X : Did you see this about Sunak and the conflict of interests? - theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
Me : I have now. Ho hum. We did vote in a party which is built on almost no integrity whatsover. Wake me up when a minister gets caught with a briefcase stuffed with cash and diamonds.
X : You don't seem very fussed?
Me : Ignoring law, one rule for them, special contract procedures, bullying, pressure on judges, non disclosure ... there are no standards in public life with this lot. But we've got many more years of this. Just catalogue it in the list.
X : What do you think will happen?
Me : Sunak? Nothing. They'll argue it was a clerical error or something like that, the fault of someone else. My only interest is if they find the source ... is this preparation for some sort of leadership challenge or defense against it?
X : Nothing?
Me : If you worked in finance for a company and you didn't disclose your partner had commercial interests in a supplier - you'd be fired unless you had dirt on others. This is politics with a party which clearly no longer values any form of integrity except loyalty.
Me : I wouldn't stress about this, just chalk it up as another example. I'm sure over the next few years there will be many many more of an even more serious nature.
X : You don't think it's serious?
Me : Of course I do. I just don't think we've scrapped the bottom of the barrel yet ... they can do worse, I'm confident they will.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Thoughts on monitoring staff?
Me : Ok, monitoring of staff in order to improve performance is not unreasonable as long as ... you clearly tell people that you're doing this. They will discover otherwise and when that happens you have a breach of trust.
X : Ok, but ...
X : ... what if you suspect someone is behaving badly or you have a requirement to monitor.
Me : If you don't trust your staff to begin with then you have a huge problem. Again monitoring is fine, as long as you tell people.
Me : Try to avoid the desire to act like spooks, you're a commercial company, not secret service agents. Also remember that you're likely to face enhanced mobility which is a risk in itself.
X : Enhanced mobility?
X : How much do you make from mapping?
Me : Do you mean beyond my normal research job in which I use mapping (and get paid a salary) i.e. royalties from books, investments, speaking engagements, events, consultancy advice etc?
X : Yes, roughly.
Me : £0, precisely ...
... I don't do this for money, I do it because I love the field, I meet really interesting people and it helps me in my research.
X : Just love of maps?
Me : There are other factors such as my long term play in which I intend to be arms dealer of strategic gameplays and that requires me to create a market, There is also my personal belief to give more than I take from the system wherever possible ...
X : Tips on introducing pioneer - settler - town planner (PST)?
Me :
Step 1. A five year ban on any re-organisation.
Step 2. Spend five years fixing your doctrine (see attached).
Step 3. Now you can talk about PST.
X : Do you think people will listen?
Me : Probably not. Execs often want magic easy fixes and people think re-organisation gives them that, it's a quick hit. Just say "no" to re-organisation.
X : How do you know that doctrine is right?
Me : I don't. It's all derived from mapping, even the phases are built on it. But it's called Wardley's doctrine because it is my doctrine. If it doesn't work, blame me, it's my name on it. Maybe someone will find a better list.
X : Do you think brexit could be successful?
Me : Many paths can be taken. I don't know what the plan is.
X : Example?
Me : Subdivide the UK into four regions with each region having a specific FTA - i.e. EU / RCEP / US / Commonwealth and cross border trade internally?
X : Would that work?
Me : It's an example of a path, an option. There are many options. Some will work, otherwise will not for various practical, political and legal reasons. I do not know what the path we've chosen is.
X : Be a global trading nation?
Me : That's just a statement of intent. A bit like leaving was just an action. Behind this there will be options, plans and many calculations. Endless rounds of scenario planning over the last four years ... I would expect this to be the case.
X : Why do you think Gov is better at efficiency than the private sector?
Me : Let us qualify that with "on average". The reason why I take this view is observation. I would argue the cause is challenge i.e. in Gov you have systems like NAO, MPA and Spend Control etc.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of pre-mortem challenge and post-mortem learning ideally using the same mechanism of communication.
The post mortem learning (if using the same mechanism of communication) helps improve the pre-mortem challenge, the pre-mortem challenge (whether the advice is followed or not) helps provide the base from which we learn.
X : Thoughts on Starmer?
Me : He seems to be doing fine. It's important to uphold the highest standards of office given the cesspool of chumocracy, bullying, unbecoming attempts to influence a judge, one rule for them, exam fiasco, contract questions ... the list is long.
X : Isn't Labour having a civil war?
Me : No. There is some disagreement, there has been an unfortunate attempt to curtail discussion, there's the usual rumours of purging mostly egged on by popular press (well, they have column inches to fill) but most believe in a broad church.
X : Corbyn?
Me : A symbol of anti-racism and a hero to many in the party. I'm quietly confident Starmer will bring all back into the church. It is what Labour does.
X : Blairite purges?
Me : Like the left wing purges? Mostly phantasmal and inventions of a vitriolic press.