In
our judicial system, jurists are required to make impartial decisions about
various matters. Traders quite rightly want to have a say about the direction
of our market and yet many disqualify themselves from taking an influential
role.
Let's
give an example. A trader who attended the Trades Hall meeting this week and
had quite a lot to say about traders resisting management, was asked why he was
against renewal. He said he wasn't against change, and the market needed a
renewal, but he had a really good corner position on one trading day and he was
going to fight against the renewal process until he was guaranteed the same
spot after renewal.
The
message is simple - Traders who put their own business interests above the
interests of the market cannot be objective about what is best for everyone.
Obviously, we need to look after our own businesses, but that comes after we
have made an un-biased decision about what is best for our market. 728
individual views will simply clog up the works (and some would say that is what
is happening right now). Somehow we need to reach a uniform agreement on what
are the best options for our market and then each of us decide how we can best
position our businesses to maximise those options for ourselves - the
"best result" comes first and the "ourselves" comes second.
Our
contribution to the renewal debate will be diminished unless we each take time
to step back and rationalise what needs to happen at a large public market in
order to meet the needs of its customers. So if you are in a debate on the
renewal of QVM, and your reasoning is centred only around the impact on your
business and lifestyle, you will understand why your influence might be
diminished. If you view is clouded by self interest, you can't be on the jury. If your view is impartial it will have greater influence.