I believe that we should have the courage to apply the same level of critical thinking to ourselves and to our inner circle and community as we strive to apply to others and their inner circles and communities. I watched the above programme and I have some radical thoughts about it but first off; hello, my name is Peter Campbell and I am the Managing Director of the family organization Caribbean East Atlantic Company. I have made it my life’s work the job of identifying and enabling people to achieve their ambitions in a rational manner wherever they are from around the world. To this end our company identifies skills gaps in countries around the world and helps other people from around the world fill them. How we continue to do this could be a five blog series or the theme of our prospectus. However for brevity’s sake on that subject I will say we will continue to cultivate local solutions through knowledge and cultural awareness as well as through the application of technology and resources. “Priority 10” will reinvest our profits into companies that, through a global approach to business, help lift people around the world out of poverty and into a harmonious world society. Obviously we are not about blindly getting rich, though becoming wealthy would be a marker of success in one facet of life. We are about consciously moving towards an inclusive future where we are all able to enjoy the fruits of our labour without having to protect it against a class struggle. This is a part of the reason why I had grave reservations about the paradigm from which the above programme sprung. I won’t bore you with a lecture style discourse of my views however I will state my concerns and possible alternative and inclusive models of working.


Why focus on individual journeys when creating leaders is a collective effort?


I believed that focusing on the story of individuals, however many individuals, was a mistake. A toddler at school is not so much “rude” or conversely “high spirited” as the families from which they spring are lacking in the social, cultural and economic capital to invest in that child in order to equip them to face a cold world.

A part of my proposed solution would be that we create, incentivise and respect organizations of all types that provide an incubator for the type of leadership that we need. From families, to schools, churches and other places of worship, the small and medium sized business and the grass roots community and political organizations all these organizations need creative ways to fund themselves and to nurture leaders within them. If we develop these organizations and the body of knowledge surrounding them then many leaders will emerge and the country will have a healthy choice.


Why does the title of this programme seem to tell us that the role of British Prime Minister is the job we should all aspire for?


Why should we not aspire to be President of Nigeria if we are dual nationals of that country or any other Commonwealth Country that has large transnational populations in the UK? And before you say to me that the UK is the more powerful or prestigious country to govern, if indeed people do govern for those reasons, let me direct you to the PwC report which puts Nigeria at number nine position in terms of GDP at PPP with US$bn7345 in 2050 while the UK will be at position number eleven with a GDP of US$bn 5744 in 2050.

The levers of power will be very different thirty-five years from now than they are today. My advice to anyone with high aspirations black or white would be to have passions first. From those passions derive wealth and from that wealth seek not only to lead your country but to influence the world.


Does Britain need a Black Prime Minister and if it does do they need to go to Oxford?


This question harks to my utilitarian education which ultimately led me to take the decision to drop out of the University of the West Indies, the foremost educational institution of the Caribbean. I believe that Britain should not set out to elect a Prime Minister from 4% of the population if that 4% does not have the resources economic, social and cultural to create the kind of leader that could lead 100% of the country. If elitism is indeed wrong it is wrong whether “we” use it or Oxford does.

NARIC has objectively recognized hundreds of institutions around the world which provide an education which is comparable in their opinion to a UK tertiary education. If you don’t get into Oxford you can always study somewhere else and develop the same hard and soft skills which will enable you to accumulate capital and help your community.


We might never need the political tokenism and identity arrivalism and aggrandizement that comes with deliberately electing a symbolic minority group leader. May the day never come when we seek to amass human shields to deflect honest discourse as to who and what we are and whether that is useful or not to what we hope to achieve. May we strive to create leaders that cherish the weak and guide the strong in a way that is beneficial to us all.