I have long given up approaching any government organisation for help and for the past 10 years used private funding. One project that is technology disruptive (the eMdrive) has been almost totaly ignored here and yet the Chinese government has put 20 scientist on their copy of the eMdrive project. It would seem that some emerging countries are willing to take risks. Is our government (and I mean all parties) just too old and staid in its thinking?

Lord Drayson has instigated a review of our space industry but those so called “risky” project I have been involed in have been ignored. These are Starchaser (reusable “green” launch vehicles), PowerSat (power satelites) and eMdrive. Are there any government advisers who are capable of recocgnising new scientific inovations and their long term impact on the British economy? Where they do not just count the “beans” and assess risks? How they can assess risk on inovative technology is beyond me. I know my math is not great (or my spelling) but I can’t recall anything in probability theory that can reliably predict this kind of out come. Why they cannot see the long term benifits and how interactions between inovations can take place, again, is beyond me. I and many other entrepreneurs seem to be able to accomplish this so why not a well funded government?

“The 50 Most Innovative Companies 2010″ report from Bloomberg and Business Week.

One passing point is that (as far as I can tell) there are no aerospace companies – either – manufacturers; airframe, engine or satellite designers – or service innovators such as Ryanair or EasyJet- on this list?

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/innovative_companies_2010/?chan=magazine+channel_special+report

The fact that this idea of incremental and measurable progress (just look at targets in the NHS) is seen as “scientific” is, to any scientist or lover of scientific method, deeply disappointing and and disturbing. A survey of scientific history (Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution or Feyerabend’s Against Method) reveals that science is fundamentally a creative process which proceeds on hunches and leaps of faith grounded in “big ideas” and then develops rigourous systems of research, experimentation and analysis to prove the idea. In this way science is fundamentally NOT incremental and measurable at all times.

But there is a fundamental difference between the scientist and the politician: Scientists are expected to explore wide and far for an ever-evolving understanding, where politicians are expected to work on our behalf to do the right thing. If a scientist gets it wrong, s/he simply begins again. If a politician gets it wrong, they get mud on their face and do not get reelected. So taking risks in the political sphere is fundamentally difficult in a democracy. And in a media-saturated political environment where every move and every word is broadcast to the world and scrutinised by a public who are often not well informed enough about the particulars of the issues (and don’t care to be), risk-taking is nigh on impossible. I daresay the founding fathers of america would have been unable to write the constitution or the bill of rights were it so publicly scrutinised in realtime.

In this environment, politicians focus on policies that generate short-term value and popularity rather than long-term value…and big, world-changing ideas (which are challenging, risky and not always measurably successful in the short term) get passed over. What is worse, the people who are capable of these grand ideas are driven out of public service and into private industry, thus reinforcing the idea that politics and politicians are self-serving and vapid rather than the engine of a civilised society.

The sadness of this situation for anyone who has been a leader or who understands what leadership requires is that that leadership demands taking decisions which are not always popular in the short term because they are right in the long term. And to rally people behind an idea that is painful and difficult in the short term, one needs a vision of the world that those people can buy into…and where those individuals understand how their actions and behaviours contribute (or work against) this vision so that they feel responsible for the actions of their leaders and feel they are participating in the shaping of society.

We have, unfortunately, allowed our society to devolve into an us versus them environment where perhaps once well-intentioned politicians cease to do anything risky, construct vapid manifestos and rely on media glitz and personal popularity to drive progress…thus fuelling the malaise and disenfranchisement of the populace. The end result is that little or no progress is really ever made on the issues which matter…because those issues require leadership, vision and a large dose of creative innovation, something our poll-following political machines are no longer capable of.

Unfortunately, it is unclear how, short of financial and social catastrophe which forces everyone to work together toward a common goal (WW2 operated like this) and enables, no requires, leaders to come to the fore with innovative ideas and actions, that we can get out of this dismal spiral and revitalise the very idea of democracy…perhaps the debates initiated by this manifesto will help identify a solution…or at least catalyse a search for them in true scientific style…rich with hunches, flights of fancy and rigourous experimentation and proof.

During wars, during the Depression, it was riskier *not* to take a punt on things. Arguably developed nations have become very risk averse, and this is to our collective detriment.

I believe you’re going to challenge the political parties in the upcoming UK General Election – but I would argue that the parties have become risk-averse in terms of big ideas, setting out their ideas etc. because the Electorate is itself risk-averse.

If, “in a democracy, the electorate gets the government it deserves” – how can we break this cycle?