PROFOUNDLY RELATIONAL STRUCTURES

What does that mean? What do those three words mean? Profoundly relational structures? Intellectual deep throat perhaps? I think the audience would have listened more intently if he'd used that term than the dry dull verbose political patter he did. I heard this and other gems when I went to a think tank evening this evening which was (I am assured) filled with thrusting young MPs all wanting to do the greater good, whatever that is. I attended because I was told it would be good to network with these people. But I walked away confused as to why it would be good to network with these people? I couldn't even understand what half of them were saying. It reminded me of the days when I worked with management consultants and they spouted out one sound bite after another after another which meant sweet FA.

I dressed up like a grown up to have a grown up evening and felt I'd arrived in the land of the morons. There were three speakers - the head messiah, an MP (one of the thrusting ones I think) and a Lord. Bit like father, son and holy spirit I suppose in reverse. The Lord was a dreadful speaker and I haven't got a clue what he was talking about but he kept mentioning 'paying for results.' I drifted off at one point and he mentioned 'paying for results' again and I immediately thought he'd changed the subject to phone hacking, but no such luck.

The MP was a little more animated but no more illuminating, telling us absolutely nothing about everything as all good politicians do. The Messiah was very enthusiastic, at one point almost jumping up and down, but I am still not quite sure about what. Perhaps about being on a stage in front of a big screen with a new website in front of it with loads of thrusting young MPs watching him.

I know I've been in the playground a long time, but I felt like the boy with the Emperor with no clothes watching these dull dull men - one after another - spouting platitude after platitude, and jargon after jargon - about helping the poor, and paying for results.

The room was full (I was assured) of professors and lecturers and other learned folk who listened in revered silence at at the way in which the head honcho threw out how he intended to 'change the terms of debate'. I didn't have a clue what that meant and I didn't have a clue when I left although I did ask a lot of people questions afterwards and they didn't seem to know either.

I am sure the message was a good one. Just the messengers were naff.