Sunday, 14 May 2017

A metric for Governance - UK Election 2017

Healthy Governance - An Alternative Metric

I think of Healthy Governance as being the practical realities of administering a communities shared resources for the equal benefit of all members of that community and the habitat within which or from which that community emerges.

In the case of developed States, and in relation to Governance this relates to taxation,  which is collected from all, in one way or another, and is a primary community shared resource – it does not BELONG to the Government, they hold it in trust.

Apply that metric to policy.

What are the implications of administering a community shared resource?

- it must be evidence based, as a duty of care - opinion and belief cannot supplant evidence. All available evidence must be brought to bear on any issue.

- Governance must not be submissive or beholden to special interests of any kind.

- Adversarial dynamics must be rejected. Labour vs Tories is toxic. Christian vs Muslim is toxic. Atheism vs Religionism is toxic.

- adverse outcomes must be avoided, and where they occur, by accident or lack of foresight, or due to changes beyond human agency, they must be remedied immediately.

- long term health and safety is as much a priority as short term health and safety

- The policies must be proven to nurture the whole community, in a balanced and healthy manner.

This metric applies also to the seas, waterways, lands we inhabit. These too are shared community resources, and not just for us humans of developed societies.

We share this Earth. Fact.

Healthy Governance must acknowledge this.

For me, this old politic of competing powers is immature, it is a diseased way of conducting matters, and utterly toxic.

I cannot participate in current political discourse without being a dissenting voice, because this fundamental truth is being ignored, denied, avoided across all mainstreams, and beyond.

The system is bullying that has become institutionalised, and I cannot vote for it to continue.

Who to vote for in a Warring State?

Kindest regards


"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"

*If you like this post, if you found the themes resonant, if you agree in part, would you be kind enough to let others know about it? I would really appreciate that. You could drop a comment too, if you felt the urge. Or not. I will moderate contributions, and block any that are abusive. For obvious reasons. Thank you for reading.


Dave Andrews said...

Interesting read. I was left wondering whether the only way to really apply the above would be in a federal state system, where accountability is easier to marshal... that was my second thought; my first being: a system like this I would sacrifice a larger amount of my autonomy to achieve. Thank you

corneilius said...

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your comments.

I think that we need more autonomy to achieve this kind of Governance....

I think when genuine is respected at home, (many homes do) and in schooling, (where currently it is rare) then children will mature into adults who respect autonomy, and who understand that healthy autonomy implies response ability as well as responsibility. They will build systems that reflect that.

I was part of The Power Inquiry of 2006 (a very very small part)in the UK which looked at how democratic power operates, and a key insight was that our autonomy is damaged by the presence of an executive that can make decisions that afflict people's lived experience with only elections (which are rigged by the FPTP system and the way mass media triggers and manipulates) as the people's come back.

Here's a brief over view I wrote some time ago :

The full document is available here:

We really do need participation in policy formulation, implementation and oversight to reside with the grass roots - we pay their wages, we have a right and a duty to ensure they do what we require.