Democracy – Page 16 – John Vincent

Time for Change

….people have been living, loving, and telling tales for thousands of years on this great European island.

The past is another country. So, it’s said. We now hear those who claimed Boris Johnson was the only man who could unite the Conservative Party eating their words. Eating them with a shovel. It wasn’t as if their support for the former Prime Minister was measured and rational, earlier it reached blind obedience as the troubles of the last decade accumulated. Lies, monstrous errors and blatant foolishness were defended by many who claim to be – working for you.

I know loyalty is important. Any team, or institution needs a degree of unity to go forward with confidence that it can deliver. It’s the miss-appropriation of that loyalty and its twisting into unquestioning conformity that corrupts democratic processes. Politician minions will tramp along under any flag that will give them gongs.

It’s fascinating how flamboyant and raucous personalities can steamroller over convention and Pied Piper[1] like lead us into misfortunes. Hang about – we have a recuring problem here. This week, I was reminded of Itay’s challenges of a couple of decades ago. I remember Italian colleagues quietly apologising for Silvio Berlusconi[2].

A common feature of these personalities is an immense sense of self-importance. Whatever the story, it’s always about them. This is playing out with Boris Johnson’s departure from parliament. It’s playing out with Trump’s ambitions in the US. There are others but the mere act of using their names is distasteful.

Vulgar, scandal-ridden, and manipulative characters make good drama. On the pages of plays or the big or small screen we like to see rampage and for them get their just deserts. Classic stories of the rise and fall of demi-gods, showmen and tyrants are a literary staple. They are fictional warnings that can, and do, get copied into real life. We should, more often, heed those warnings.

There such a thing as a free lunch. Having your cake and eating it too, is a myth.

It’s coming up to Brexit’s 7^th birthday and the annual pagan midsummer celebrations at Stonehenge[3]. Of the two, one reminds us of how foolish we can be. The other, reminds us of the enduring nature of our beautiful landscape and heritage. It comforts me every time I go up and down the A303. The reason being that whatever folly we encounter in our era, people have been living, loving, and telling tales for thousands of years on this great European island.

The people of Stonehenge were not isolationists. Artifacts found show that they traded widely. They communicated over large distances as part of a widespread prehistoric society. Brexit will be consigned to the dustbin of history in coming years. What counts about this wonderful land will endure for generations.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200902-the-grim-truth-behind-the-pied-piper

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65877241

[3] https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/things-to-do/solstice/

Stomping off

Boris Johnson is going from the green benches but, like it or not, he will still be with us as a voice for Brexit

Middlesex is a place that isn’t a place. When I lived in the English town of Staines, the postal address would often have Middlesex as the county. In fact, Staines is in the county of Surrey. History, and former administrative boundaries still echo into the present. It’s not confusing for postmen and women but for anyone unfamiliar with that part of the world, it’s strange.

Uxbridge is in Middlesex, or it was in past times. In electoral terms, the UK Parliament constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip [1] is a marginal seat. It’s that far west boundary of London.

Uxbridge is a university town. Uxbridge has a London tube station.

During the 2016 UK referendum on European Union (EU) membership, I stood with local students at a table in the street outside Uxbridge’s tube station. We had lots of interesting encounters with residents talking about what would, or would not happen if the Leave campaign won the referendum. If I remember rightly, the disposition of people we met was about 50:50.

A conversation with one local businesses man turned out to be quite revealing. He put it like this – my head tells me to vote to stay in the EU, but my heart tells me to vote to leave the EU. On the day, for a majority it seems that the heart won out over the head. The consequences of that vote we all now know.

Uxbridge and South Ruislip is in the News. Projections focusing on the next General Election are confident that the Parliament constituency will flip from Conservative to Labour. The polls show a highly likly swing.

That would mean that Boris Johnson’s time as Member of Parliament (MP) would come to an end with electoral defeat next year. So, the current News that Boris Johnson has resigned as a Conservative MP is not such a surprise to me. Usually, an MP in such a position does what’s called the “chicken run”[2]. That is, they get selected as a candidate in a more winnable seat so that they can retain a career in Parliament. Boris Johnson has moved seat before.

Boris Johnson is all about drama. Boris Johnson is all about exceptions. Stomping off and ranting about the unfairness of his enemies is designed to get weekend newspaper columnists filling pages about him. He’s never going to go quietly. Even outside the House of Commons there’s always going to be a well-paid pulpit for this torrid man. The loud noises he makes appeals to a section of the country, much as Trump does the same in the US.

Middlesex has gone but it’s still with us. Boris Johnson is going from the green benches but, like it or not, he will still be with us as a voice for Brexit. The reality is that the Conservative Party is split. Broken apart by in-fighting. It’s in chaos. In a way, there is a parallel with the mid-1990s. Disputes over our place in the world, and Europe continue to fracture our politics.

POST: It has been noted that there’s no former UK Prime Minister in modern times who has so strongly attacked Parliament’s institutions and former colleagues as Boris Johnson. How British voters will respond to his victim narrative will play out next week.

[1] https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3817/overview

[2] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-mps-doing-the-chicken-run/

People

You can apply this to health, transport, and a multitude of successful industries.

When the subject of staff shortages, and generally that’s qualified staff shortages, comes up, and a government minister is put in the spotlight the answer that comes back is no more than evasion. It’s a shrug of the shoulders and an irritated retort along the lines that Brexit has happened. They may go for the sympathy vote in emphasising how hard the last six years have been in Parliament. What follows is a vague illusion to the opportunities that are now available to the UK because of Brexit.

What’s sad, is they will then quote a small step that has benefited the UK but then neglect to say that such a step should have happened regardless of Brexit. The lack of intellectual rigour is growing. Conservatives are so deeply embedded in the Brexit mirage that they readily clutch at straws. This constant blindness hinders access to the real opportunities. The real opportunity is to move on.

If the UK is to be best positioned to exploit the new technologies that are advancing rapidly, we need to rediscover partnerships. We are well positioned, given the history of the post-war period, to be a significant player in the technology-based industries. UK academia has a lot to offer too.

It’s a global marketplace. That means there’s the need for people to move. Not always permanently, but to move to best use their specialise knowledge and skills. In that pattern of movement, we should not have unnecessary restrictions for British people to work in Europe, or the reverse.

There are lots of people and organisations that want to do trade with the UK. What they don’t want is the stone wall of British politicians who echo thin Brexit rhetoric at every opportunity. There’s also a mindless compulsion to be different for the sake of being different. British pragmatism has been submerged under a shadow of the last six years.

There’s some light over the horizon. Certainly, amongst most of the public there’s a dismissal of sloppy Brexit benefit agreements. There’s a groan. Our collective experience shows that sloppy political thinking falls into ruin when faced with reality. A General Election will be welcome. It needs to be a generational election. That should mean a sea change in the population of Members of Parliament. Let’s see a new generation stand and get elected.

Information

The issue is how far do you go and who makes the decision as to what’s relevant?

Investigation is about learning. In every crisis, accident, or major event some things will be done well, and things will be done badly. In essence a good investigation needs to extract, from all the available information, the lessons to be learned. Putting on record what happened and why will help those who face future events.

If there’s a role in apportioning blame or liability it needs to be made explicit. The problem is obvious. Inclination to avoid blame or liability may motivate contributors to an investigation to be less than frank or cooperative with the process. Independence and respect for privacy can help alleviate fears that information could be misused.

An inquiry, or investigation needs a complete narrative of what happened and when. It’s a fundamental part of establishing the grounds on which the process can proceed to a conclusion. If that narrative is inaccurate or missing information or manipulated the results of the end process may be deemed questionable.

The bizarre situation of the moment is that of a government, who sets-up an inquiry is fighting that same inquiry. Defending the government’s decision to hold back certain information, the argument is put forward that some information is “unambiguously irrelevant”.

Most of us would agree that Boris Johnson’s shoe size might be deemed irrelevant. The issue is how far do you go and who makes the decision as to what’s relevant? Should a party under investigation, namely the government, be the entity to make the decisions on relevance?

For the sake of objectivity, I’d say that it’s for the leader of an inquiry or investigation to determine what’s relevant. To argue against that position is to suggest some potential indiscretion or failure of the process may result in unnecessary embarrassment of those making submissions. That demonstration of suspicion and lack of faith in the inquiry or investigation process may go some way to undermine its purpose.

The Cabinet Office would do well to consider if it’s serious about learning lessons from the COVID pandemic. What is certain is that there will be another global pandemic. Now, that may not be for a decade or several decades, but it’s inevitable. Better the country be prepared. Better there be prevention of avoidable errors.

POST: Boris Johnson at risk of losing Covid inquiry legal funding, Whitehall warns | Financial Times (ft.com)

Lables

Performance based regulatory systems are all the rage. That’s when regulatory action is taken based on the measurement of a key indicator or a series of indicators. Sounds like a good idea. It is for the most part. Set a target of reducing or eliminating something that is damaging or undesirable and track progress towards achieving that goal.

Wouldn’t it have been to the benefit of all if a performance-based approach had been applied in the 1989 Water Act which privatised water in England and Wales? A great deal of sewage flooding into rivers could have been avoided.

However, it wouldn’t have helped to have nothing more than a simple “good” or “bad” indicator. In a performance-based system there’s a need for reasonably accurate measurement and graduated bans of performance achieved. The measurements taken need to be done in a timely manner too. Publishing measures that are a year or more out-of-date isn’t a good way of confidently plotting a way forward to hit a goal.

Listening to the News about Ofsted’s grading scheme, I can’t help but think that having a four-category grid is wholly inadequate for their purpose. Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. The Education inspection framework (EIF)[1] in England is primitive in this respect. Shoe-horning every school in England into Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate is brutal.

What’s the betting that at any one day many of the schools graded Outstanding are not, and many of the schools graded Inadequate are not either. The problem with these indicators is the crudity of the labels. We’ve all seen huge banners erected outside schools if there’s favourable news to communicate. What passers-by and parents see is the headline and not the reality of the performance of a particular school.

The sub-division of the lowest category into schools with serious weaknesses and in need of significant improvement doesn’t help much. Negative words get merged into a negative judgement.

Experience with risk management is that categorisation schemes face challenges when performance sits on the borderline between categories. That’s one reason why anything less than five categories is not often used.

The aim of a performance based regulatory systems is to improve performance. If the tools used become those that blame and shame, then that system is not working. Nothing, I’m saying here isn’t already written-up in the annals of quality management. People have been wrestling over different methods for 60 years, at least.

The current Ofsted’s grading scheme is poor and unimaginative.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework/education-inspection-framework

Fake/Real?

So, why might artificial intelligence (AI) be so dangerous in a free society?

Democracy depends upon information being available to voters. Ideally, this would be legal, decent, and honest information. All too often the letter of the law may be followed whilst shaping a message to maximise its appeal to potential supporters. Is it honest to leave out chunks of embarrassing information for the one nugget that makes a politician look good? We make our own judgement on that one. We make a judgement assuming that outright lying is a rare case.

During key elections news can travel fast and seemingly small events can be telescoped into major debacles. I’m reminded of the remark made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown[1] when he thought the media’s microphones were dead. In 2010, when an aide asked: What did she say? Gordon Brown was candid in his reply. It’s an occasion when the honest thoughts of a PM on the campaign trail popped into the public domain and livened up that election coverage considerably.

What’s concerning about AI[2] is that, in the hands of a “bad actor,” such events could be faked[3] extremely convincingly. Since the fast pace of election campaigning leaves never enough time for in-depth technical investigations there’s a chance that fake events can sway people before they are uncovered. The time between occurrence and discovery need only be a few days. Deep fakes are moving from amateur student pranks to the tools of propagandists.

Misinformation happens now, you might say. Well, yes it does, and we do need people to fact-check claims and counter claims on a regular basis. However, we still depend on simple techniques, like a reporter or member of the public asking a question. It’s rather a basic in format.

This leaves the door open for AI to be used to produce compelling fakes. Sometimes, all it needs is to inject or eliminate one word from a recording or live event. The accuracy and speed of complex algorithms to provide seamless continuity is new. It can be said that we are a cynical lot. For all the protest of fakery that a politician may make after an exposure there will be a plenty of people who will not accept any subsequent debunking.

My example is but a simple one. There’s a whole plethora of possibilities when convincing fake pictures, audio and videos are only a couple of keyboard stokes away.

Regulatory intervention by lawmakers may not be easy but it does need some attention. In terms of printed media, that is election leaflets there are strict rules. Same with party political broadcasts.

Being realistic about the risks posed by technology is not to shut it down altogether. No, let’s accept that it will become part of our lives. At the same time, using that technology for corrupt purposes obviously needs to be stamped on. Regulatory intervention is a useful way of addressing heightened risks. Some of our 19^th century assumptions about democracy need a shake-up.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gordon-brown-anniversary-gillian-duffy-transcript-full-read-1957274.html

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/tech/sam-altman-openai-congress/index.html

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/technology/artificial-intelligence-training-deepfake.html

Chips

Semiconductor superpower. Where have I heard that before? Let’s go back to the moment when the silicon revolution was a topic of popular conversations. Today, as much as people are speaking of AI. It has been difficult to accept that Moore’s Law is real. Early on, the notion that the number of transistors on a microchip would double every two years seemed far fetched.

I remember the 1980s, and the privatisation drive that effectively gave away the country’s technology crown jewels. UK semiconductor manufacturers of the 1980s such as GEC, Plessey, Ferranti and Inmos waned or sold-up[1]. Policy makers of that time saw globalisation as risk free. Now, that looks like selling off the family silver.

At the time, silicon chips were predicted to kill off a substantial percentage of white colour jobs. Only a few people saw the potential for massive new industries to spring-up and employ large numbers of new workers. It’s true that the jobs created were, on the whole, quite different from the ones they displaced. Admin work in a giant insurance office is miles from that of a being an on-line games developer, tester, or marketer.

My point is that Government intervention in technology hasn’t got a good record. That’s not an argument for a hands-off approach. That too has proven to have negative outcomes. I’m often tempted to go back to the story of videotape and VHS against Betamax[2] The better technology is not always the one that wins in the global marketplace. Boring reality and dull pragmatic considerations can tip the balance.

The record shows Government Ministers get swayed by the whizzy, super advanced, “superpower” labels that get stuck on the latest promotion. Let’s face it, a photo opportunity next to an exciting futuristic image gets the media’s heart beating. Marketing hype is not new. It has a role in druming-up investments in risky ventures.

Unquestionable is the intense level of competition in the global semiconductor marketplace. If the UK is to be taken seriously when billions of dollars are placed on the table by others there really must be a matching offer. One billion over a decade will end up getting spread as thin as oil on water. A strong collaboration with other, who have common interests would help. Let’s not forget that doing the “dull stuff” can be highly profitable too.

The open market, in deals of the past, has seen a concentration of power. This is not good for a medium sized country on the edge of a continent. Inward investment is to be welcomed. At the same time strategic domestic protections should have a place. Investments in domestic technology capabilities secures a future.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/470bf7d8-cd32-472d-b75f-6019eb4b100a

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war

Turbulence

Brexit “outrage” as The Express newspaper put it. Headlines like this are signs of shear desperation. It seems every time something goes wrong, which it regularly does, the call comes out from Brexit supporters – it must be Remainers or the House of Commons or Lords or civil servants or large corporations or lefty liberals thwarting the great Brexit plan. Noting, of course, that there never was a plan in the first place.

“Take Back Control” has become the hollowest political slogan in British history. Rather than dimming the light of fervent Brexit advocates these repeated setbacks just pump them up. This kind of thinking is both sad and dangerous. It has a deep flavour of paranoia.

This month, shocks from the Conservative Party’s council election meltdown are another trigger for the political right to agitate. Shouting: bring back Boris Johnson is unsurprising. The dreamy magical thinking is that because he delivered a big parliamentary majority in 2019, somehow, he, and he alone, can do the same in 2024. Other conservatives are positioning themselves for the next run at being Prime Minister.

I’m not one to totally dismiss the Johnson proposition. Naturally, it would be calamitous and beyond reason but that has not been an impenetrable barrier since 2016. Brexit, as a happening, delights in causing chaos. There’re political thinkers who invite chaos and disruption to free potentially creative energies. They’re not a bit concerned about the impact of that approach on the average person.

Brexit continues to hobble aviation in UK. A large percentage of the people who worked in UK aviation, before the COVID pandemic, were EU nationals. A lot have gone. Now, it’s often the case that when EU nationals apply for jobs in the UK, the aviation industry must turn them down[1].

The legislative proposal to remove retained EU laws has created yet more uncertainty for UK’s aviation sector. The threat remains regardless that it may be in the process of being watered down. Debates in the House of Lords focused on democratic scrutiny of the process where significant changes are planned[2]. Ministers continue to wish to use arbitrary powers to make changes. There’s ambition in the policies advanced while, at the same time, there’s a wish to look all ways at once.

For a lot of aviation topics, the UK has stated it will continue to use European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) rules and guidance. Although, this is eminently sensible in an international setting it does suggest that Brexit benefits, if they exist at all, have been greatly overstated.

Given the tabloid media jitters seen in recent headlines, it’s perfectly clear that Brexit is a million miles from being “done”. A bad idea remains a bad idea, however it’s dressed up.

Expect turbulence right up to the next General Election. Change is not assured. People will have to campaign hard to make it happen. In comment on the change of the crown, “The country is in a waiting room” said historian Simon Schama.

[1] One major airline – We have had to turn down a huge number [8,000] of EU nationals because of Brexit. Another has blamed the British government’s post-Brexit immigration constraints on the labour market for fuelling staff shortages.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65605035

Deregulation

There’s nothing wrong with making an argument for deregulation. What’s absurd is to make that argument as an unchallengeable dogma. It’s the irrationality of saying that deregulation is good, and regulation is bad, de-facto. This kind of unintelligent nonsense does permeate a particular type of right-wing political thinking. It pops it’s head up in a lot of Brexiters utterances. For advocates of Brexit their great goal is to throw away rules and lower standards. Mostly, this is for financial gain.

Let’s take some simple examples. The reasons for rules and regulations can often be found in recent history. Hazards are recognised and action is taken.

There’s still lead paint to be found in many older houses. There was a time when such paint was used on children’s toys. Toy safety has been a confusing area of law, and there have been several sets of regulations since the 1960. From our current perspective this past laxness seems insane, but such lead paint mixtures were commonplace. In fact, all sorts of toxic chemicals have been used in widely used paints.

I remember working in one factory building where a survey was done of the surrounding grounds. Outside certain windows there were small fluorescent flags placed at in the grass verges. They marked places where minor amounts of radiation had been detected. This came from discarded paint brushes and tins that had accumulated in the war years. At that time radioactive luminescent paint was used to paint aircraft instrument dials.

Any arguments for the deregulation of toxic chemicals in commonly used paints should be one that is quashed instantly. However, some deregulation fanatics are only to happy to endorse a loosening of the rules that protect the public from toxic chemicals.

One result of the loosening of public protection is often to put greater profits in the hands of unscrupulous industrialist. Across the globe there are numerous cases studies of this sad folly. Newspapers and political parties that push the line that rules, regulations and regulators, by their very nature are crushing our freedoms are as bad as those unscrupulous industrialists.

Yes, there’s a case to be made for pushing back over-regulation. There’s risks we are prepared to take where the risks are low, and the benefits are large. This is a matter for intelligent debate and not throwing around mindless slogans. We should not be cowed by loud voices from small corners of society intent on tearing down decades of learning and sound practical laws. I could come up with an encyclopaedic list of examples. Opponents rarely, if ever want to address a particular case since it’s much easier for them to thunder off sweeping assertions. Beware these siren voices.

NOTE: The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 implemented the requirements of Directive 2009/48/EC, whose purpose is to ensure a high level of toy safety.

Protest

Any study about “change” will tell you that it’s not easy. Take a few of the big social transformations that have occurred over the last six decades. I can’t point to one that just happened without a campaign or fight. Social and political change comes when momentum has built-up. Pressure is needed. Often that pressure comes in the form of protest and extensive campaigning in public.

As ever faster digital connections are becoming universal, it’s still possible to buy physical digital media. Charity shops have piles and piles of CDs and DVDs as people off-load the stuff that clutters their shelves. It’s remarkable that yesterday’s whizzy new thing has become a historic artefact so quickly[1]. In 40-years, the optical digital disk has risen and then faded into the background.

I picked up a little bit of social history in a Red Cross charity shop. It’s a series of 3 DVDs that captures a slice of the career of the well-known journalist and broadcaster Alan Whicker. Stretching over six decades of travelling around the globe it’s a great watch. The series is called “Journey of a Lifetime” and was published in 2009[2]. Although, there’s plenty that dates Whicker’s documentary style there’s no doubt that his ability to quickly summing up big changes is a masterclass.

That straightforward diction and incongruous club jacket became a trademark. It gave him a neutral camouflage so he could talk eye-to-eye with hippies, dictators, evangelists, social campaigners, film stars and dubious gurus. That’s what created so many revealing conversations that are now time stamped as emblematic of an era. I recommend viewing the Whicker’s reflections on six decades of social history. It’s a great reminder of where we have been and how learning the lessons of the past is so difficult.

Back to my initial subject – change. It’s easy to say that it’s inevitable and unrelenting but its nature is less easy to discern. Change undulates. We go forwards then we go backwards in differing amounts.

I have a theory that our social progression can be plotted like an inclined wood saw. Yes, I know. It’s the engineer in me. Look at the shape of the saw’s teeth. They go forwards, and then quickly go backwards but they always go backwards less than they go forwards. That’s how a saw’s teath cut.

This is one of my abstrat reasons why the UK Government’s most recent laws to supress public protest are as stupid as political debate can get. Resisting change is nothing new. After all, the word “conservative” has a simple commonplace meaning. When all else fails, the basic political instinct to push out laws that comfort supporters is built in. As a direction for a whole country to take, this way of working is foolish and naive.

Locking up climate change protestors is not going to fix climate change. Locking up protestors against sewage on beaches and in rivers not going to fix greedy water companies. Locking up republican protestors is not going to fix the decline in public support for the monarchy.

Using the pretext that – this is what the public want – as a cover for these policies is to show the vacuum that conservative political thinking is thrashing around in. Sadly, as I’ve said, reflection on the last six decades of conservative thinking shows regressive tendencies in abundance.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/optical-storage-technology/zv7bpg8

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whicker%27s_World