"we've had enough of politics being polluted" ... the problem is, the electorate hasn't. We had our Clement Attlee moment with Corbyn, the people firmly said "no" ->
X : People were lied to.
Me : It doesn't matter. Majority of Brits didn't trust Johnson but they wanted the strongman and the fantasy over Corbyn. Get real ... half of all conservative members think Trump would be a good PM - businessinsider.com/poll-donald-tr…
This is all wrapped up in concepts like belonging and the sense of safety we have within the collective even if the collective mistreats us. Corbyn offered reform but that's a frightening concept. I know Starmer seems bland and Tory light but that is what is needed to win.
There is no point in saying we will remove privatisation from the NHS, tackle climate change, create free university education ... if those reforms are seen as too much and you never win power. Labour has to win power first and that means attracting a wide spectrum of voters ...
... the problem with Corbyn is that he stood on principles, he aimed to do what was right, to reduce inequality, to increase democracy and his guiding light was Clement Attlee. I loved it but the electorate didn't want that sort of reform.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Thoughts on Carbon Markets.
Me : The wrong way to solve the problem.
X : Eh?
Me : They are open to gross exploitation. I don't agree with them, never have. There are better ways in my view.
X : How?
Me : Every citizen should be given a non transferable permit for Carbon emission. A permit allows for an specified emission decided annually by negotiation between countries. Citizens have the right to sell or not to sell their annual output for one year on an open market ...
... so for example. citizen in the UK might get X kg and in another country they get Y Kg depending upon agreed emission divided by population. Companies must be required to calculate and buy the annual emission required from the market ...
... I do have to now ask, how long before the No.3 in the West bows out of this game?
The game of cloud was never for the faint of heart. It needs awareness, focus, intensity and the ability to play the game at the highest level.
I know Google had doubts before - cnbc.com/2019/12/17/goo… ... and that goal of being "No. 1 or No. 2 in cloud by 2023" seems far away.
There is no shame in bowing out, sometimes you just have to accept that you're not good enough. The danger is you delude yourself and stay for too long. So, I do wonder as we close in on 2023 what Google will do. 3 yrs into that journey, there is only 20 months left.
X : Why did you make mapping creative commons?
Me : It's all in my map of mapping. I set out on this path almost 16 years ago, I have every intention of wiping out the existing management / strategy consultancy industry and replacing it with something that actually does the job.
X : What if management consultants start adopting your method?
Me : Applying situational awareness? Teaching others to map? Perfect, that'll accelerate the process. I expect them to fight due to existing inertia.
I wanted to do this in plain sight, not to hide my intentions, to use open as a weapon in order to accelerate the process, to democratise the concepts and teaching of strategy through situational awareness. My intent is singular and focused.
Commodification is when we take something with social value and give it economic value i.e. someone tries to commodify air or commodify an idea.
Commoditisation is when that thing evolves from imperfect to perfect competition i.e. it evolves from genesis to becoming a commodity.
These are very different processes, commodification is not the same as commoditisation. That's easy to understand if you map, very difficult to grasp if you don't ...
... but then, it's like disruption. There are two different forms - one predictable, one not. Hence the whole Christensen vs Lapore argument. Easy to understand if you map, difficult if you don't.
Debate over the NHS was lost in the last election. We need to accept the electorate are unwilling to defend it. Focus should be "Given ongoing privatisation of the NHS, what safeguards will be put in place to protect the poorest and prevent inevitable corporate failures?" ->
Labour must learn from the election that the electorate doesn't believe a national NHS, broadband, railways or free education or tackling climate change is possible. Reality is irrelevant, it only matters what the electorate believe. Win that and then show what's possible ...
... I must admit, I felt revulsion at the dark lord of spin, Peter Mandelson, returning to run Labour strategy. I now, on reflection, realise what a shrewd move that is and one that should be welcomed. Starmer is playing the right game here.
Listening to Monday's HoC. "Zero COVID" is extreme, and "living with COVID like flu" is practical ... hmmm ... "Countries trying to eliminate the virus have been far more successful and economically better off than those that have tried to suppress it" - theguardian.com/world/commenti…
... whilst I praise the NHS on vaccination efforts (which are fabulous), and last March I did think it would take us 18 months to overcome this (Sept 21), I am now doubtful that without a focus on "zero COVID" that we will be over this before the next general election ...
... to describe "zero COVID" as extremism is daft as far as I am concerned and ignores the approaches of others. I'd be more cautious on issues of mutation, widespread infection, therapeutic vs prophylactic treatment and vaccines with reduced targets.