because whether they say they turn £1 into £2.74 or £2.76 the figure, like the logic which has it that “leveraged” activity is not subsidised, is nonsense. Their figure takes no account of the huge cost of those other privileges, neither does it recognise the benefit to the economy that there would be if such revenues went to real enterprise, without the heavy drag on the public purse that the organisation creates today, and - even if it were closed down tomorrow – with which it will continue to burden us for many years to come.

Never let it be said...

The British Council Freedom of Information publications section is now working. Well done chaps.

“Freedom of Information” British Council style

The British Council says that is “committed to openness and transparency in our dealings with people and organisations”, a claim which we have on numerous occasions exposed as bunk. Perhaps, however, you disagree or would prefer to give the organisation the benefit of the doubt, in which case my suggestion would be this: why not test the assertion for yourself?

The screen shot here is taken from http://www.britishcouncil.org/foi where the Director-General tells us that there is a list of publications which will be regularly updated. A click on the menu heading “Publications” provides you with that list. But, wait a moment, there aren’t any. A programming glitch perhaps? Try clicking on “Search” and then searching for, say, “scholarships”. Nothing again? No, and nothing for “British” or “Council”. Not even for “building trust”. Nothing at all. And it’s been that way for a long time.

So why not try to email them and find out why it isn’t working and whether there is any other way you can find out what publications are available? That’s foi@britishcouncil.org. The British Council is obliged under the law to comply “promptly” and in any event within 20 working days. Just don’t hold your breath.

Information about the Freedom of Information Act will be found here.

Good Will towards Britain begins to flag

They may not be aware of this in the British Council, but Armenia and the Armenian people have had a difficult history, and establishing their nationhood has been a long and desperate and bloody battle. So when the British Council arranged for a chap to give a performance in Yerevan which included dancing on the Armenian national flag, the Armenians were not best pleased. Should we be surprised? Of course we know, don’t we, that if an Armenian visitor gave a performance for the Queen which included dancing on the Union flag, and draping it over his naked torso with sexually suggestive movements, she would immediately warm to their country and culture? Not.

The Armenian constitution says of its national flag: “The Red emblematizes the Armenian Highland, the Armenian people's continued struggle for survival, maintenance of the Christian faith, Armenia's independence and freedom. The Blue emblematizes the will of the people of Armenia to live beneath peaceful skies. The Orange emblematizes the creative talent and hard-working nature of the people of Armenia.”

Not exactly a dance floor then.

The Armenian Culture Minister, Mrs Poghoysan, explained “Charnock may treat the British flag as he likes. He can drop it on the floor, step on it, chew it or swallow it, but it is unacceptable and punishable by law to treat the Armenian flag that way,”.

It seems that our Cultural Relations experts in Spring Gardens are not on the same wavelength as the Culture Minister, who also said “It appears that the English perception of treasures has been drastically devalued”. As the row erupted, Charnock was of course apologetic, but was he advised?

Remember, it’s not just yet another blunder by our British cultural missionaries, we British taxpayers actually PAY for this nonsense. This year, at the request of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the National Audit Office is undertaking a value-for-money examination of the British Council. Where, one wonders, will they start?

Full story in The Times.