Category: Democracy

Digital Age Dilemma

There was a time when most of the political parties in the UK would object to mass surveillance and the State having a watchful eye on every one of its citizens. The influence of the Magna Carta, that 800-year-old document, was a keystone of thinking in this country. Although it was aimed at the privileged when first placed in front of a Monarch, it embraced the idea of liberty. It so upset the establishment that a Pope denounced it.

Ideas endure and those contained in the Magna Carta went on to inspire the framers of the constitutions and legislation in many countries. It doesn’t sound so strange in modern times that a person should be able to go about their lives without an overbearing State impinging on their liberty. Well, at least in theory.

I remember the intense debates that took place in the mid-1990s. The subject being the introduction of identity cards in the UK. Technical arguments were made of how such a measure would simplify lives in the coming digital age. Those agreements paid little attention to the erosion of fundamental rights that the centralising personal data on citizens would bring.

What’s happened now, through a process of stealth, is that people have given away vast qualities of data to international commercial entities without batting an eyelid. The legal device that has been used is a contract that few people ever read. The End User License Agreement (EULA). This detailed fine print addresses data collection and aims to protect software providers from liability.

I suspect that Conservative politicians have observed how little attention people are paying to the erosion of their rights that they feel emboldened to abandon any commitments to liberty. For some time now the Conservative mantra of has been to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is based on a gamble that most people will not have read the document. It’s a bit like the snatch and grab that the typical EULA has become.

Now, the Conservative Party has doubled down on a shift to the right of politics by inviting the prospect of mass surveillance. There’s a reasonable argument for the police to excurse powers to delve into the digital world when investigating crime. In fact, how can they not do so. However, this should be done so when there’s reasonable basis for doing so. Not everyone is a suspect of criminal activity. The law of the land still upholds the idea that guilt must be proven.

Computational tools are getting ever more powerful. I could joke that the number of articles on AI would reach to the Moon and back, but I wouldn’t be far wrong. One of the powerful software tools that’s accumulating uses is that of digital facial recognition. We’ve advanced from the days of inky fingerprints, although such prints are still valuable identifiers.

Where do we have a problem with liberty? The framers of many longstanding constitutions didn’t have to think to hard about what liberty meant in a world devoid of digital cameras. Now, any citizen’s image is going to be caught hundreds of times through the day. Maybe thousands of times. That instant image can be present on storage devices across the globe.

Who owns that image of me or you? Can it be used by anyone? Tricky questions given phones, traffic cameras, doorbells and home and business security cameras are subject to EULAs. On a superficial basis, requiring police forces to extract digital images and run them through a national database can sound like a good crime fighting idea.

The problem is where is the line drawn? Mass surveillance? Where everyone is an immediate suspect until proven not guilty? Not guilty by virtue of the calculation of an algorithm. Widespread digital camera coverage does put this in prospect. Images stored all over the world. Do we need to reframe the Magna Carta for the AI age? Now, there’s a thought.

Public and Private Life

What’s public and what’s private? There was a mythical age of the past when the dividing line between these two was self-evident and sacrosanct. Wholy respected by every member of society. A time when an Englishman’s home was his castle. Anything that happened within it’s walls was not for prying eyes or journalistic speculation. Everyone knew their place.

Naturally, this is utter nonsense. At least described in the way I’ve put it. Times change. Those immortal two words. So, the line between what’s public and what’s private has wobbled around over the centuries. I’m not, as you might expect, saying that nothing has changed over time because a hell of a lot has changed. Now, there are factors that make the public life different from past decades. Themes run through the ages along with unyielding change.

It’s very much in the News now. The impression given is that the act of standing-up in public has risks that can be high. Not so much the traditional risks of humiliation, being ostracised or suffering abject failure but real risks to life, in a physical sense.

It would be ridiculous to say that these are more violent times. When I look out of my kitchen window, I am reminded of the English Civil War[1]. Father and son, brothers, uncles, and cousins fought on opposite sides with fatal consequences. The ruined castle on the hill to my North is a monument to that terrible bloody conflict. In the lifetime of my parents the bombs fell from the sky on innocent civilians in this land, as they do in Ukraine to this day.

The tendency to think that we are a much more civilised society in the 21st Century is a liberal and progressive notion. We are better fed and read. There are greater comforts and the four horsemen of the apocalypse are kept at arm’s length. Not disappeared but kept in check. Although the recent experience of COVID did unsettle everyone for a while.

What we do cherish. I hope we cherish, in this country. Is the relative freedom of speech that allows debate to be conducted in public. I use the word relative because the absolutists, who have an anything goes attitude, are not what I mean. Fundamentalist often ride with the four horsemen. Words do matter.

I’m straying from my point. There’s great merit in protecting public life. In matters that are of fundamental importance individuals must be free to stand-up and say their piece. Stifling debate is like putting the heat on a pressure cooker without a safety valve.

I’ve always been struck by the civility of most people. That’s what I’ve found when knocking on doors during political campaigns of one form or another. There’s a core of decency at all levels of society. Now and then, that thread is broken. It does take a lot to paint a different picture. That’s where the proliferation of social media has changed the dynamic.

The printing press was not an evil invention. That didn’t stop it being used for evil ends. The same with social media. Printed media is subject to regulation. A system of regulation that has developed over decades. That doesn’t stop a wide range of views being expressed. The fertiliser of public life. Similar boundaries are set for broadcast media. This is civilisation.

To date, social media is the wild west. It’s become essential to public life. At the same time, it’s a grave danger to public life. When it’s used to stir-up passions that lead to violence the danger is self-evident. Social media is not sacrosanct. Regulation is essential.

[1] https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/the-english-civil-wars-history-and-stories/

Restoring Regional Voices

He’s right in some respects. The new Prime Minister (PM) in waiting. The UK is highly centralised. Those Portland stone buildings in London encase power in a way that was necessary during war time. Served us well. Weirdly we’ve not been able to wean ourselves off this addiction to a concentration of power. Vested interests have made agreements that reinforce the route to disappointment. That’s the story of the last decades.

It’s got worse since Brexit too. This outdated imperialism, which puts a badly prepared elite in charge is the hallmark of Boris Johnson’s time as PM. What’s strange is that lots of voters bought that combination, even when it was destined to fail from day one. It’s a wee bit ironic that those who shouted about sovereignty during the referendum, ten years ago, are the once most guilty of disenfranchising the regions of the country. Promoting the idea that there’s a mythical national saviour who can ride in and restore past glory. Quite often these folk are male, prosperous and have a similar educational background.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) there was a distinct recognition of the regions. It was the basis for electing MEPs. It gave a voice to regional concerns and built relations between European regions. Those with shared challenges. It focused resources on specific regional needs.

However, the UK was so often constrained by those Portland stone buildings in London that fine words rarely turned into actions. The idea that Turin and Coventry or Liverpool and Cologne might have similar challenges was too much for classical imperial mentalities to make a connection. Politically too, in so many cases UK MPs and MEPs did not work well together.

Optimist as I am, the formula for future prosperity promoted by the PM in waiting is old-fashioned. Let’s take re-industrialisation. This is sold to people as a restoration of industrial landmarks from the days of mass employment in large factories. I’m not saying this isn’t needed. For some in-demand products, like wind turbines, electric vehicles and storage batteries mega factories will be needed. These will not provide mass employment in the old-fashioned way. Automation inevitably plays a growing part in production.

Whether we like it or not, a new industrial revolution is underway. The new oil is data. I’m echoing the British mathematician Clive Humby who is quoted as coming up with: “Data is the new oil.” Isn’t that classic. Back in 2006, when the iPhone arrived, it was a British mathematician who coined five words that summed up what was happening. 20-years have elapsed, but our political debate is still grounded in a mechanistic post-war philosophy.

As for Brexit’s high horse, namely “sovereignty” in respect of data we seemed to have seeded that to others. This is more of the Brexit illusion. If I was of a conspiratorial way of thinking, it’s as if diverting people’s attention has enabled powerful entities to control the future.

Now, Mr Prime Minister (PM) in waiting, take up your position at the lectern and say something that addresses the direction the windvane to the future is pointing.

I’m not saying cover the country with vast energy hungry data centres. No, where it’s happening, that’s really proving extremely unpopular. Instead make sure that the UK’s data infrastructure works as well at Lands Ends as it does in at the tip of the Shetlands. That education and training move to practical working with data rather than the theoretical. That no one is left behind.

Will Andy Burnham Lead a New Era?

It’s not so unbelievable. With the volatility of politics in the 2020s, that a leadership role flips from one person to the next in the blink of an eye. The man tipped to run the country has won one constituency in his hometown. Now, lots of people envisage him in the biggest of jobs, sweeping aside the wows of recent years.

One view of this change is that the decades of past allegiances, that we almost took for granted, have now dissolved. The way we view others in our society has become far more complex.

British comedy is littered with these stereotypes. Comic strip characters. Property owning, upper middle class, broadsheet newspaper reader equates to a Conservative. Open toed saddle, tweed jacket owning teacher who goes on improving camping holidays, a Liberal. Football supporting, factory worker, from a generation of factory workers almost certainly a Labour supporter with Socialist friends. At the margines, long retired colonel who inherited a large countryside mansion and estate may even be a Fascist. These animated cartoon images persist. What’s different is that there are dwindling numbers of them in society at large.

Initialled AB, Andy Burnham, comes to us as a smiling face. Down with the people in a way Sir Keir Starmer found incredibly hard. AB has charm and a warm accent that suggest a relaxed demeaner. He talks with enough wriggle room for a wide swath of people to think that he’s on their side. A good skill to have to be successful in politics. As it is, what he stands for when push comes to shove isn’t so easy to discern.

In know the spelling is different but it’s out there in social media land. The fictional Birnam Wood, a forest near Dunsinane Hill in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. A place of prediction.

[That was one of the texts our teachers chose for us in my school days. Maybe they imagined troubled times ahead. Or wanted to warn us of power’s potential corrupting effect].

Three witches appeared to assure Macbeth that he was a winner. Only seemingly impossible events would defeat him. The message was critic. Bit like the Oracle of Delphi in the ancient Greek world. Nothing like recycling a good idea.

The British media’s prophecy is that Burnham will quickly step into the job of UK Prime Minister and restart the Labour Government with fresh vigour and new imagination. Not to mention better public communication. The constituency who thinks he’s a potential saviour is much bigger than the consistency who thinks he’s a devil in the making.

Will ambition and power’s potential corrupting effect take a hand. Or will the man with the name: “King of the North” have accumulated the knowledge and experience needed to shape history to the country’s benefit. A good sprinkle of luck will no doubt be needed too.

Despite what has passed in our post-Brexit land. UK PM’s coming and going, will Burnham be a force for good? I wouldn’t say past performance is any predictor at all. Making the buses run on time in Greater Manchester is a far cry from being a political party leader and UK PM.

I, as do so many, wish him a fair wind. Let’s hope he and his team can get to grips with the need to adapt, change and even be disruptive where it’s warranted. I hope he will not shy away from big decisions or be cowed by either his own side or the perfidious British right-wing media.

Reflecting on a Decade Post-Brexit: Lessons Learned

The clock has clicked. The pages of the calendar have flipped. Crises have been and gone. And in the UK’s political turmoil continues to exasperate one and all. A decade has passed since UK voters backed a proposal to leave the European Union (EU). The surprise result of the 23 June 2016 vote and the tiny majority for change still haunt the whole country.

Voters were told this and that would not happen, prosperity and a lowering of the cost-of-living were just around the corner. We now know that lie after lie piled-up. The mouths of the advocates of the vote to leave spouted pure undiluted nonsense. Yet, the noisy ones show no remorse or shame.

The pace of change can be overwhelming. Over the last decade the world has moved on with increasing speed. It’s self-evident that the 21st Century is becoming an era of accelerating change. Sadly, in adopting the worst kind of Brexit transition the UK has become a lesser influence. A spectator in the world that has changed dramatically.

The first 10-year anniversary of the Brexit referendum is a time to take stock. To be mystified in reflection of the maddening goings on of the years past. I will not repeat pages and pages of analysis that others have provided. A simple conclusion is evident. The nation is poorer by a substantial amount.

I’m not in favour of endless navel gazing. We are where we are and it’s not a good place to be. What must be plotted in a way forward that increase prosperity, builds resilience and unseats defeatism. Political polarisation and the slide to appease the far-right is proving to be disastrous. The warnings of history should be heeded.

The future of the UK-EU relationship has the potential to be better one than ever before. At least we now know that there was good sound reasoning behind our past membership of the EU. Facing global challenges together is a far better way to face the future. Rapidly advancing technology, social upheaval and geopolitical shocks are not going away. The means by which we collectively respond to these challenges will be critical.

This is not a time to relitigate the Brexit referendum. Let the past be the past. We have learned from that past. It’s far better to ask what a better future looks like. Europe has common challenges. It’s an interconnected, interactive and interdependent region. We share a common cultural heritage.

Discussions over the future will never abate. But there’s a need of it to be put on solid and sound reasoning. Not by equating independence with isolation. Weve found that doesn’t work.

The UK and EU must forge a new closer relationship. It’s a win-win scenario.

Brexit Documentary Review

Firstly, a reaction to the BBC documentary that’s telling the story of Brexit. They called it “Brexit: A Very British Civil War[1].” A corny title that plays on titles “A Very British Scandal,” the drama about Liberal MP Jeremy Thorpe and “A Very Royal Scandal.”

The “Civil War” analogy is out of place. Ten seconds of reading about any real civil war would have sunk that illusion. The events of 2016 were more a battle for the future. Battles continue to rage as the advocates of Brexit have merely changed their colours and rebranded.

Yes, I agree. The stage was set by the choice that voters took in 2015. In fact, if blame must be allocated then its as much the fault of liberal minds as it it’s the reactionary forces that pounded away at their ambition. The political idiocy of promising a national referendum in a country that rarely, if ever, has referendums was a critical folly. The UK is not Switzerland. UK voters have no idea what it’s like to be that sort of federal democracy.

David Cameron won a majority and his hand were tied. He did have choices, but he plodded along with all the imagination of a dull public-school boy in fear of rejection by his peers. Cameron didn’t see the bus that was about to hit him. Having been pounding away for decades the rag tag but monied pushers of a referendum wasted no time in campaigning. Cameron wasted every opportunity.

Aside from the story that the BBC chose to document is the image of a modern European country run by a strange herd of mostly Tory men, living a privileged life. It’s a searing display of a political crisis made by a few for the interests of a few.

I know it is said by both left and right in UK politics, but what more does anyone need to convince themselves that there’s a chasm between the people in Westminster and the people of the nation. Demographic trends were likely to shape the outcome of a national referendum. It proved to be so in the numbers. An older age group favouring Leave and a younger one favouring Remian. Populism had taken root in the Leave campaign.

The dim-witted organisers of the Remain campaign ran a campaign as if they were changing the name of a chocolate bar with diminishing sales. As if they were stereotypical comic depressed bowler hatted businessmen from the 1950s, Cameron’s crew ignored the analysis and lumbered on. He took a politically suicidal path.

The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove dithered with only their own political ambitions tugging at them to eventually decide as to which way to go. Again, my reflection amounted to – what a bizarre way to run a country. Especially one with the history and traditions of the UK.

I understand the notion that Cameron may have seen this political path as a way of resolving a self-evident Tory split once and for all. Ironically, the outcome is a Tory split the like of which couldn’t have been imagined ten years ago.

Deciding whether to back Leave or Remain wasn’t the real question. Capturing the future political agenda was the aim. 2016’s national referendum was not a war; it was a battle. The battle continues.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002xhvj

Shaping Our Digital Landscape

Waking up in the morning I look out of the window. A street scene. A well-maintained road. Houses and the greenery of their gardens. Parked cars and flowering shrubs. I hear muted traffic noise from the main road. Birds and the wind rustling through the tall trees.

I didn’t make these or ask them to be there, but I did choose to live on this residential street. In everyday experience there’s a million and one aspects of life that I take for granted. These surroundings have evolved, or should I say developed. Flicking back the calendar, there was a transformational moment. There was a time before this built environment when this area was open fields, hedges, and trees. A rustic farmed landscape.

Systematically, a local authority gave permission for the development of this residential area back in the 1950s. Generally, what they delivered has passed the test of time. The infrastructure works. Notwithstanding the propensity to dig-up the pavements and roads when it doesn’t.

In taking our surroundings for granted there’s not much thought given to the transformational moment that produced this tranquil scene of urban peacefulness. Yet, it was key to what happened for the next 70 years.

Like it or not, a paper based bureaucratic process involving and engaging the councilman and councilwoman of the town and motivated private builders produced this urban setting. Public and private interests working together.

Compare and contrast how our society is making the digital environment that we now inhabit. I could say that it’s not making it at all but rather letting it happen. As an illustration of how strange the transformation impacting us all, I got an e-mail with this intriguing line:

This is an operational email required for your ABC account to function properly and cannot be unsubscribed from.

Here’s an interesting digital imposition in my inbox. I don’t want this ABC account. I thought I’d deleted it. Yet, it’s provider politely tells me that such emails can’t be unsubscribed. I assume they think that’s to my benefit in some mysterious way.

[I won’t get sniffy about west coast Americans ending a sentence with a preposition.]

Where are my elected representatives when it comes to the regulation of the construction of our digital environment? Do the ones in my municipal, regional, or national government have any say over what happens in this fast-moving environment?

I won’t throw my hands up in horror as if there’s no one. I’m aware that there are national politicians who take an interest in the development of the digital world. Debates rage after the fact. An event occurs and an element of society’s digital transformation becomes topic for conversation. It’s all highly reactive. Our sleeping sentinels wake up when the media points out a catastrophe or some pivotal moment of transformation.

Theres little attempt for, systematically, an authority to give permission for a development or even to assert that right on our behalf. We live in a democracy where elected politicians are either asleep at the wheel or too timid to lock horns with the global digital giants.

The question I have is what kind of society will be built under these conditions?

Political Downfall

I’m not sure. Transparency is a good thing. Well, generally that’s the cases. Shedding a light on the dark places leads to better understanding. So, they say. That’s conventional thinking. The assumption being that the public prefer raw trust to a fabricated sort of truth.

The utterings of Peter Benjamin Mandelson are now going to fill more newspaper column inches than the great fire of London. It doesn’t take much looking around to realise that Mandelson has become public enemy number one. And for the British right-wing media cohort, is the Achilles heal of the current UK Labour Prime Minister. Retrospectively seen as the stupidest decision the man in power has made to date.

In bold letters the words “nightmare” and “bombshell” are already out there. Next, we can expect “Armageddon” and talk of nails in coffins. This is where the cynic in me clicks. What a lovely political opportunity to relentlessly attack, knowing that there’s always another twist or turn to add at any convenient moment.

In mathematics, the Mandelbrot set acts like News of Mandelson[1] and does not diverge. It’s complex but repetitive. I expect the thousands of pages of correspondence dumped on the public will take that path. Complex but repetitive. Sadly too, the juicy bits, like criticism of the administration in Washington DC may be redacted.

There’re immortal themes in the story of political downfall. As if the plot of Star Wars were brought to life. A dark lord strides confidently across a stage set for his demise.

In what I’ve written above, make no mistake. This is not an argument for sweeping stuff under the carpet. None whatsoever. In this modern media age, we must get used to the drop of more than 1,000 pages. If nothing else, it gives good investigative journalists a lot of work to do.

The thing is, I wonder what we will learn that may turn out to be really useful in future. I mean, surly the point of these exercises in public transparency are to ensure that corrective action is taken to avoid the same mistakes being made again. That maybe where the problem is centred. We’ve gone from the ludicrous times of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and yet I wonder if learning from mistakes is in our DNA. If learning from real mistakes was intrinsic, then no one would be contemplating voting UK Reform.

Yet, if they are to be believed, that extreme UK political party has a high opinion poll rating. Our love of words like “catastrophe” and “apocalypse” are so great they seem to trump common sense. It’s as if a major hole has appeared in the heads of a potential electorate. The simplistic, flat, two-dimensional, world of UK Reform gets its appeal from people not wanting to engage with stubborn complexity. Those who utter simple solutions, even if they are obviously wrong, get the press attention. From here to infinity by way of nonsense.

Back to Mandelson. He got jobs that others strive for without hope of getting. His confident personality, guile and cunning got him places. There’s the lesson. All that glitters is not gold. Much as people might want to believe in political magic it’s extremely rare. Ten to the minus nine at least.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/27/peter-mandelson-questions-vetting-clearance-mitigations

Forgiveness: A Double-Edged Sword

The basic Sunday school Christian idea of forgiveness is fine and dandy. It’s a cornerstone of the social soup that is modern Britian. Although we like a good dose of retribution when it suites us, the core belief that we maybe forgiven as much as others might forgive us still pervades.

The above is a cultural aspect of life as our more primitive side has a tendency not to forgive. Especially when talking about people we don’t know or, for that matter, people we do know who do something deeply offensive, like betrayal.

Christianity is transactional about this subject. You must forgive if you want to be forgiven. That is practical in sustaining a cohesive society. If we wander around carrying grudges and consumed with anger all day long, then this will not end well. Here I find a crux of a problem. Although it may be admirable to forgive, if that charitable act melts away anger, then it can melt away the motivation to do something, like fix a problem.

So, how to respond to someone in public life who says unacceptable and harmful things five years ago but is now said to be a different person. Reformed. Incidentally, this said by a third party that the person concerned is a different person. Whatever that means.

Let me quote thinker Thomas Aquinas in that “evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise[1]”

He really does throw the whole conundrum back at us. Since my “right reason” and your “right reason” may be completely different. My anger is my problem. That said, my anger may be shared by many people. So, who is the arbiter of society’s righteous anger?

In Britain, this is a matter where the four estates play their part. People who make laws, people that carry them out, and those who judge. With the “fourth estate” being the fickle and flighty news media. I could say those who report to the public, or pile on their opinions. This formula doesn’t add clarity. Each of the estates can, and do, take different views. The question is then, which is the most powerful arbiter? The most influential.

Here the equation has changed. Whereas a sizeable section of the news media of my childhood undertook their work with a sense of social responsibility, this section is now under attack.

The term “social media” has been coined for the newcomers but in a way there’s no such thing. The digital world we call social media is not the least bit interested in sustaining a cohesive society. In fact, quite the reverse. Conflict, anger, controversy, and division are sources of income potential. Not a small income either. And on a global scale.

Normally, forgiveness does not come easy. It does require a period of reflection. What’s happening in the social media world is not so much forgiveness as forgetfulness. Delete an account, stir-up a new sense of outrage, move on at the speed of lightning. No need for forgiveness because people have forgotten the last reason for anger and moved on to a new source of anger. Thomas Aquinas never had to ponder over that one.

[1] Summa Theologiae II-II:158:1.

A New Era of Disruption

Where is it all going? Now, there’s a question to ask. Through the media pages there’s the signals of unprecedented change. It’s not as if we are sailing through smooth air, on a clam Sunday afternoon. No, it’s turbulence all the way.

Disruptors are getting the headlines. They don’t have to be clever. They don’t have to be honest. I’m expecting a headline along the lines of: “Everything you knew about spiders is wrong. They are from Alpha Centauri”. It’s only a matter of time. 4.3 light-years away is nothing, after all. Elon Musk will be there at the drop of a hat. Technology permitting.

My prediction maybe a bit off the wall but it’s to illustrate the point of media frenzy that is absorbing the public space of the moment. Much as we might see ourselves as a sophisticated species where a forum is a place of philosophical debate. Where thinkers and politicians test their theories in an open public space. We have the front page of the likes of the Daily Mail instead. Stories about reality shows gone wrong trump concerns about real reality.

It’s a new age. That said, it’s always a new age. In the world of politics and governance we have been here before. To an extent. Type the letters “SDP” into a popular search engine and it’s likely to come up with the Social Democratic Party (SDP). It’s a defunked political party. Or is that just my search engine? In 1981, a spin-off of the Labour Party, the “Gang of Four” showed great promise. Suddenly a step change in the UK’s political terrain seemed possible. A small group of seasoned politicians started to articulate a set of policies that people appeared to like.

To cut it short, that political experiment was absorbed and didn’t lead to the radical change of the landscape that was expected. Over the last 35 years the ideas spoken of by the SDP have not gone away but they have been absorbed and diluted. This does lead me to wonder if the schism between conservatives, those on the right-wing of UK politics, will not eventually melt away. The great big sponge of institutional lethargy will swallow up the dissenters. Loud disruptors on the make will merge with the elephantine traditions of past generations.

What I now think is that such thinking is dangerous. It’s all to do with the rapid nature of change. It’s to do with historic analogies becoming less relevant. It’s to do with an unparalleled speed of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. The landscape has changed.

The media is so important because we need stories to make sense of the world. Our place in the world and possible future is shaped by the results of a mass of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. Dare I say – No man is an island.

Usually when we experience a disruption to a commonly accepted narrative there’s a push back. An innate caution resides in us all. It maybe primitive. A tribal instinct.

This is where the digital world has changed our experiences. For all time. If every day (every hour) there’s a minor disruption, say a story about UFOs, the ground on which we stand starts to shift. Our shared sense-making starts to question and before we know it the fringe belief becomes common place.

Traditional institutions will confront disruptive change with opinion polls, spreadsheets, detailed analysis and studies. Interestingly, enabled and enhanced by digital technology. However, they are like the fire truck that turns up after the house has burned down.

Brexit was proof to me that a step-change can be driven by manipulating information. A political rupture can be advanced. A collapse of trust can be engineered. Now, that is frightening.