Governance by implementation of standards OR by applying principles

by Julia Evans on November 12, 2012

Hello,

Jo Rostron’s recent text – see below – reminded me of several regx2 circulations – see below.

All these posts examine the difference between the two forms of governance available to the UK Government, or indeed any Government.

These are:

The use of top-down power to control and manipulate subjects behaviour

Absolute standards are legislated into place (Earl Howe is the current Absolute standards Zsar for Health. See here

Earl Howe has been Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality in the Department of Health since May 2010.)

Individual, unique human subjects are measured against absolute standards or procedures, as in a factory production line.

No allowance is given for human error. You must obey to the letter – the Government wants its pound of flesh.

Blame is stuffed into the subject or if the subject objects, they are made into a sacrificial victim – think medieval stocks. (See my recent post on Ed Milliband – The pot (HM’s Opposition party) calls the kettle (Celebrity culture) black & its relation to the Government’s production of taint in its clinic of Mental Health: 2 new posts: Reminder – conference on current issues on Sunday December 2nd  or here )

Relationships, based in trust, and conversations and human subjectivity/creativity are all banned.

They system and standards are rigid and cannot adapt to changing circumstances.

This system of governance was put in place by King Henry VIII when he could not get his way in Parliament. This secondary legislation, orders through the Privy Council was extensively revived by Tony Blair.  It takes a lawyer to be know how to impose the Government’s will despite opposition. (Find the bps – British Psychological Society’s plea to the Houses of Parliament not to be coshed under its statutory control here January 2009: The bps’s plea to Parliament not to cosh it with regulation or here )

2) Human subjectivity and relationships are at the core: Human subjects act within principles which evolve during conversations

The limits of the processes are defined

The environment supports  the process of working within a relationship.

Mistakes are different to criminal acts, and the distinction is known.

Human error is acknowledged and examined so there is no repetition.

There are no absolute standards. Techniques based in cost-benefit-analysis accountancy are not used. Rigid outcome measures, as in ‘just-in-time’ factory measures, are not used. Each outcome is unique to each subject.

The UK’s primary legislation is based within relationships – ‘causa sui’.  This relies on the judgement of a third party – a judge – not absolute written standards.

Doubtless, I shall be refining these distinctions in future posts. In the meantime, here are 4 posts which amplify this difference in the use of power:

Is there a Complex Adaptive Systems approach behind the ‘Big Society’ and the Coalition Government’s attitude towards statutory professional regulation? by Jo Rostron on November 3, 2012 or here http://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=615

Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010 or here http://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=226

Does rule through regulatory systems give protection from murderers? – No by Julia Evans on November 6, 2009 or here http://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=617

More on the effects of using this government’s top-down power – Systems used to blame not re-calibrate and prevent (Child care) & the principles underlying Government action by Julia Evans on November 5, 2009 or here http://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=616