Hi, thank you for making this available just a couple of things I wanted to say to you.
I'm sorry the media and everyone has given you such a hard time. I agree with so much of what you say and as a hardcore (unelected) conservative myself I know exactly what you mean about how poorly the state is organised in comparison to the private sector. For example, in the real world if you don't get the job you might not hear back. In politics you get a runner up prize.
You really should have been praised for your absolute honesty and public service. You have been treated appallingly and I could see, we could all see, you were 100% genuine. It must have been very frustrating for you and I'm sorry the party let you down after all you have done for them.
Things are never what they seem and I have some concerns over the lack of science/information available re the vaccine. Especially as the three of them were happy to fill us all full of science.
My greatest concern is that there may be something in the vaccine that a virus could link onto and if we have all had it.....
I also find it interesting that no one has mentioned the cost. Hancock and his sister is appalling btw and if that had been you, we'd have never have heard the last of it.
I've not seen this site before but will spread the word and look forward to hearing more from you in the unique position you are in. You can count me as a supporter.
My view: all the data I've seen on vaccines & the people who have the best record on being right suggest they are very safe, & there's huge amounts of misinfo - governments do lie but the vaccine data is clear
The NHS has recently gone out for for a £3.2B RFQ (tender) for an anti- blood clotting agent. If blood clotting is a result of the injections of the gene therapy, this explains why. Some eminent doctors and immunologists, equally or better qualified than the government’s advisors, believe this to be the case.
No - traditional media is not a ‘hard time’ but in my view you should be far more strategic in how you use public communication. Twitter only attracts those with shallow views. Even this platform can only attract few. A book is dead as soon as you write it. Are you an activist, and if so for what? If not an activist, are you just a non academic thinker? How can you truly influence those you want to influence?
And the thing is, you now have a platform. How you use that platform will determine whether you can influence any kind of change or whether you just become a ‘person of interest’ (which will wane)
Hi Mr Cummings. Watched your evidence to the 'Lessons Learned' Committee. It was in equal measure fascinating and educational. Why aren't the best people in charge of running UK plc? Despite your protestations to the contrary, I think your departure from Westminster environment is a loss to us all. Of course, the media will never agree. But give the committee the evidence you said you had. Please. Nothing will change until heads roll. Good luck to you.
"Why aren't the best people in charge of running UK plc?" Big question! A big part of the answer is how the parties & Parliament now work - they don't in any way incentivise the most able/accomplished people to get involved, quite the opposite. Similarly Whitehall is a very very depressing place for people who can build great things - so much is stopped, so much is snail pace etc... This is part of why so many great officials leave in their 30s/40s, they just can't stand the low-growth environment any more... I will write about this...
It's the same with private institutions, company boards etc. They are all 'frogs in hot water' (https://www.boardnetwork.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Board-Perspective-No.-24_ver3-2.pdf ref: Pg 12) The model for success in a digital world begins at the top with the technical visionary and entrepreneur personality. Such leaders can set the right model and culture from day one. See the unsung hero Pierre Wack, responsible for Shell scenario planning, the tool which kept Shell's ahead of this curve (https://www.strategy-business.com/article/8220?gko=4447f). Organisations with traditional models and no maverick input will continue headlong to inevitable decline.
I don’t agree. Often ‘techies’ make very poor leaders. The leaders who can make a difference are emotionally intelligent, have great entrepreneurial courage, integrity, humility to use those around them who know more about certain matters that make a difference, never stop learning. Hard to find
Whilst I recognise the leadership qualities you mention, particularly in traditional organisations, I think Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and Jobs illustrate the overview point I make. They have changed the face of our world.
They are pathfinders of course - innovators who have created organisations out of their ideas. I think these people would only be able to survive for short periods in government or similar organisations
Hello Mr.Cummings. I think you will be fascinated by the following https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY It's a conversation between biologist Bret Weinstein and two clinical physicians on COVID. It deserves your attention. The main thrust of the youtube in question is the suppression of good information, discussion and ideas about COVID and what has gone wrong, and what continues to go wrong.
Thanks for looking into it. I really appreciate it. I'm not a biologist or doctor so it's hard for me to understand all that's being discussed and whether the info is good or not. I'll take your assessment under advisement.
Hi Meaghie. I've started to watch the video and it's very interesting:
* There appears to be two drugs, Ivermectin and fluvoxamine, both widely available, considered safe following 'conventional' clinical trials that show promising results in reducing Covid symptomology, but neither are being considered seriously by medical institutions. Also, there is a suggestion that there are many more deaths following vaccines than we're being told about.
Noting DC's health warning regarding the three gentleman, I would say that they are following available data and are very qualified to do this effectively imo.
Hi! I don't agree with the people you have supported, or some of your actions, but I am always impressed by your machinations (and some of your ideas for reform). I am looking forward to watch your efforts to bring about an inquiry much sooner, demonstrate the inadequacy of this government, etc. I hope I wake up tomorrow or the day after and see (here and in the papers) the evidence for the things you said in the committee; I get the tactic of waiting until Hancock's appearance, to give him time to lie, but I hope you're not going to wait too much longer!
In technology terms, 'dark data' generally comprises 80%+ of an organisation's data and is defined as data which is not understood, therefore not described or usable. The media has also misapplied the term.
Dom, would you be interested in talking at the Oxford Union? I know you think we’re useless, but there are enough of us here who want to hear what you have to say. And enough who believe systems are useless.
Maybe, am not keen on debates but might do a q&a type thing - but Im prioritising doing things like that for schools that don't normally get people from government there, so depends on diaries...
Dom went to Oxford! In that sense he is just as much a part of the intellectual cabal. Establishment subscribers or establishment destroyers - take your pick. I think the true problem is not listening enough to non cabal outliers, and the public. Otherwise we’re prey to all those who think ‘they know best’ - in all its forms
That would be great to watch, I regularly watch the Oxford Union videos on Youtube, fascinating stuff. (although I do live very close to the university itself)
Large, especially non-commercial organisations don’t need boat rockers and trouble makers because there is literally no competition. Groupthink and design by committee at a snail’s pace where nobody wants to speak out leads to dreadful outcomes but on it goes.
How is it right that a business can exist and make millions procuring contracts - not the goods, just the contracts - for the NHS, and selling those contracts to the NHS for a fee *when the NHS has its own procurement arm*?! It drives me crackers. The nonsense around social vs health care funding is another one - it’s all public money but somehow we’ve ended up with a system where average people sell their homes to other for care and those who can afford to negotiate the CHC system with legal advice don’t have to. There are solutions but the right people aren’t looking for them.
I managed 10 months in the public sector and I walked because the phenomenal amount of waste and being the only sane voice was too much. I have enormous admiration and respect for what you’re doing here.
Came for the politics. Staying for the systems / change thinking.
I did have a question, actually. I would be interested in your thoughts on "worst cases" - if (in this country) the political/organisational culture at the heart of government is not changed, what does the future for this country look like? What are the realistic ways it can be changed?
Wars/destruction are growing in scale as von Neumann wrote in 50s - if we dont change political organisation, if we keep things like launch on warning, Russian roulette only has one outcome...
I'm curious, did the "IdeasforNo10@gmail.com" communication channel yield anything useful during Covid or is there evidence that useful ideas were stymied by systemic dysfunction?
Yes, we know about your wristband...largely because you are spamming this thread repeatedly about it. I am sure your intentions are good, but you need to understand that your idea has got no traction because it is an awful idea. I am not going to expend mental bandwidth essaying the obvious flaws in your "solution", so can I ask you politely to stop spamming the thread with the same point - we have all looked at it and moved on.
Well you done mention a single reason why they would not work!
Turing told his solution to enigma would not work either - it did!
I was at birth of www 1992, had first web server in UK, when just 16 in world!
My 1998 face book functionality (in the web archive) was 6 years ahead of Zukerberg! Folks like you said that would never make money, today the idea is worth £500 billion - oddly same amount UK loaned to fight covid-19.
I will await Mr Cummings review , and any smart folks who offer one.
Turing did not need £millions (today £billions) to solve his enigma!
I am scientist just like Turing - I don’t need £billions either.
20p does the trick! CCTV already in place - why not use it?
Ok, interesting. Is it not just an emergent property of large, complex organisations with broad tenors? Will you offer counter examples of comlplex organisations that have avoided such systematic dysfunction (Perhaps this would be more tractable if done one decision path at a time, with an example for each of where an organisation has not fallen into the same traps?).
Parts of the problem for sure emergent of such orgs -- entropy in selection is a massive problem. It's not 'solvable' but we could do much better... Yes I'll look at examples we can learn from...
The core problem is that a lot of the stuff that people think needs doing is actually either not required or being done in an overly complicated way. When processes are stripped down you can reduce the size of an organisation. This naturally tends to increase the average quality of those involved over time (assuming good leadership).
The ideal is keeping things small. 5 Good people will achieve what 500 average people cannot. What's App is a good example of this in tech.
From what I can see from the outside, UK government also seems like a fairly negative work environment— lots of effort expended on apportioning or avoiding individual blame, rather than fixing the system problems that allowed the event to occur. If I understand your argument correctly, it is that there are systematic problems that lead to the wrong people having decision power. But it may be more that decision power rests in the wrong parts of the system (so, is it possible to reduce the tension between measurement/accountability and change/efficacy in the healthcare or education or legal or social care systems, protecting people from individual blame where they made a bad decision because of unpredictable unknowns, but rewarding general competency). Why is it so slow to achieve change? And you need to differentiate carefully between cases where fast change is a necessary good (pandemic, change of government, possibly) or a highly contingent one (town and country planning, systematic reform of education, health).
But to those in it who subscribe to the culture it doesn’t seem negative. They may moan about it but often they love the protective environment of the pub sec. that’s either why they chose it, or because they are very traditional and non confrontational thinkers or personalities, will not want to question it. I find the debate about ‘systems’ a bit crazy. Systems are just an outcome of people. Systems can’t be changed without people change. Compartmentalised thinking. Change people - physically or psychologically - you get systems change.
Thank you for the background to the interview. It explains the peculiar editing. It is the content of the interview that is most important even though we did not see much of it, rather than the rationale of the BBC production and editorial people.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that the ‘system is broken’. System in this case refers to political parties, politics, accountability, civil service and management methodology.
The question we should all be addressing is how to fix these problems.
Systems Engineering amazed me the first time I saw it used properly; it forced focus on Requirements, what were they, where would they be met in the design, how would they be met, how would they be proven and where and how is this data collated. The latter so when a small change was required the wheel does not have to be re-invented. Now, apply to politics...
If this approach had been taken before the endemic (it was downgraded from a pandemic in March 2020) and proper SE/ Project Management technique applied, the country would have had the correct PPE in place, plans to manufacture more, plans and agreements in place with companies the likes of Dyson and co to say “national emergency” here are the Level 1/2 specifications- Go.
We should also be asking the question who was responsible
and seeing that they failed what are the consequences for them?
I recall the last bit of the Adm. Rickover quote about responsibilities. “Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.”
He had that right. Now we need to apply it to U.K. government, Whitehall, NHS, etc. and develop a political system that serves the people quickly and reliably with a Whitehall that is responsive to need, and aware of functionality outside its sphere. That cannot be done with the current red, blue, yellow and green pantomime players and party systems that are in place. Tice is following the footsteps but is unlikely to succeed. So a new way of making people aware, gaining trust and high impact change aimed at the people so that they can build locally themselves, is needed.
Can I put in an early bid for more on Causal Models. Knowing a little (Judea Pearl's model, necessary-sufficient-contributory, etc) and working in marketing, digital, and contextual search I can see how this adds a powerful layer of robustness to ROI claims. I'd be fascinated to be directed to wider reading, and your thoughts and understanding on how we can develop those skills and apply them.
Yup, obviously J Pearl is crucial - read The Book of Why - if you haven't! But causal models as applied to advertising is moving very fast and edge-of-the-art is happening and changing monthly, I think not so much in academic papers etc...
I wish our media would ask Boris and co the simple questions, such as ‘Who in their right mind would pay from their own money (yeah sure) tens of thousands of pounds to renovate a grace and favour flat that could be re-possessed at any time in the next few years?’
Hi, thank you for making this available just a couple of things I wanted to say to you.
I'm sorry the media and everyone has given you such a hard time. I agree with so much of what you say and as a hardcore (unelected) conservative myself I know exactly what you mean about how poorly the state is organised in comparison to the private sector. For example, in the real world if you don't get the job you might not hear back. In politics you get a runner up prize.
You really should have been praised for your absolute honesty and public service. You have been treated appallingly and I could see, we could all see, you were 100% genuine. It must have been very frustrating for you and I'm sorry the party let you down after all you have done for them.
Things are never what they seem and I have some concerns over the lack of science/information available re the vaccine. Especially as the three of them were happy to fill us all full of science.
My greatest concern is that there may be something in the vaccine that a virus could link onto and if we have all had it.....
I also find it interesting that no one has mentioned the cost. Hancock and his sister is appalling btw and if that had been you, we'd have never have heard the last of it.
I've not seen this site before but will spread the word and look forward to hearing more from you in the unique position you are in. You can count me as a supporter.
My view: all the data I've seen on vaccines & the people who have the best record on being right suggest they are very safe, & there's huge amounts of misinfo - governments do lie but the vaccine data is clear
Also thanks for you comment -- media coverage is not 'a hard time' though, whether good/bad shd always be almost all ignored!
Thank you, I wonder if you could signpost me to your insights and thoughts into The British Education System per se.
The NHS has recently gone out for for a £3.2B RFQ (tender) for an anti- blood clotting agent. If blood clotting is a result of the injections of the gene therapy, this explains why. Some eminent doctors and immunologists, equally or better qualified than the government’s advisors, believe this to be the case.
No - traditional media is not a ‘hard time’ but in my view you should be far more strategic in how you use public communication. Twitter only attracts those with shallow views. Even this platform can only attract few. A book is dead as soon as you write it. Are you an activist, and if so for what? If not an activist, are you just a non academic thinker? How can you truly influence those you want to influence?
And the thing is, you now have a platform. How you use that platform will determine whether you can influence any kind of change or whether you just become a ‘person of interest’ (which will wane)
Hi Mr Cummings. Watched your evidence to the 'Lessons Learned' Committee. It was in equal measure fascinating and educational. Why aren't the best people in charge of running UK plc? Despite your protestations to the contrary, I think your departure from Westminster environment is a loss to us all. Of course, the media will never agree. But give the committee the evidence you said you had. Please. Nothing will change until heads roll. Good luck to you.
"Why aren't the best people in charge of running UK plc?" Big question! A big part of the answer is how the parties & Parliament now work - they don't in any way incentivise the most able/accomplished people to get involved, quite the opposite. Similarly Whitehall is a very very depressing place for people who can build great things - so much is stopped, so much is snail pace etc... This is part of why so many great officials leave in their 30s/40s, they just can't stand the low-growth environment any more... I will write about this...
It's the same with private institutions, company boards etc. They are all 'frogs in hot water' (https://www.boardnetwork.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Board-Perspective-No.-24_ver3-2.pdf ref: Pg 12) The model for success in a digital world begins at the top with the technical visionary and entrepreneur personality. Such leaders can set the right model and culture from day one. See the unsung hero Pierre Wack, responsible for Shell scenario planning, the tool which kept Shell's ahead of this curve (https://www.strategy-business.com/article/8220?gko=4447f). Organisations with traditional models and no maverick input will continue headlong to inevitable decline.
I don’t agree. Often ‘techies’ make very poor leaders. The leaders who can make a difference are emotionally intelligent, have great entrepreneurial courage, integrity, humility to use those around them who know more about certain matters that make a difference, never stop learning. Hard to find
Whilst I recognise the leadership qualities you mention, particularly in traditional organisations, I think Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and Jobs illustrate the overview point I make. They have changed the face of our world.
They are pathfinders of course - innovators who have created organisations out of their ideas. I think these people would only be able to survive for short periods in government or similar organisations
Hello Mr.Cummings. I think you will be fascinated by the following https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY It's a conversation between biologist Bret Weinstein and two clinical physicians on COVID. It deserves your attention. The main thrust of the youtube in question is the suppression of good information, discussion and ideas about COVID and what has gone wrong, and what continues to go wrong.
Thx I'll look...
FYI My impression from brief googling is these guys are NOT reliable on vaccines
Thanks for looking into it. I really appreciate it. I'm not a biologist or doctor so it's hard for me to understand all that's being discussed and whether the info is good or not. I'll take your assessment under advisement.
Hi Meaghie. I've started to watch the video and it's very interesting:
* There appears to be two drugs, Ivermectin and fluvoxamine, both widely available, considered safe following 'conventional' clinical trials that show promising results in reducing Covid symptomology, but neither are being considered seriously by medical institutions. Also, there is a suggestion that there are many more deaths following vaccines than we're being told about.
Noting DC's health warning regarding the three gentleman, I would say that they are following available data and are very qualified to do this effectively imo.
Looking forward to learning much
Hi! I don't agree with the people you have supported, or some of your actions, but I am always impressed by your machinations (and some of your ideas for reform). I am looking forward to watch your efforts to bring about an inquiry much sooner, demonstrate the inadequacy of this government, etc. I hope I wake up tomorrow or the day after and see (here and in the papers) the evidence for the things you said in the committee; I get the tactic of waiting until Hancock's appearance, to give him time to lie, but I hope you're not going to wait too much longer!
I'm not the biggest fan of Brexit, or Dark Data. But as a wise man once said, better the Devil you know, then the Devil you don't.
Almost everything written about 'dark data' in mainstream media is nonsense, including re me/Brexit etc...
Bold of you to call the Times of London (my newspaper of choice) nonsense. The Newspaper of Aaronovitch, Parris and Syed.
Still, I suppose a cynical, wizened ex-trot such as myself should make an effort to keep an open mind.
In technology terms, 'dark data' generally comprises 80%+ of an organisation's data and is defined as data which is not understood, therefore not described or usable. The media has also misapplied the term.
Dom, would you be interested in talking at the Oxford Union? I know you think we’re useless, but there are enough of us here who want to hear what you have to say. And enough who believe systems are useless.
Maybe, am not keen on debates but might do a q&a type thing - but Im prioritising doing things like that for schools that don't normally get people from government there, so depends on diaries...
Dom went to Oxford! In that sense he is just as much a part of the intellectual cabal. Establishment subscribers or establishment destroyers - take your pick. I think the true problem is not listening enough to non cabal outliers, and the public. Otherwise we’re prey to all those who think ‘they know best’ - in all its forms
I wish we were 'prey' to those who really do know best instead of the current denizens of SW1.
That would be great to watch, I regularly watch the Oxford Union videos on Youtube, fascinating stuff. (although I do live very close to the university itself)
Large, especially non-commercial organisations don’t need boat rockers and trouble makers because there is literally no competition. Groupthink and design by committee at a snail’s pace where nobody wants to speak out leads to dreadful outcomes but on it goes.
How is it right that a business can exist and make millions procuring contracts - not the goods, just the contracts - for the NHS, and selling those contracts to the NHS for a fee *when the NHS has its own procurement arm*?! It drives me crackers. The nonsense around social vs health care funding is another one - it’s all public money but somehow we’ve ended up with a system where average people sell their homes to other for care and those who can afford to negotiate the CHC system with legal advice don’t have to. There are solutions but the right people aren’t looking for them.
I managed 10 months in the public sector and I walked because the phenomenal amount of waste and being the only sane voice was too much. I have enormous admiration and respect for what you’re doing here.
Came for the politics. Staying for the systems / change thinking.
Pay* not other. Typos be damned.
I did have a question, actually. I would be interested in your thoughts on "worst cases" - if (in this country) the political/organisational culture at the heart of government is not changed, what does the future for this country look like? What are the realistic ways it can be changed?
Wars/destruction are growing in scale as von Neumann wrote in 50s - if we dont change political organisation, if we keep things like launch on warning, Russian roulette only has one outcome...
I'm curious, did the "IdeasforNo10@gmail.com" communication channel yield anything useful during Covid or is there evidence that useful ideas were stymied by systemic dysfunction?
Yes - we hired people from that who are now working in Downing St/Cabinet Office
I offered 40p ppe solution via that email channel no response.
But covid killed all communication channels... bbc said my idea to easy to copy!
Is that not what’s needed in pandemic, a panacea? That’s cheap? Seems not to bbc!
Yes, we know about your wristband...largely because you are spamming this thread repeatedly about it. I am sure your intentions are good, but you need to understand that your idea has got no traction because it is an awful idea. I am not going to expend mental bandwidth essaying the obvious flaws in your "solution", so can I ask you politely to stop spamming the thread with the same point - we have all looked at it and moved on.
Well you done mention a single reason why they would not work!
Turing told his solution to enigma would not work either - it did!
I was at birth of www 1992, had first web server in UK, when just 16 in world!
My 1998 face book functionality (in the web archive) was 6 years ahead of Zukerberg! Folks like you said that would never make money, today the idea is worth £500 billion - oddly same amount UK loaned to fight covid-19.
I will await Mr Cummings review , and any smart folks who offer one.
Turing did not need £millions (today £billions) to solve his enigma!
I am scientist just like Turing - I don’t need £billions either.
20p does the trick! CCTV already in place - why not use it?
Looking forward to understanding the inner workings of a genius.
Ok, interesting. Is it not just an emergent property of large, complex organisations with broad tenors? Will you offer counter examples of comlplex organisations that have avoided such systematic dysfunction (Perhaps this would be more tractable if done one decision path at a time, with an example for each of where an organisation has not fallen into the same traps?).
Parts of the problem for sure emergent of such orgs -- entropy in selection is a massive problem. It's not 'solvable' but we could do much better... Yes I'll look at examples we can learn from...
The core problem is that a lot of the stuff that people think needs doing is actually either not required or being done in an overly complicated way. When processes are stripped down you can reduce the size of an organisation. This naturally tends to increase the average quality of those involved over time (assuming good leadership).
The ideal is keeping things small. 5 Good people will achieve what 500 average people cannot. What's App is a good example of this in tech.
From what I can see from the outside, UK government also seems like a fairly negative work environment— lots of effort expended on apportioning or avoiding individual blame, rather than fixing the system problems that allowed the event to occur. If I understand your argument correctly, it is that there are systematic problems that lead to the wrong people having decision power. But it may be more that decision power rests in the wrong parts of the system (so, is it possible to reduce the tension between measurement/accountability and change/efficacy in the healthcare or education or legal or social care systems, protecting people from individual blame where they made a bad decision because of unpredictable unknowns, but rewarding general competency). Why is it so slow to achieve change? And you need to differentiate carefully between cases where fast change is a necessary good (pandemic, change of government, possibly) or a highly contingent one (town and country planning, systematic reform of education, health).
But to those in it who subscribe to the culture it doesn’t seem negative. They may moan about it but often they love the protective environment of the pub sec. that’s either why they chose it, or because they are very traditional and non confrontational thinkers or personalities, will not want to question it. I find the debate about ‘systems’ a bit crazy. Systems are just an outcome of people. Systems can’t be changed without people change. Compartmentalised thinking. Change people - physically or psychologically - you get systems change.
See previous post re Pierre Wack & Shell.
For ‘tenors’ read remit. Curse you, iOS autocorrect.
Dom
Thank you for the background to the interview. It explains the peculiar editing. It is the content of the interview that is most important even though we did not see much of it, rather than the rationale of the BBC production and editorial people.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that the ‘system is broken’. System in this case refers to political parties, politics, accountability, civil service and management methodology.
The question we should all be addressing is how to fix these problems.
Systems Engineering amazed me the first time I saw it used properly; it forced focus on Requirements, what were they, where would they be met in the design, how would they be met, how would they be proven and where and how is this data collated. The latter so when a small change was required the wheel does not have to be re-invented. Now, apply to politics...
If this approach had been taken before the endemic (it was downgraded from a pandemic in March 2020) and proper SE/ Project Management technique applied, the country would have had the correct PPE in place, plans to manufacture more, plans and agreements in place with companies the likes of Dyson and co to say “national emergency” here are the Level 1/2 specifications- Go.
We should also be asking the question who was responsible
and seeing that they failed what are the consequences for them?
I recall the last bit of the Adm. Rickover quote about responsibilities. “Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.”
He had that right. Now we need to apply it to U.K. government, Whitehall, NHS, etc. and develop a political system that serves the people quickly and reliably with a Whitehall that is responsive to need, and aware of functionality outside its sphere. That cannot be done with the current red, blue, yellow and green pantomime players and party systems that are in place. Tice is following the footsteps but is unlikely to succeed. So a new way of making people aware, gaining trust and high impact change aimed at the people so that they can build locally themselves, is needed.
May help with SE and PM.
a
Can I put in an early bid for more on Causal Models. Knowing a little (Judea Pearl's model, necessary-sufficient-contributory, etc) and working in marketing, digital, and contextual search I can see how this adds a powerful layer of robustness to ROI claims. I'd be fascinated to be directed to wider reading, and your thoughts and understanding on how we can develop those skills and apply them.
Yup, obviously J Pearl is crucial - read The Book of Why - if you haven't! But causal models as applied to advertising is moving very fast and edge-of-the-art is happening and changing monthly, I think not so much in academic papers etc...
I wish our media would ask Boris and co the simple questions, such as ‘Who in their right mind would pay from their own money (yeah sure) tens of thousands of pounds to renovate a grace and favour flat that could be re-possessed at any time in the next few years?’