Johnsons' various addresses to the nation were made on tv direct to each individual member of the public (or family group). There was no discussion across society, no public meetings with a show of hands for support or public vote of collective approval.
As I see it, the deal Johnson brockered was with each individual member of the public. The thoughts we were asked to consider was 1. do I trust him (do I believe what he is saying is true) 2. If so, am I prepared to put in place the measures he proposed.*
It was delivered as a request and not a demand with the threat of retribution. I see it was more an agreement between the 2 parties based on mutual trust and understanding.* The public, by and large, took Johnson on his word and applied those regulations for the greater good. A few days later, Sunak turned up with a huge wad of cash and sealed the deal.*
For me, that is the true essence of a deal. Perfectly executed, shows the brilliance of Cummings; and you didnt even realise its what happened.*
These philosophies (or series of deals) are played out every day and form the basis of our existence in work relationships, business agreements, sports team player coach relationships, parent/child relationships. Much of its implied, sometimes outlined, often used as motivation. But, there needs to be an underlaying principle of trust and a fair trade (a fair trade off).
How do you see it?




Reply With Quote