Jemf56 (is there a reason that you don’t want to reveal your proper name?), thank you for taking the time to respond to my article. However, you use the word ‘simplistic’ twice in your writing; and yet I think it is your reply that is simplistic.
To respond directly to the main point you make: of course Kolb’s Learning Cycle used on its own won’t resolve all current problems. However there is good reason why Kolb’s Learning Cycle has remained central within education and management studies for many decades, which is that many people recognise the value of integrating action and reflection in a conscious and systematic way when trying to learn from experience and achieve positive change. So it may prove useful in being included as a significant element of a much larger process, where those involved want to create a society characterised by a truly participatory grassroots democracy. This may be an ambitious aim, and those with strong egos, and an investment in one particular way of seeing the world, will strongly resist. But I think there are many people who have the desire and will to create a fairer and more socially just society, in which all its citizens are able to actively participate in decisions that affect their own lives.
You make it clear from your writing that you support a delegated model of decision making in politics. You are, of course, entitled to your own view, as is every other person. However this matter has been discussed extensively at recent Momentum meetings; and finally it was put out to a vote to the 20,000 Momentum members. Over 40% responded, which is very high relative to many similar questionnaires. Of those 40%, 12.5% agreed with you in wanting elected delegates. An overwhelming 80.6% voted for One Person One Vote. So the view of the majority is very clear. And if that view is to be respected, then the challenge is to see how that decision can be progressed in a way that is realistic and manageable.
My paper was built on two earlier ones written by Roy Madron, which are also published on Medium, links to which are included in my writing. The model I describe is one that I and others have used extensively in working with large organisations, and proves to be a most effective form of decision making. In this context, the decisions made would feed into a larger political context. Madron, who also has used this kind of model, explains the rationale for it, and describes the process in detail in his paper https://medium.com/.../whats-wrong-with-omov-3c3147a086ab
I guess the whole point in publishing my paper on Medium is to suggest that perhaps the Labour Party, where the nature of decision making is so important and traditionally so top down as with all political parties, can learn from what works well elsewhere.