We don’t usually publish a blog on a Thursday, but this is a special Thursday so I made an exception.  Yes, it’s the day that we in the UK elect our members of Parliament for another term of office.

And just so I couldn’t be accused of trying to influence how anyone votes, I’ve waited until one minute after the final closing time to publish.  Because, otherwise, I would totally bend you to my will, obviously…

I have two fairly random and disconnected thoughts, but since they touch on matters I’ve blogged on before, I deem them worthy of a flag-up.

First off, as an observation, I have to say that I’ve never heard so much talk about change.  Many of the parties are using change in their election strap-line or motto.

I pass by the interesting questions of whether modern party politics can actually deliver substantial chance, or whether we the people really want much change.  Instead, munch on this law of power from Robert Greene:

Law 45: Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once

Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit.  Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt.  If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things.  If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.

My second and final point has to do with the pivotal role TV has played in this election, with a televised ‘debate’ between the three main party leaders for the first time.  I’ve mentioned before my approval of Neil Postman’s insights on the deadly affects of TV on every element of our culture.

But what, specifically, about politics?  Here’s a glimpse.

The point is that television does not reveal who the best man is.  In fact, television makes impossible the determination of who is better than whom, if we mean by “better” such things as more capable in negotiation, more imaginative in executive skill, more knowledgeable about international affairs, more understanding of the interrelationships of economic systems, and so on.  The reason has, almost entirely, to do with “image”…  For on television the politician does not so much offer the audience an image of himself, as offer himself as an image of the audience.

If that is true, what does this election say about us?  I’ve never been a fan of blaming politicians for our national woes, as if they were a separate species from us.  This is a democracy, which means that our politicians represent and reflect us.  They didn’t beam down from the evil planet Zog.  How they act says something about who we are.  This is a democratic burden we have to bear.

So if you want political change, IMHO you should start with yourself.  Stop blaming ‘them’.  Take personal responsibility.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Voting is not sufficient for political change.  Some might say it’s not even necessary…

Image credit: blogger’s own.

Politicians are taking notice of the impact on depression in the workplace and society.  And for once, their thinking seems smart to me.  Which is?  To start to tackle mental health issues at school age so there is a better chance of preventing depression from striking in the first place.

Teach people self-esteem and resilience while young and the chances of them suffering from depression in later life are measurably reduced.

As some of you know, Dawn and I are Sessional Trainers for Aware Defeat Depression, the only educational charity in Northern Ireland to deal exclusively with depression.  Going into schools to teach kids about mental health is exactly what we do.  It feels great to be part of this worthwhile cause.

I’ve chalked up a few blogs on preventing depression and improving mental health over the years.  I’ve mentioned innovative mental illness treatments like the use of humour and music as well as running, boxing, football and gardening.  Dawn has also designed and delivered training on depression for a specifically older audience.  I’ve also blogged on positive psychology and other scientific trends in with serious implications for the field of mental wellness.

IMHO politics is at its best when it follows and facilitates what’s going on at the grass roots level.  We the citizens are our country’s leaders and paymasters; politicians are public servants, no more.  Still, credit where credit’s due, I suppose.  A little good news about smart politics is useful to keep the blues – and reds – away.

Unless you’ve been on another planet, you know that ‘double jobbing’ – the practice of politicians holding on to two jobs at once – is big news in the UK and Northern Ireland.  We’ve been told that double jobbing is ‘on borrowed time’ as far as NI is concerned.  This is after threats of pay cuts and forced resignations for those who don’t quit this bad habit.

I was interviewed on Tuesday of this week outside Stormont by the cordial Gareth Gordon and his team of professionals.  Our meetup was quite funny.  As I wandered in to the hallway and scanned around looking for someone who might resemble a BBC correspondent, I overhead a man say,

“Great start.  The time management consultant is late!”

I wasn’t actually, thanks Gareth, but we had a good laugh over Gareth’s embarrassed protestations of innocence.

That’s right, they wanted a professional opinion of the double jobbing furore.  Usually I don’t mix NI politics with business but I made an exception in this case as (a) it wasn’t party political, and (b) I do have strong feelings on the matter.  As I stood outside in the rain and the wind – we weren’t allowed to do the interview inside because I’m not a member of our political elite – I tried to make the point that multi-jobbing requires multi-tasking on a grand scale, and multi-tasking is a myth.  That’s right, it’s impossible, even for women.  How so?  Glad you asked!

• Multi-tasking is unscientific – What’s really going on is a rapid toggling or ‘mental gear shifting’ among tasks rather than simultaneous processing, the latter being impossible for the human brain.
• Multi-tasking is inefficient – People have a limited amount of attention available at any moment.  When one’s attention is divided, something’s got to give, whether the quality or quality of your work – usually both!
• Multi-tasking is unhealthy – Individual blood pressure and stress levels go bananas when someone attempts to multi-task for prolonged periods. We all need mental downtime to relax and reflect.

From a time management perspective, there are a few extreme strategies you can employ for multitasking.  One – do the usual stuff but in less time e.g. by  speed-reading.  Two – do more stuff by making more time e.g. by using transition time.  For myself, I feel that traditional speed reading is another myth (although smart reading isn’t).  And using transition time to squeeze in extra work is a recipe for a heart attack.

Anyway, you can see the interview this Sunday (29th) on The Politics Show Northern Ireland, BBC 1, 12 noon.

If you’re interested, here are some insightful articles on the negative side of multi-tasking.

IS MULTITASKING MORE EFFICIENT? SHIFTING MENTAL GEARS COSTS TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN SHIFTING TO LESS FAMILIAR TASKS

Multitasking Wastes Time and Money

The Multitasking Generation (TIME article)

Your brain on multitasking (blog with further reading suggestions)

So if you’re reading this article while doing somethign else…dont!

Especially if you’re a politician.