Free to move

Good old BBC. Let’s try and be nice to the British political extremes. All in hope of getting that reporter’s gem. The got’y moment. The “ah, so you don’t really mean it” moment that can get nailed on a website or flamed out on social media. The cosy feeling that a truth is revealed.

There’s one social good that the BBC delivered this morning on my radio. I was reminded, over breakfast that the Reform Party is just a home for renegade Conservatives. Nothing, more or less. The part of the former Conservative Party who thought Thatcherism was a bit soft.

They tout polices that have not weathered the storm. Failed, time and time again. Like downed rotten trees in a high wind. Add to that a fantasy series of promises about being more efficient and the darkness of the rabbit hole is all consuming. However much they talk over questioners, the bare bones of tickle down economics remain at their core. Give more money to those who already have it and mystically everyone will benefit. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss on overdrive. It would be deeply satisfying to see the Reform Party crumble. However, I fear that’s not going to happen as long as wealthy people keep throwing money at this political group.

This week is one where a shift in political momentum could go horribly wrong. For the last few weeks, the governing party has been slowly climbing up the opinion polls. Some say, at last the Labour party is being the Labour party. Others say that a massive dose of realpolitik is a betrayal of the progressive creed. As usual such rumbling debates are alive and well.

On the table is talk of “freedom of movement.” I wish it weren’t expressed in that way. Mainly because it’s not entirely what those three words say it is. It’s an oversimplification.

From my point of view, it’s essential to apply some pragmatism to the debate about who comes and goes from this country and why. One thing is absolutely clear; Brexit has made the situation much worse. Over the last decade, control of this country’s borders has become a rolling nightmare. Endless newspaper column inches of negativity.

As Europeans we should have a degree of freedom to move. A right to mobility is real. To live, work or retire in each other’s countries. There are conditions attached. I remember having to register in the German city of my residence. Freedom doesn’t come without bureaucracy.

There’s a strong national interest in getting the whole European economy moving. The notion that our island status affords a separation that means we are unaffected by others is utter nonsense. In fact, in the current economic circumstances this country could occupy a major leadership role in Europe.

The world of politics and diplomacy are intertwined. The difficulty is that this fact is difficult to translate into everyday public sentiment. Our eyes are focused on the big issues, and the cost of living is one of the biggest. So, making arguments for “freedom of movement” must come with attachments. Again clearly, Brexit did not make goods in the shops more affordable. That lie has been sunk.

To maintain stability in a complex world, countries need to work together. For us, the best chance of that happening is with our neighbours.

I have discovered an unfamiliar word. Gefühlspolitik – being driven by emotion, is the road to endless disappointments. Churning over the same old ground, being fooled by snake oil salesmen and Machiavellian masters.

Human

It’s good to be able to stand on the shoulders of the outstanding people who have gone before. I’m lucky in having worked with some exceptional people in my engineering career.

That’s not the whole story. To appreciate the good, it’s necessary to experience the bad. There are a couple of people I’ve worked for, and with, who had less than admirable qualities. There’s no way that these experiences warrant the personal touch, naming names or pointing fingers. It’s only by standing back, taking time, letting water flow under the bridge that some behaviours become explainable.

Let’s face it, we are all subject to pressure, on occasions, and there are times when our reactions are not what we might have wished. That’s true of me as much as anyone. Here’s a one or two deidentified examples from the last 40-years of my work.

Hieratical management structures have inherent problems. A reports to B and B reports to C and so one. This way of working was atypical of large industrial organisations for a long time. Then the modern fashion for matrix management[1] swept in.

As a young engineer, working on a major project that involved several subcontractors, the love and terror of the Gantt Chart was familiar territory. This was especially true when key millstones involve an enormous number of components coming together at the same time.

Ever been in an important meeting where your boss throws you under the bus? Then having to pick-up, the pieces the next day. I suspect this is a common experience. The pressure of having to deliver something onetime, and to cost, and having said to the higher-ups that there were no problems, then human behaviour can become unreliable, to say the least. Naturally, after work experiences like this one, it’s easy to promise yourself that you would never do the same. Ho Ho.

Then there’s the case of the senior person who is wrong, or at least that’s what subsequent history showed, and you can’t convince them, at the time, to take a different approach. What makes this harder is knowing that they have the intellect to run rings around you, but they remain adamantly wrong. Times when, at the end of the day, you wander home grumbling like Muttley[2] the character in Wacky Races. Yes, I’ve done that after a few awkward moments.

To add a third one. A smart new boss takes over. A fresh broom with a reinstated mandate. Determine to fix all the things their seniors say needs fixing. Inevitably a period of uncertainty hangs like a mist over the whole organisation. During the first months, everyone has one question; am I part of the deadwood that needs trimming or am I part of the brave new future? My situation was of positivity, lashings of optimism and creative possibilities. Then the realisation kicks-in that this information gathering period wasn’t about renewal. It was about a person climbing the greasy pole.

I will always council against cynicism. Adopting a permanently pessimistic attitude to human behaviour is down-right foolish. Let’s hope this is confined to a few[3]. However, young people entering the world of work do need critical thinking skills, some knowledge of human behaviour and it never does any harm to add a bit of stoicism[4].

[1] https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/matrix-management

[2] https://wackyraces.fandom.com/wiki/Muttley

[3] https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/Marvin_the_Paranoid_Android

[4] https://dailystoic.com/9-core-stoic-beliefs/

Patch?

Hobbyists built it. So, how come billions are invested by the huge corporations that use it? Only a fraction of their resource was used to create it in the first place. The INTERNET is as much a wonder of the world as the pyramids. I don’t say that lightly. Today’s level of interconnection, intercommunication and interaction across the whole globe was merely speculated about 50-years ago. In historic terms that’s the blink of an eyelid.

Where we are now it’s impossible to imagine a future without the facilities that are at my fingertips. Tap out recognisable words and they can go anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere.

[That part is poor. Keyboards are where my fingertips connect with the world. Surely there will come a better way in the not-too-distant future? Evolution didn’t make us this way.]

Looking at some other major advances of civilisations, they came about in separate ways.

Long distant roads were originally military assets. Getting legions of troops from one place to another in a sprawling empire. Dominating the landscape. Reinforcing even the most remote outpost. Crossing a great distance on land has moved through several phases, waterways gave way to railways and they back to roads, as a primary means of transportation.

The telegraph was more, what I might call, can do technology. Experimentalists like Marconi put two and two together to make five. Scientific investigation provided the possibilities. He, and his like, were entrepreneurs. They saw the piece parts of technology as a business opportunity.

Aviation was more of an evolutionary advancement. A dream that the ancients held and wrote about. Slowly down the centuries theories and experimentation came together until powered flight became viable. Then decade after decade, more technical possibilities were exploited. Warfare, enterprise and adventurers have driven continuous development.

The INTERNET wasn’t seen as a commercial opportunity at its inception. It was a put together simply as a means for scientists to share their work. Maybe more than hobbyists doing the work but technicians with no master plan for world domination. They certainly were not Bond villains.

That is one possible one reason for the vulnerabilities inherent in our global electronic infrastructure. This week, the implications of those intrinsic vulnerabilities are becoming all too apparent. Embedded code that only a few experts take any notice of, that is until something bad happens. Their vital work never especially celebrated or significantly rewarded.

I don’t say it will ever happen but what if there was a practical plan for an INTERNET-2. A whole new set of protocols? An attempt to build-in integrity, expandability, and security from day one. Learning from experience.

The word “patch” is an indication of how crazy the current situation remains. It’s like that silly word “glitch.” Even the word “junk” seems quite inadequate if a crook “hacks” someone’s private account. These words make serious issues seem like minor inconveniences. Distinguishing between annoyances and harmful situations has become muddy waters.

Why is this the case? Is this the only way to communicate what’s going on.

I think it goes back to simple utility. Is the INTERNET, in its current form, so incredibly useful that society can tolerate any number of “inconveniences.” I wonder. Or will the story be like the waterways and the railways. Neither will ever go away but one will dramatically improve on the other. Push past the other. Thus, civilisation advances.

pipeline clogged up

Education policy over the last 40-years has a lot to answer for. Not at its best. Sadly, its best is only available to less than a quarter of the population. When you have classes on how to design a cereal packet taking precedence over how to cut a piece or wood or wire a plug or cook and egg or check a shopping bill then we are in ridiculous territory.

Do I jump on the bandwagon and blame Margaret Thatcher? We’ll it’s a nice conspiracy theory of politics. That said, there’s a hint of truth in the assertion. The Thatcher governments did start the drive towards a service-based economy where the importance of manufacturing industry was diminished. So, practical and vocational skills training were reshaped. They became unrecognisable. Then successive governments took money out of post 16 education.

Waking up in 2026 to a drift that started in 1986 is great, if a little late. A new education and training transformation is surely needed but is it the one that the current Prime Minister (PM) has in mind? His writings suggest that he’s a nostalgic sentiment towards vocational skills.

Former Health Secretary Alan Milburn is working on the subject. His report is expected soon. Recommendations centred on a redistribution of government funds towards employment support are likely to be on the cards.

I know it’s a repetitive complaint to make because it’s said often. Now, what schools are obliged to teach and life as it’s lived are miles apart. In fact, life as it will be lived, in the lifetime of pupils in school now. A gap, that has always been there has been encouraged to grow.

Shall I blame another Conservative politician? An admirer of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. That “ever-popular” past Brexit promoting ex-Minister. Mr Gove to be precise. Yes, that blame would be more than appropriate. Obsessions with narrow national performance statistics was misguided. Not unimportant but overly prioritised.

It’s time to urgently get more young people into places that provide opportunity and personal growth. Totally regardless of their background and the places where they grew-up.

One recent comment I’ve heard from industry is this; we’d like to take on more apprentices if we had more experienced people to mentor them at work. Not only that but the apprentice levy hasn’t kept up with inflation. Not only that but business is tough so the focus must be on the here and now, if we want to be here tomorrow. In otherwards, the recruitment pipeline is clogged up.

There’s a degree of uncertainty too. Not that this is new either. The shape of the jobs of 10-years’ time isn’t easy to plan for given the race to implement ever more advanced technology. I say that’s not new. What I may be underestimating is the pace of change.

The plus here. Young people are the digital natives. They stand a much better chance of adapting to the rapid pace of change than anyone who, like me, grew up in the analogue world.

If Burnhamism is to mean anything this problem must be cracked[1]. It’s urgent. A subject for several red boxes. For the PM to push hard on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq0melgpre23o

Traitors

I always was a great fan of The Prisoner. A British TV series that makes little sense other than being the twists and turns of a tapped man’s journey through an endless maze. Trying to understand what’s going on. Knowing that sometime the game must be played. All the time fighting to beat the system.

Until recently, I’d resisted watching The Traitors. This British TV series has retained its popularity as it’s regularly refreshed with a new cohort of players. It’s a parlour game that has walls. Walls of rules. The contestants are trapped in an unreality they must navigate. Unlike Patrick McGoohan, they are not alone.

Why resist? I guess it’s a strange reaction to popularity. It was like my thinking was based on the idea that if something gets such a massive round of hype it must be flawed. Let’s face it, recent peak viewing time TV tends to scrape the barrel. Frantically chasing ratings, it often goes for the lowest common denominator. TV is no longer king.

I’ve revised my opinion. It’s the complex social interactions that elevate this TV show above most “reality” TV. Yes, it’s a gameshow but not one with inane stupidly and overly polished lines.

The contestants are not abducted. In fact, they are all keen to be part of each week’s challenges. Each with the feeling that they are uniquely placed to win. Once they step through the doors of the gothic Scottish castle it’s as if they were abducted. The tables get turned and any sense of being in control starts to fade.

I’d say that the popularity of the British version of The Traitors owes a great deal to the show’s host. Winkleman fits the dark cloak as if she were made for it. Despite her deadpan expressions there’s a hit of glee behind her eyes.

My analogy with The Prisoner centres on the psychodrama of deception. Who can be trusted? Like sitting around a card table trying to throw fellow players off the scent. The show’s reality is that no one can be trusted but some people can be trusted more than others.

The contestants are tested at every stage of the day and night. We watch on in a voyeuristic way, knowing what they don’t know. Evaluating who’s smart and who’s destined for the chop.

Celebrity Traitors is an odd mix. Because some of the contestants are known names, it’s easy to assume that their reactions are predicable. For the most part, this assumption is misleading. Viewers start to see the veneer of performance rubbed away. Not for everyone. At distinct stages, actors act, comics make jokes and personalities do their thing. But at moments of high pressure any veneer is eroded, exposing the real person.

One revealing part of the show does disappoint me. Maybe this is a part of human behaviour that I don’t like to admit exists. The round table gives the impression of equality. Like a setting in an Arthurian legend. It doesn’t playout like that when time is short and decisions must be made.

Instinctively contestants expose or kill off first those who are perceived to be the clever contestants. Could that be primitive instinct. Reduce the competition to improve the odds of winning. Not sure I like the message that this human behaviour contains.

“I can’t seem to face up to the facts.”  The theme for the show should be The Talking Heads song “Psycho Killer”.

Not again

The art of politics. If you view politics as a war of ideas, then there’s a role for both attack and defence. Where dividing lines are drawn harshly and prisoners are not taken. One idea wins and the others, however sound are banished.

I suppose that’s a reason there are so many barristers (lawyers) in British political life. They learn how to win by framing arguments in an adversarial setting. There’s little room available for compromise or concession. No second place as winner takes all. That said, the “war” analogy is not terribly useful in many respects. One aspect of a barrister’s life is to be single minded when in court but more amical in the tearoom after business is done.

Slightly different subject. I still believe in the “bell curve.” Juvenile as that may seem, in present circumstances that simple curve says a lot. Over the years I’ve stood on a lot of doorsteps. Had lots of fleeting conversations about every subject under the sun. Well, almost. The impression that stays with me is that the general public is nowhere near as polarised in their views as the News of daily politics would have us believe. The gap between life as it is lived and life as it is depicted in council chambers and parliament is persistent. That is whoever is in power.

Traditional the political bell curve has “right” and “left” painted on either end. That’s a polarisation that the media is comfortable with as it mirrors long memories. Wasn’t the world simpler in Cold War days when the camps of East and West were so easily characterised. When Socialist workers and Tory landed gentry were firmly fixed stereotypes.

Anyway, it’s a reaction to a seasoned politician (lawyer), on the far-right of politics, defending his position, on the BBC Today programme this morning, that I’m reacting to. A documentary is to be exposing some members of a British political party as being outspoken, making objectionable remarks and being extremely offensive (in my opinion).

Listening to a politician’s defence, that mainly consisted of deflection, was boringly predicable. When it clearly doesn’t, making claims that a system of vetting weeds out people who do not share the values of a Party, that becomes a hollow argument. The age of wisdom of the saying – when you are in a hole, stop digging – comes to mind.

So, what about the mismatch? The gap between where the public are and where the ends of the political spectrum would like us to think they are. This is not a new dilemma. In fact, our British adversarial structures of governance encourage it.

Sadly. if the media output and political debate are polarised there’s not much chance of getting to grips with cost-of-living pressures or getting the trains to run on time or stopping the water companies polluting our waters or caring for those in society who need care.

The polar ends of the political spectrum have nothing to offer in building a better world.

Let’s hear more from those who are trying to fix things that need fixing. Less from those who place more value on conflict and divisive language. Drawing from the pulpit, blessed are the peacemakers. Well, I’d be happy with; blessed are the less well-known people who strive to make things work. Who works tirelessly to build a better world.

Upbeat

I don’t like to say it. I will. The campaign for the next UK General Election (GE) has started.

That’s not to say that it didn’t start on Thursday, 4 July 2024. Sorry about the double negative. The Labour Party won a landslide victory as the Conservative Party vote collapsed just over 2-years ago. The electorate had finally had enough of 14-years of Conservative-led government.

Naturally, I wonder if it’s the case that government’s lose elections rather than opposition parties win them. There was a general mood in 2024 that the government had to go. I believe, it wasn’t so much a distaste for the Prime Minister (PM) of the day.

Part of the Conservative collapse was a surge in Liberal Democrat support. Parliamentary seats that had been “blue” for decades fell like nine pins.

Between a dissolution of parliament and polling day there can be less than 3-months. The process doesn’t have to be that speedy. However, PM’s who choose to go early often want to strike while the iron is hot. In terms of windows of opportunity, there’s a lot to be said for elections early in the year. Before the summer heat takes hold and on or after the local elections in early May each year. Winter elections are rarely preferred given the dark evenings and likelihood of poor weather.

So, that puts May-July 2027 and May-July 2028 in the frame. No PM can wish for the prospect of going right up against the wire in 2029. It can seem an act of desperation. Opposition parties would capitalise on that position as a sign of weakness.

Since we have a different Labour PM from the one who won on 2024, it seems reasonable that he would want to have a mandate to govern of his own. A renewed agenda, a new manifesto.

So, is the UK no more than 8 months, or so, away from a GE? Frankly, I don’t know. Many of the 650 members of the House of Commons elected in 2024 are still getting their feet under that table. Working out what the job of an MP is all about. I can’t imagine that they will be pushing the PM to throw caution to the wind. That said, if the main opposition parties remain struggling to find their feet, and haven’t organised themselves for a national election, then the door is open for the governing party to push through.

Would a PM calling an early election be punished by the electorate? Feed-up with all the instability of recent years. Or has volatility become such a part of the UK’s political landscape that no one will bat an eyelid. Just another roll of the dice.

Whether I like it or not, the UK has become more presidential. The personality of the PM is a factor in play. In not many of the electorate will be deeply engaged in reading every line of a new party manifesto.

In that popular political game, the national press like to build people up only to knock them down and do that as many times as it commands attention (clicks). The fate of Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer is a case in point. I couldn’t describe either of them as bad men. Certainly not egotists, idiots, or fools. Social media postings did that in abundance.

In this pseudo-presidential system, which has evolved in the UK, the popularists politicians have an advantage. Their formula is to use a megaphone to magnify prejudices and grievances. Can that onslaught be countered by the forces of hopefulness, openness, and positiveness? It’s a challenge to Liberals and Progressives who embrace an upbeat vision. Possible. I do remember the 1990s slogan – things can only get better. I wonder if they can in this decade.

Standing question

Air Taxi

Safety work is aimed at the prevention of accidents. Reasons for this sit at a higher level. That’s because the public demands it. Maintaining public confidence in flying is at the top of the tree. Without safety risk maintained at a level low enough for us to buy a ticket and fly without undue concern, there’s no industry. Or at best a small one. That’s the challenge for new forms of aviation.

As I said in [insert conference venue]

It’s Autumn. This morning, my garden is getting some desperately needed rain. On the News, stories are of the Conference season ending. That’s the part of the year when UK political parties gather their members and supporters at venues up and down the country. Conference rooms buzz and hotel bars sell out of snacks (and beer). Several themes keep popping up. These themes are regardless of the political party or their philosophy. They fit nicely into speeches. They get a hearty round of applause. It’s not that 2026 is different from other years. What’s remarkable is that it should be different.

The three recurrent popular themes I have in mind are:

  • Offer of give aways or a policy announcement focused on potential supporters.
  • Majoring on the unique powers one party has, as opposed to others.
  • An announcement that’s magical thinking dressed up as seriousness.

The first is about planning for future elections. It’s no good expecting voters to flock to a party unless the members and supporters of that party are lined up ready to go. Door-stepping, leaflet deliveries, donations, local meetings all depend on voluntary engagement. Big money can shift the dial by paying campaigners to do some groundwork. There’s no substitute for local people doing their best in every constituency. Whatever the financial situation.

Second. Answering the question of – why vote for us? There must be a USP. This is often more to do with personal belief than practical reality. Wrapped up in a projection of values, there must be a specialness that motivates people. It can be irrational, unrealistic, and colourful rhetoric.

Say, Conservatives cut taxes. Although history shows that they don’t. Labour protects workers. Only that they often cosy up to big business when in power. Liberals herald freedom and equality. Only to agonise over both, perpetually. Greens are ambassadors for the planet. Only to see their ill-considered efforts backfire. Reform is businesslike. Only that every week there’s resignations and scandals.

Third. To capture the national News cycle at least one new announcement must make a splash. This eye-catching commitment or instant policy may be forgotten in just a few of days. For example, the Conservatives “iron dome” is a godsend for newspaper cartoonists. Next general election the proposal will be locked away in a cupboard.

I don’t want you to think that the list above is a grumpy old man being too cynical. There’s a political legacy here that is incredibly difficult to shift. I can report, contrary to business as usual, there are developments this year. Perhaps another list of three will help.

Firstly, the UK political landscape is unusual. There are five national parties vying for the public’s attention. All five parties have a chance of making breakthroughs. All five party leaders are smiling about their own prospects.

Second. Huge issues leave all politicians scratching their heads. Stumped. Rapidly advancing technology and its impact on society and the workforce of the future remain a minority interests. Big answers to big questions are not forthcoming.

Third. Turbulence experienced every day, whether it be volatile world affairs, climatic changes or the rising cost of living seems to have politicians clutching at straws. Unable to show it but all to conscious of the unpredictability of the electorate. The impact of events.

We live in interesting times.

Qualitative and Quantitative

Do I need to define these two? Yes, because they are not words that automatically come up in everyday conversation. Not even in technical conversations.

A qualitative approach to an argument deals with words, meanings, and experiences. Not so much opinions but defensible objective judgements based on best available information.

A quantitative approach to an argument deals with analysis, numbers and statistics. A scientific approach rooted in believable evidence that is reliable, repeatable, rational deduction.

In the aviation safety world, we use both. It’s my view that one is not subordinate to the other. However, the persuasiveness of one is greater than the other. At the end of the day, persuasiveness matters. If a key decision is to be predicated on an argument, then how it is constructed and presented matters a lot.

Many is the time when I have sat in a room listening to a person make a case in as elegant and enthusiastic a way that they can, but the results have been less than impressive. I’ve made the mistake myself. Coming prepared with a barrage load of sound evidence accompanied by a flaky presentation that misses the mark.

That is why the order needs to be thus. Establish a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information. Not the other way around.

In the field of aircraft system safety assessment this is vital. Probabilistic analysis is a powerful tool. Relating numbers to human experience is not so easy. So, detailed charts and logic diagrams sprinkled with numbers are unlikely to be enough on their own.

Stating an objective is met by handing over a pile of calculations is half the job. However impartial and truthful the numbers may be, arguments are not made until they are explained.

Many is the time when I have lifted a large report from my in-tray, studied it and concluded that there’s something missing in that gap between the QED and the statement of compliance.

Maybe this an element of safety regulatory psychology. It’s difficult to approve something if it becomes difficult to explain to others what’s been done. That evidence trail needs to be explainable. And easily explainable to a wide audience.

This doesn’t change with digitalisation. Replacing large piles of paper with large files of results puts the reader in the same position. Impenetrable evidence needs understandable explanation. Presenting a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information is a good way to go.