johnwvincent

Unintended Consequences

There’s a list that must exist somewhere in the bowels of Government which describes the dumbest things that have ever been done. The law of unintended consequences. Where an aim may have been honest, but the reality was a deep dive in embarrassment and failure.

If this list doesn’t exist it dam well should. It’s a sort of lessons learned for civil servants, politicians and think tanks. Don’t propose anything X because the last time someone did that they crashed and burned. Or more subtly it was years later that people cursed the day that such a dumb idea was advanced.

I’m not going to argue against market forces. How could I. From an early age markets were part of my life. That’s local agricultural markets. My father bought and sold livestock. The bread and butter of livestock farming is to buy at one price, add value and then, hopefully, sell at a better price. Markets rise and fall in ways that are often mystical.

The UK imports approximately 46% of the food it consumes. Even that figure is 5 years old. I suspect that food imports have increased in the meantime. That’s in a country that is richly blessed with quality agricultural land. Fine, we (UK) are none too good at growing olives or avocados but the range of produce that it is possible to grow is huge.

Grassland is our greatest asset. Every time I flew back from an overseas trip, just looking down from the aeroplane remined me just how the UK is a carpet of green. Field systems that have ancient origins still dominate the landscape.

Livestock farming has changed radically since my father’s time. Fortunately, we have avoided, in most cases, the levels of intensification and factory methods that others have adopted. Hormone injected beef comes from cattle that live sad lives. People know this and have hands down rejected industrial farming to that level of intensity.

Domestic food production has changed because of Brexit and not for the better. One threat to domestic food production has been some of the ridiculous trade deals that have been struck by this Government and its predecessors. Making it harder for exporters and easier for importers.

Political policy towards the countryside has rightfully taken up the need to restore biodiversity and preserve some of our most precious landscapes. Trouble is that at the same time, little or no thought has been given to the need to support domestic food production. It’s like a policy desert. It’s one thing to talk about food security. It’s another to do anything about it.

With the Labour Government threatening to take large amounts of capital out of UK farming with their inheritance tax plans, they will be making family farming a thing of the past. It’s one of the dumbest things that have ever been done.

There’s general agreement that we shouldn’t encourage wealthy people to use land as a repository for their wealth. However, tax advisors have been telling them to do that for decades. Buy land and pay less tax. Reversing that long standing trend needs an intelligent policy not a crude sledgehammer to crack a nut. Even if it’s impossible to ween Labour politicians off their ideas on inheritance tax, there ought to be a way of doing it without penalising the innocent. Letting off those non-farming interests that politicians were aiming at originally. Dogma makes bad policy. It’s time to reemphasise the place family farming has in food production.

Exploring the Greatness of Great Britain

What’s great about Great Britain? GQ has asked this question[1]. Produced a nice article that looks at this subject with a cultural eye.

It’s a bit retro. When we (Brits) start talking about how great pubs are there’s a tendency to forget how many we have lost in the last decade. If we loved them so much, then more would have survived crushing economic pressures.

Brit pop was a wonderful surge in creativity that swept across the country in the 1990s. It was good – mostly. Riding that wave, because we are romantic souls about the past, are the band Oasis with their multimillion £ world tour. Accounts of which are tremendously positive.

I think I can take a position about what’s great about Great Britain. Having lived in Germany and travelled a bit, my perspective isn’t too insular or defensive.

Because we are no longer the world’s premier power and imperialism is a fading memory, we’ve shed the stiff upper lip and bowler hatted civil service bureaucrat image. It’s there in film and television to remind us of former times. It’s few who want to return to all that deep seriousness.

That seriousness is the burden that the US carries. If they send a gun boat somewhere it means business. For Brits it’s more a symbol of still being on the stage. Don’t get me wrong, as a country we box way beyond our size.

For all the right-wing jerks who parade around with false patriotism, our great strength is diversity. Having that legacy of the world map once having been painted in a great deal of red, we can now engage with multiple cultures and benefit from them all.

Number one of the lists of inherited advantages is being able to speak to the world. Not in their language but in ours. English doesn’t belong to the English any more, it belongs to the world. They amount to a lot; the times I’ve had fun reading Brussels English and being amazed at how it’s being used.

Pick a discipline. Science, technology, humanities, art, entertainment, there’s always a Brit that can be named as shaping the world. Influencing others and providing a spark that sets off a flame.

Now, being more parochial, I’ll look around me, in this town, and see a diversity of styles from punks who never stopped being punks to suited tie wearing customer service executives. Welly booted farmers in the town for a day to young gamers stuck to their small screens.

Sport is another anchor. If we (Brits) didn’t invent it, then it’s a derivative of something we did invent. Top that with the eccentricities from international tiddlywinks[2] to stone skimming. Despite the school of hard knocks we still value fair play.

Comedy is taking a downturn, but the British legacy is monumental. Irreverent, rebellious or intricate, often all three, even if we (Brits) do invite in the bland factory-made stuff from the US. In a unregarded small corner there’s a someone writing hysterical lines waiting to be discovered.

So far, as a nation, 2025 won’t go down in history as our best year. I’ve every faith that the best is still yet to come. Unlocking that dynamic zest, that quirky imagination, that complex amalgam happens several times every decade. Let’s hope the spark is just about to be set off.

[1] https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/

[2] https://iftwa.org/history-of-iftwa/

Political Intervention by Billionaires

I’ve heard several people downplay the political intervention of the world’s richest man. This last weekend, he chose to address a large gathering of right-wing activists in London. Not there on the streets, but remotely by video. From another part of the globe.

It’s almost as if some media commentators are treating him as a naughty boy – nothing to see here, boys will be boys. What do you expect? Never mind, this is just what he does.

What comes to my mind is part of my student life in the late 70s / early 80s. Coventry is a great English city. Its football team has had more than a few ups and downs. What I remember is a Saturday afternoon with a large cordon of police lining the way between the railway station and Highfield Road. A palace of galvanised steel sheeting in a red brick terraced area of the city. Highfield Road’s football stadium no longer exists.

In those days, English football hooliganism was a set piece event that was as predicable as the seasons. It was a time to avoid parts of the city centre on a weekend. These events were regularly played out throughout the country. That era has passed – thank God. It’s not that football hooliganism is entirely dead. It’s that there are far fewer people who fit that description and they are generally socially ostracised.

In my mind, this weekend, Elon Musk acted like a hooligan-in-chief. Addressing a London crowd that was already steamed up and out to make their protest heard. Parts of that protest turned to violence.

Now, I’ve nothing against protest. I’ve been on a several. It’s that the ones I’ve been on have been peaceful and good natured. That was certainly the case during the many London protests marches against Brexit. Hundreds of thousands marched without incident.

Speakers address protest marches to amplify the message of the protestors. The reason for the gathering. Most often those notable speakers are people with what might be called – skin in the game. Campaigners who dedicate their time to a cause.

Outside agitators, without any discernible affiliation, can be a nuisance. At worst they are agent provocateurs out to ferment trouble. I think, Elon Musk’s acts were shameful and unwelcome.

London has a place called Speakers’ Corner. North-east corner of Hyde Park. I’d invite this gentleman to go there, take a stand, speak for a while and see if his way of thinking stands up to public scrutiny. He can be as irritating, contentious, or eccentric as he likes.

Cooling Heated Debates

How do we cool the temperature of debate? Recent events show that there are people who would rather heat it up. Without historic analogies or dire polemics, it’s clear that heating up conflicts inevitable harms people and prolongs, and often intensifies, those conflicts.

I’d like to think that enjoying vigorous debate can be achieved but with the general ethical idea of “do no harm” in mind. Sure, there are a lot of disagreements and disagreeable ideas. None of that is new to the human condition.

Most of us, bar a few professors, have forgotten what people in medieval England were arguing about in the crowded public houses of that period. I’ll bet those arguments were just as intense as anything we can muster. My guess is that the subject would be how the people in the next town were not to be trusted. They will ripe you off given half a chance.

Religion gets drawn into the debates of our times. That’s even if, like me, most people are agnostic and don’t follow a particular creed. Even from that personal point of view we live in a society that has been touched by the broader ethics of a religious heritage.

With my Sunday school hat on here’s ways that our leaders might try to cool the ferment.

One move is to resist the temptation to be dogmatic. It’s absolutism that is aimed at shutting down debate that causes so much rancour. It’s a bad way of winning over others. Doesn’t matter who is being dictatorial, right or left, crushing debate is boring and counterproductive in the long term. Have an ideology but don’t force it down the throat of others.

Have in mind, throw the first stone but only if you have never screwed up or never done something stupid. Most of us can’t live by this dictum. It’s there in my Sunday school wisdom as a prompt. Have in the back of your mind the thought that hypocrisy is not a good look.

Resist relativism. It’s childish. What I means is to say that slagging off Mr X is fine, it’s OK, because they slagged off my people. This ding-dong is a school playground habit that lasts a lifetime. It’s a route to escalation and one that leads to injury or suffering.

This one probably was in the medieval world. When in a hole, try to stop digging. Yes, it takes a certain amount of self-awareness to see the metaphorical hole. Not everyone can master that awareness. If an argument is going nowhere, to the extent that the heat in the room is rising, leave, or try a different approach.

There are ways to stay our bad spirits. To slay those demons. Not so easy to use them in the social media environment were all the above is encouraged. Is social media unethical? Innately evil? No, not really, in my opinion. Behind each ill-considered post is a person. Well, not in every case but even bots are created by someone.

Just as we needed to learn to live with the printing press, so we need to learn to live with digital technology. What we haven’t leaned yet is how to use it promote well-being and stop it being a place for fear mongering and endless expletives.

Future of Engineering

I do find it astonishing that back in the early 1990s I was still producing handwritten material that then got typed up by a typist. Then, were edits and errors needed correcting, “cut and paste” really meant cutting and pasting paper. Applying Tipp-Ex correction fluid was normal. Wonder who uses that now? It’s still available.

Engineering practice adopted word processing rapidly from that time on-ward. It’s now almost inconceivable that anyone would get someone else to type up their work. Early lap-top computers that weighted heavily on the shoulders, were carried to meetings as necessity but not love. The joys of trying to find a printer that would work was a daily mission.

In about 30-years we’ve gone from that primitive introduction to the digital realm to machines that want to write papers and reports for us. From brick like “portable” computers that required cables and batteries that drained in minutes to the complete world being available on-line anywhere on the globe.

The mechanisms by which engineering design and development were done have advanced in such a way as to make the past seem rather curious. I’m not saying that we’ve become ever cleverer and more inventive with the passage of time, just that the speed of trail and error has increased dramatically.

Past mechanisms did make the ability to change a path, once set on that path, difficult. I remember the reluctance to introduce changes unless an overwhelming case could be made. In this new situation, making changes still has a cost associated with it, but the resistance to change isn’t so much driven by the processes used.

What’s happing, like it or not, is that artificial intelligence’s transformative impact is touching, or will be touching, everything we do. That includes engineering design and development.

I’d say it’s a good time to be an innovator. In theory, it should be possible to explore many more possibilities that could be explored in the past. That is for the same level of cost in time and money. There’s not a single part of engineering practice that will not be impacted. Classrooms, meeting rooms and workplaces where the business of communicating technical ideas and testing them goes on, will be fertile ground for the application of AI.

I don’t think we understand just how transformative the impact will be on engineering. It’s not all upside either. Technology’s promises are great. There are perils too.

AI can only know what it’s been trained on. That maybe extremely extensive. However, innovation comes from creativity and inventiveness where the past may only be a partial guide. Also, there’s the danger of overreliance on these almost magical tools too. New skills must develop to be critical and knowledge of the deficiencies of complex algorithms.

All of this is a bit different from paper, correction fluid, scissors and tape. What an exciting time to be a young engineer.

Navigating the Digital Landscape

Maybe there’s no simple right or wrong answer. Polarising a debate doesn’t bring better results.

The landscape, the environment, the society that children grow-up in is ever changing. Moving to ban smart phones and tablets for children is gaining some momentum. Taking these components of modern living out of schools and limiting exposure to their influence is in the minds of campaigners. Organised movements and some politicians are going that way.

My childhood wasn’t dominated by digital technology. It was an analogue world. That single fact doesn’t make it “better”. Here, even my language suggests one good and the other bad. Perhaps I should be positive about the advantages of an analogue world. Afterall, it did stretch across the whole of human history right up to the time that personal computers found a place in our homes. However, that societal transition didn’t bring about Armageddon.

There was a moral panic in my late teens. As analogue video technology became widely available then so did pre-recorded video cassettes. Now, they look prehistoric when they crop-up on the shelves in charity shops. Chunky, magnetic tape-based machinery became a rival to regulated broadcast TV. At the time, media legislation was way behind the curve.

In the early 1980s, social commentators got highly agitated about the harm that easily available video content could do. True, with some justification, although this reaction went overboard. The media would keenly focus on any crime that could be tagged to “video nasties[1]”.

What’s my point? It’s that media technology will continue to evolve at pace. Even now with our small screens, being carried everywhere people go, are systems that remain relatively crude. Imagine what will happen if technology that directly connects to the human brain becomes widely available.

Teaching children to be able to cope in this rapidly changing world matters. In my opinion, sheltering them from this technology landscape isn’t a good idea. Yes, censor the bad stuff but taking away smart phones and tablets has a downside.

Abstinence is favoured by strong believers in that way of living. Tightly controlling exposure to everyday society on the basis that the dangers of corruption are everywhere. Over the long-term, what is observed is that an approach based on prohibition isn’t sustainable.

Like it or not, there’s a schizophrenic reaction going on. As I was last week. sitting in a busy airport lounge, I noted the number of parents and children glued to their small screens. For the flight home of almost four hours, the proliferation of smart devices was notable.

Promoting legislation that prohibits the use and carrying of smart devices during the school day[2] is foolish. It ticks the populist box of the concerned parent but it’s stoking a new moral panic.

Learning to live healthily in the landscape, the environment, the society that children grow-up in, that’s part of the school day.

[1] https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/where-begin-with-video-nasties

[2] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/19437/amendments/10018472

A Critical Look at Clowns

There’s a section of British politics which will aways be clownish. I mean this in both a childish sense and a terrifying sense. There are plenty examples of mighty frightening clowns. The Joker was transformed from a comic book TV series of Batman into a menacing movie villain[1]. These are people who embrace a life of deception and chaos. It’s a streak of putting two fingers up to the “establishment”. At the same time making a healthy living from the populous. Milking every moment to advantage.

Having a beguiling nature sustains their success. I’m tempted to think of Peter Cook as the Devil[2] in the 1960s film Bedazzled. Dated as it is, the core theme remains ever relevant. Please protect me from what I want.

Often, clowns are figures of the establishment who have flipped. Driven by a sense of injustice, that somehow society doesn’t appreciate their great talents. Sadly, for them, the seeds of their own destruction are often sitting there waiting to germinate.

It could be said that former Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson was a master example. Although I’d not go quite as far as to equate him with Beelzebub. There’s a man who should have stuck to his first profession – journalism.

[Why is it that journalists, lawyers and management consultants aspire to be in Parliament so much? Is it the number one aspiration for societal archetypes – to reach for this pinnacle?].

This week, the media has reveled over a predicable political circus. Now, after having seen the Brexit Party, and alike, fade into nothingness, the UK has a new set of party clowns called Reform. It’s a troupe of escapees from the awkward right-wing of the political spectrum. They are complemented by a small group who claim commercial expertise to bolster their image.

As the tired and elderly Tory Party (Conservative Party) slowly decays and melts away, so this new bunch springs up to try to replace them in full. They have been called populist. In my mind a silly word to use as a general description. Since just about every politician, to a degree, is populist. Whatever the principals involved, few politicians stand at complete odds with the public. If they do, then their time in office can be cut short.

Watching and listening to the new parade of clowns at conference, it makes me wish for a minor revival of the traditional Conservative Party. There was a time when old fashioned social liberals and concerned environmentalists could be found in that British political party. Not anymore.

If I had seven wishes, one of the would be that competence and substance got more attention than loud mouths and false promises. I don’t suppose that’s on offer. Even if it was, I’d need to be careful what I truly wished for because I might just get it. Good advice for anyone. Imperfection is OK.

POST 1: When a Party leader admits his infant Party has no idea how to function in Government. Saying that defecting and discredited former ministers will fill the gap, trouble is ahead whatever happens. Satire is dead because real life has jumped the shark.

POST 2: UK Reform activists sing “God Save the Queen” at the Reform conference. The UK hasn’t had a Queen for almost 3-years. These people are happy to show-off as phony patriots.

POST 3: UK media fascination with sensationalism has given Reform an undeserving boost. The BBC has been ticked off for sacrificing impartiality in chasing this circus. Especially pertinent considering that Parliament contains 72 Liberal Democrat MPs and only 4 Reform MPs.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7286456/

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061391/

Events, my dear boy

It’s strange that with all the bumps, bruises and grazes that I’ve had so far, that I’ve never broken a bone. I’ve fallen off motorcycles, had bales of hay dropped on my head, almost drowned in rivers, damaged cars and had a couple of workshop accidents. I guess I am extremely fortunate, let’s say lucky, when I think on a couple of past accidents.

Of all the events that I can recount only a couple have left their mark. That indelible mark that’s a sign of life’s travels and travails. One finger wouldn’t be graded ten out of ten in a finger competition. My forehead has a small mark, could call it a dent, hardly noticeable by anyone other than me. That’s the list. Thankfully a tiny list.

I’m not counting a botch job of a hospital scare that a boyhood appendicitis left me. Images of that time don’t stack up to a big pile but one of rolling in agony on a living room sofa, I’ll never forget. A colourful children’s ward and unendingly cheerful nurses stick too. And a clown.

There are those near misses that leave no physical signs. Rich selection of memories. An acute compression in time. The electrical shocks I’ve had have no legacy other than my great respect of high voltages. Vivid recollections too.

Yes, if it wasn’t for a wide-awake race marshal at a grass track meeting[1], I’d probably have been run over you a Laverda sidecar outfit. Thankfully someone grabbed me from behind and pulled me to safety behind the straw bales that made up the ring. This was the 1970s in a bowl-shaped field outside a small town called Mere. Perfect for that crazy kind of bike racing.

At the time a mate of mine was a keen amateur photographer. He’d get a pass to photograph the action. We’d go to grass track and road race Auto-Cycle Union (ACU) meetings around the West Country. It was always interesting to read the disclaimer on our marshalling race tickets. Anything bad happens – not our fault.

My finger damage is much more recent. It’s the dumb stuff that caught me out. Moving plant pots around doesn’t usually result in any great consequence. Most of them don’t weigh a lot. In this case a large square fiberglass pot needed moving. I had tried pushing it. That didn’t move it far as it scraped slowly along the patio. Next tactic was to pull it. Getting some momentum going it seemed to move more easily as I pulled it. What I didn’t count on was the fragility of the material of the pot. It had aged. I pulled hard and surprise, surprise, it broke. I went flying across the patio at speed. Naturally, I put my hand out to save me tumbling down a flight of stairs. Sadly, my finger took the first impact. That was painful.

Life without one or two bumps, bruises and grazes is unimaginable. Maybe, I’ve got a little bit more risk averse with age. However, like the back garden plant pot incident there’s always an opportunity to be foolish. Having a story to tell about my father falling off a ladder while fixing a gutter, I’m particularly careful around those potential death traps.

I’m happy to admit that I haven’t got nine lives. Or at last I’ve used up a few.

[1] Example: https://youtu.be/ZqC2Hc43a3w

Evolving Communication

What happens when only a small percentage of the population can read and write? A historical perspective on that question gives the answer: feudalism. If texts are all in Latin and only the priesthood can read Latin, then it’s obvious what the results will be. That the priesthood acquires a superior power to that of the ordinary citizen.

Our interactions are what gives us our freedom. It’s difficult to challenge authority if that authority is holding all the cards. The means to communicate, and the willingness to do so, are integral to a free society. A democratic society.

Speculation about a future where humans spend most of their time interacting with machines is reasonable. In the last couple of decades, the increase in the number of machines that occupy more of our time is notable. Every trip to the supermarket[1] there’s the opportunity to enter a shop and leave without a single word to anyone. Not even a simple greeting or snippet of small talk. This is often sold as a benefit, faster, easier, less hassle.

If life can be conducted without the need for human communication, there are those who will take that path. Some will be by default and others willingly walk that path. If a majority do this then the balance of power shifts to advantage those who control the machines.

Before I go off on some dystopian movie plot, it may be as well to say that lot of new forms of communication have sprung up too. Those who play computer games and interact with other players all over the world. Such capabilities never existed until relatively recently.

What’s most concerning is the gradual distancing that is happening in politics. This might account for some of the disillusion that’s now evident. Gone are the days of major names addressing crowds directly. The idea that a political candidate would stand on a soapbox[2] in a public place and drum out their views and beliefs is getting remote. Such old-fashioned grass-roots campaigning methods are seen as dangerous and riddled with pitfalls.

Better a short video on a social media site is seen to be the substitute. Certainly, safer than standing up to a protest group or alternatively standing with them. Although, to be accurate, security has always been a matter of concern for public speakers. Taking onboard changes, verbal human to human communication is far from dead. It’s taking different forms. Mediated by the digital world we now act and speak differently. Post-COVID a degree of social etiquette has been lost.

Maybe this is why the UK Liberal Democrats are making so little impact on the national stage. With so many more elected members than one of their right-wing adversaries they still command less newspaper column inches (another old-fashioned term).

Like King Cnut[3], it’s foolish to think that the digital tide can be stopped. People must roll with it. If that means having a virtual pet or an artificial friend that will all become part of life’s colourful pageant. Small talk at a bus stop will never go away. However new ways of talking about the things that matter are happening – better adapt.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2025/aug/24/are-we-heading-for-a-world-where-no-one-ever-needs-to-talk-to-another-human-being

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/30/newsid_3739000/3739176.stm

[3] https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Cnut-The-Great/

Regulatory Insights

I can’t remember if my teacher was talking about maths or physics. His scholarly advice has stuck with me. When things get complex, they can seem overwhelming. Problems seem insolvable. So, it’s good to take a deep breath, step back and see if it’s possible to reduce the problem to its most basic elements. Do what could be called helicopter behaviour. Try to look at the problem top-down, in its simplest form. Break it into parts to see if each part is more easily comprehended.

Today’s international aviation regulatory structure, for design and production, follows the arrow of time. From birth to death. Every commercial aircraft that there ever was started as a set of ideas, progressed to a prototype and, if successful, entered service to have a life in the air.

This elementary aircraft life cycle is embedded in standards as well as aviation rules. Documents like, ARP4754(), Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems are constructed in this manner. There are as many graphs and curves that represent the aircraft life cycle as there are views on the subject, but they all have common themes.

That said, the end-of-life scenarios for aircraft of all kinds is often haphazard. Those like the Douglas DC-3 go on almost without end. Fascinatingly, this week, I read of an Airbus A321neo being scrapped after only 6-years of operations. Parts being more valuable than the aircraft.

Generally, flight-time lives in operational service are getting shorter. The pace of technology is such that advances offer commercial and environmental advantages that cannot be resisted. Operating conditions change, business models change and innovation speeds forward.

My earlier proposition was that our traditional aviation regulatory structure is out of date. Well, the detail is ever evolving – it’s true. Some of the fundamentals remain. The arrow of time, however fast the wheels spin, mixing my metaphors, remains an immobile reality.

In airworthiness terms an aircraft life cycle is divided into two halves. Initial airworthiness and continuing airworthiness. This provides for a gate keeper. A design does not advance into operational service, along the aircraft life cycle, until specified standards have been demonstrated as met. An authority has deemed that acceptable standards are met.

I’m arguing, this part of the aviation regulatory structure is far from out of date. However much there’s talk of so called “self-regulation” by industry it has not come into being for commercial aviation. I think there’s good reason for retaining the role that a capable independent authority plays in the system. A gate keeper is there to ensure that the public interest is served. That means safety, security and environmental considerations are given appropriate priority.

To fulfil these basic objectives there’s a need for oversight. That is the transparency needed to ensure confidence is maintained not just for a day but for the whole aircraft life cycle. And so, the case for both design and production approvals remain solid. The devil being in the detail.