In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about human nature and the meaning of “the human journey” and this information challenges the institutions that we have created based on many of these assumptions – our educational institutions, our business practices and our Governing Institutions. So could our new coalition Government with its brief beyond traditional Party Dogma be a seed for the start of such a revolution in our thinking?
On 05.17.10, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about [...]
On 07.10.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
Taking Politics out of the Political – Three New Words for the 21st Century
If we are ever to take succeed in taking the Politics out of the Political (Party) System need to ‘invent’ some new words.
Two exisiting words that do not help us to move away from the present system are Government and Political
Government – [...]
Taking Politics out of the Political – Three New Words for the 21st Century
If we are ever to take succeed in taking the Politics out of the Political (Party) System need to ‘invent’ some new words.
Two exisiting words that do not help us to move away from the present system are Government and Political
Government – has within it the term ‘govern’ which contains elements of to rule, to control, to determine etc (eg to exercise continuous sovereign authority over ; especially to control and direct). Government was something that replaced the single ‘ruler’ (person who rules over). There is very little difference though in the meaning of “to rule” and to “govern” ( both have a sense of control, dominion, or direction over; to dominate by powerful influence; to decide or declare authoritatively or judicially; to decree)
If we wanted to apply a different set of conditions by which we run a Country, where the emphasis is not on controlling people but something more enabling we need a new word. So I am going to use the word Enablement as an alternative (model) to Government. An Enablement would have the brief of doing everything possible to allow people and communities to become the best that they can be.
The role of any Enablement would be to help remove the things that disable the people from being the best they can be and to become a facilitator for improvement by advocating useful models and discarding the useless models (Political Parties can become so attached to their useless models that this becomes a big part of the problem – I have already mentioned elsewhere that “Target Setting” is a useless model for facilitating real long-term improvement here).
An Enablement moves away from the emphasis of the ‘rule of law’ (you should feel bad about yourself if you break the rules) to the ‘rule of helpful behaviours’ (you should feel good about yourself when you behave in ways that are helpful to others). The idea of Goverment is based on “Old Psychology”; Enablement is based on the principles espoused in all the New Psychologies”.
The second unhelpful word is ‘political‘.
There is no academic agreed meaning of this term but most definitions contain the words ‘power’ and it does seem that it is the lure of power in one form or another that motivates people to use ‘political means’ to achieve things. It is often assumed in the literature that whenever groups interact ‘politics’ is a natural consequence.
However I have participated in group interactions similar to what the Physicist Bohm described as ‘dialogue’ and when engaged in such Bohmian Dialogue ‘politics’ is not a natural consequence (and as there is some confusion about the meaning of ‘dialogue’ I am going to introduce what will be a third new word and rename Bohmian dialogue as “multilogue”).
So if it is possible to do things (non-politically) in groups that lead to more effective (indeed better) decisions, then we need a new word and I am going to use “Qualitics”.
In a future blog I will attempt to define Qualitics in detail but for now let’s just see it as a way groups can work together co-operatively to allow new ideas to emerge that can lead to mutual quality outcomes.
So here are three new words for the 21st Century. Enablements as an alternative to Goverments, Qualitics as an alternative to Politics with , and multilogue (a la Bohm) as an alternative to debate.
On 07.08.09, In Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
Some more ways in which all main Political Parties are the same
Surveillance – generally in favour of more surveillance, more cameras
Nanny State – generally in favour of new laws and telling people how they should behave (whilst they carry on as usual) including:
Roads – in favour of more and more ‘restrictions’ particularly with regard to [...]
Some more ways in which all main Political Parties are the same
- Surveillance – generally in favour of more surveillance, more cameras
- Nanny State – generally in favour of new laws and telling people how they should behave (whilst they carry on as usual) including:
Roads – in favour of more and more ‘restrictions’ particularly with regard to speed limits
Food and Drugs – Tell us what to do based on the limited ‘science’ of the day
- Statistics and numbers – all Parties misuse data thereby confusing issues and preventing true debate (not always deliberately but this reflects general numerical literacy of people in high places)
- Health – All Parties promote a National “Illness” service rather than a National “Wellness” service, where the priorities are not on helping to promote wellness but to prioritise illness.
However we must not forget that ‘Parties’ follow some (not all) of these policies because they believe that is what the ‘voter’ wants (and thus will keep them in power). Indeed we ourselves have created a Society that makes most of its decisions from a culture of blame and fear rather than one of community and love. So many of the “sameness’ policies are doing what ‘fearful’ people really feel they want. However what sort of a life is it when all of us are being led by fear rather than by Joy .
If we are to educate and change society’s unhelpful behaviours (these behaviours are unhelpful if we want to improve the real quality of life) – then politicians should be leading the people and not simply following them.
So are all Political Parties the same (except in the detail)?
On 07.06.09, In Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
All Main Political Parties are the Same
I want to discuss just one example where all the main political parties are the same (and therefore we have limited choice when we vote) and this is how al the Parties seek to initiate real change and improvement. They call it ‘Target Setting’ and it is destroying everything [...]
All Main Political Parties are the Same
I want to discuss just one example where all the main political parties are the same (and therefore we have limited choice when we vote) and this is how al the Parties seek to initiate real change and improvement. They call it ‘Target Setting’ and it is destroying everything it touches.
Target Setting
All the main political party’s use ‘target setting’ as their main vehicle for change. There is not one main Party that will improve our services by getting rid of target setting all together – even though all the research suggests that setting arbitrary targets (find me a target that is not arbitrary!) distorts systems and does not actually improve them.
Politicians seem oblivious to the fact that that there are three ways to achieve a target, some ways help some ways don’t help at all. The three ways (perhaps there are more) are distort the data, distort the system or improve the system.
(1) Distort the Data
One way to achieve a target is to manipulate the data in some way. To find a loophole that can be exploited so that the data collected looks better than it really is. This can be leaving some data out, or collecting the data in a way that was not actually intended. This is a relatively easy way to reach ‘targets’ and the staff that collect the data are under enormous pressure to see that the figures look right. Where there is a Blame Culture (which of course there is everywhere because this seems to be characteristic of Government itself) this subtle ‘fiddling of the data’ is happening all of the time. Those that get caught out are the unlucky ones, because this is endemic.
A favourite way that Government themselves do this, is to change collection methods, or change data definitions when things are not happening the way they would like i.e. they move the goalposts. Classic examples of how manipulating the data has worked have been (1) in order to hit waiting list targets hospitals delayed putting people on a waiting list in the first place (2) to reach exam targets in some schools, children were prevented from taking the exams that their teacher thought they were likely to fail. And incidentally what makes matters worse for morale was that it was those schools who ‘cheated’ that won Government plaudits (‘most improved school’, ‘top school’) whereas those schools that refused to play these games often got put into ‘special measures’.
(2)Distort the System
The second way to achieve a target is to distort the system i.e. to focus effort on achieving the targets at the expense of the things that are not being targeted or monitored. System thinkers often refer to this way of achieving targets as ‘moving the deck-chairs around on the Titanic’. We have seen this in schools where the extra tuition is targeted at the group of students that will benefit the school’s exam results the most (as measured by the targets set). We are continually distorting all of our Public Services in the name of target reaching. When I worked for two years as a Quality Consultant to a Health Authority I saw many examples of targets distorting services for the worse.
(3) Improve the System !
One way to reach a target is of course to actually improve the system, but to do this you have to change the system. Changing the System (and what, why, and how it can be changed for the better) is always the most difficult way to achieve a target, because this requires real knowledge about the current capability of the product or service (and despite all the measures we take, we never seem to have any useful data on this) and understanding the key influencers of quality improvement (which unfortunately no main political party has this knowledge – or they would not be setting targets in the first place).
Two pertinent quotes:
“Eliminate Targets and work standards that prescribe arbitrary numerical quotas and goals” W.Edwards Deming (the father of quality improvement)
“Targets are capricious. While they are assumed to provide a spur to improvement, they actually make performance worse. The next time we hear about the Government’s use of targets, we should be asking why they have not been abandoned.” John Seddon (Vanguard Consulting)
Without knowledge of what a better way of working might look like, all that anyone can do, given a ‘target’ is ‘more of the same faster’; whereas quality improvement requires finding, researching, planning, trialing, studying and implementing ‘a different method’, so much easier to distort the system or fiddle the data.
I will leave you with some additional quotes taken from a John Seddon article “On Target To Achieve Nothing” in the Guardian Newspaper in 2000 (full article here http://www.systemsthinking.co.uk/6-targets.asp) And this article demonstrates to me that NOT ONE of our main Political Parties has learnt anything about improvement in the nine years since this was written! (It is my underlining in the text)
On a recent Radio 4 Today programme a Liberal Democrat spokesman was invited to criticise the Government’s use of targets for managing the public sector At last, I thought, someone is going to point out that targets don’t get us what we want.
Alas, the spokesman could only suggest that they should be used better. The fact is that targets don’t help us get to where we want to be. Worse, they actually obviate the possibility by making people focus on the wrong things. In the police, schools, health service and local authorities targets are hindering performance rather than fostering improvement.
What I had hoped the spokesman would say was that the whole idea of targets is flawed – that their use in a hierarchical system engages peoples’ ingenuity in managing the numbers instead of improving their methods. Peoples’ attention turns to being seen to meet the targets – fulfilling the bureaucratic requirements of reporting that which they have become ‘accountable’ for – at the expense of achieving the organisation’s purpose. In simple terms, all this effort constitutes and causes waste – inefficiency, poor service and, worst of all, low morale.
The notion of a target is plausible. In principle, there is nothing wrong with individuals having targets that they may set themselves – lose weight, run further, get another job, earn more money. But targets in a hierarchical system is that it is imposed with authority, by people who are generally detached from the work being carried out. Targets are therefore arbitrary. They may suit a plan, but they do not start from a knowledge of capability – what the system predictably achieves and why.
What the spokesman should have said was that instead of targets people need measures that lead to questions of method – ‘How can we do this better?’
So currently no main political party has in their manifesto “we will abolish targets so we can get on with improving not distorting services”
Coming Next: More on areas where Political Parties are the same
On 07.01.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by admin
A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.
A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
This Blog: On the need [...]
A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.
A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
This Blog: On the need for something different in Politics
We need something new and something completely different in Politics. Believing that tinkering with what we have will lead to something much better is madness. The current political system regardless of the ‘Party’ elected to power has consistently failed to do the job for which it was elected.
Why is Government Failing?
This could be due to several things. Firstly that ‘Government’ thinks it can control things that it cannot (and therefore will always under-deliver); (2) the thinking and assumptions about the ‘problems’ are wrong or the methods by which Government seek to implement their policies simply don’t work; or (3) that the system itself is the problem (the system is the one that embraces what we currently accept – Political Parties in charge (rather than independent thinkers), whips to maintain Party discipline and ideology regardless of consequences; ideological thinking tempered often only by charged polarised debate (or in the UK- the slanging match) as the best vehicle to find the new solutions to existing problems or (4) the system fails because we the voters either lack the knowledge or the wherewithal to canvas effectively for something better. This latter viewpoint incidently espoused by James Garfield “Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Parliament. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.” So perhaps rather than the politicians canvassing for our vote we need to canvas them about what we expect from them (and it certainly isn’t all those things we seem to have been getting and seeing recently)
Could we dispense with Political Parties and still elect a Government?
This blog will look at all the possible aspects of why the current system is failing us. The blog will look at some of the things we could do differently. Indeed we will explore whether we can dispense with political “Parties” all together. Would it be possible to elect, manage and orchestrate a Parliament filled with independent members? What knowledge, mechanisms, processes would need to be in place to allow this scenario to not only happen but succeed in doing better than what we currently have? If we actually need Parties, can we construct a Non-Political Party to promote different ways of doing things? Is the idea of a Non-Politcal Party an Oxymoron? What’s an Oxymoron?
Can a Political Party Think the Unthinkable? Of course not! (not if it is truly ‘political’)
One thing seems clear. Our existing Political Parties will not be able to make the drastic changes in thinking that are required to take society into a 21st Century where things actually improve rather than keep getting worse. Therefore there is a strong need for some new energy and ideas to come into Politics and ultimately there must be a real choice at the Ballot Box where individuals can place their vote with that person or Party that is singing from a different song-sheet. Most political parties would do most things the same in office; the differences are merely in the detail or in the method.
Coming Next: How all the current main political Parties are actually 95% all the same and What is Politics anyway?