Category: Democracy

Pointless Brexit

Democracy’s malleable frame. I don’t recall the people of the UK being given a referendum on joining a trade block in the Pacific. Nice thou it is to have good relations with trading nations across the globe it seems strange that the other side of the world is seen as good and next door is seen as bad. It’s like a person looking through a telescope through the wrong end.

Back on 23rd June 2016, voters in the UK were asked if Britain should leave the EU. No one really knew what “leave” meant as all sorts of, what now turns out to be blatant lies were told to the public. The words “customs union” were not spoken in 2016. If they were it was in a tone of – don’t worry about all that, we hold all the cards, nothing will change.

Today, UK sectors from fishing to aviation, farming to science report being bogged down in ever more red tape, struggling to recruit staff, and racking up losses. Sure, Brexit is not the only trouble in the world, but it was avoidable unlike the pandemic and Putin’s war.

We (UK) became a country that imposed sanctions on itself. A unique situation in Europe. If some people are surprised, we have significant problems the really ought to examine what happened in 2016. It’s a textbook example of how not to do thing. The events will probably be taught in schools and universities for generations to come as a case of national self-harm.

Democracy is invaluable but when a government dilutes a massive question into a simple YES or NO, they dilute democracy too. It’s the territory that demigods thrive in. Mainly because this approach encourages the polarisation that then drives ever more outlandish claims about opponents. The truth gets buried under a hail of campaign propaganda, prejudice, and misinformation.

What Brexit has stimulated. A growth sector, I might say. Is the blame game. Now, when things go wrong, UK politicians can always blame those across the other side of the Channel. Standing on the cliffs in Dover its easy to survey the mess and point a finger out to sea.

If some people’s motivation for voting for Brexit was to control borders and stopping immigration the failures are so obvious that they hardly need to be pointed out. Yet, politicians persist with they myth that a solution is just around the corner if only UK laws were made ever more draconian. A heavier hand, criminalisation and the blame game are not solutions. These acts will merely continue the round of calamities and failures.

Brexit has unlocked a grand scale of idiocy. The solution is to consign this dogma to the past.

Pause

An open letter has been published[1]. Not for the first time. It asks those working on Artificial Intelligence (AI) to take a deep breath and pause their work. It’s signed by AI experts and interested parties, like Elon Musk. This is a reaction to the competitive race to launch ever more powerful AI[2]. For all technology launches, it’s taking fewer and fewer years to get to a billion users. If the subject was genetic manipulation the case for a cautious step-by-step approach would be easily understood. However, the digital world, and its impact on our society’s organisation isn’t viewed as important as genetics. Genetically Modified (GM) crops got people excited and anxious. An artificially modified social and political landscape doesn’t seem to concern people quite so much. It maybe, the basis for this ambivalence is a false view that we are more in control of one as opposed to the other. It’s more likely this ambivalence stems from a lack of knowledge. One response to the open letter[3] I saw was thus: A lot of fearmongering luddites here! People were making similar comments about the pocket calculator at one time! This is to totally misunderstand what is going on with the rapid advance of AI. I think, the impact on society of the proliferation of AI will be greater than that of the invention of the internet. It will change the way we work, rest and play. It will do it at remarkable speed. We face an unprecedented challenge. I’m not for one moment advocating a regulatory regime that is driven by societal puritans. The open letter is not proposing a ban. What’s needed is a regulatory regime that can moderate aggressive advances so that knowledge can be acquired about the impacts of AI. Yesterday, a government policy was launched in the UK. The problem with saying that there will be no new regulators and regulators will need to act within existing powers is obvious. It’s a diversion of resources away from exiting priorities to address challenging new priorities. That, in of itself is not an original regulatory dilemma. It could be said, that’s why we have sewage pouring into rivers up and down the UK. In an interview, Conservative Minister Paul Scully MP mentioned sandboxing as a means of complying with policy. This is to create a “safe space” to try out a new AI system before launching it on the world. It’s a method of testing and trials that is useful to gain an understanding of conventional complex systems. The reason this is not easily workable for AI is that it’s not possible to build enough confidence that AI will be safe, secure and perform its intended function without running it live. For useful AI systems, even the slightest change in the start-up conditions or training can produce drastically different outcomes. A live AI system can be like shifting sand. It will build up a structure to solve problems, and do it well, but the characteristics of its internal workings will vary significantly from one similar system to another. Thus, the AI system’s workings, as they are run through a sandbox exercise may be unlike the same system’s workings running live. Which leads to the question – what confidence can a regulator, with an approval authority, have in a sandbox version of an AI system? Pause. Count to ten and work out what impacts we must avoid. And how to do it.

Policy & AI

Today, the UK Government published an approach to Artificial Intelligence (AI)[1]. It’s in the form of a white paper. That’s a policy document creäte by the Government that sets out their proposals for future legislation.

This is a big step. Artificial Intelligence (AI) attracts both optimism and pessimism. Utopia and dystopia. There are a lot more people who sit in these opposing camps as there are who sit in the middle. It’s big. Unlike any technology that has been introduce to the whole populous.

On Friday last, I caught the film iRobot (2004)[2] showing early evening on Film 4. It’s difficult to believe this science fiction is nearly 20-years old and the short story of Isaac Asimov’s, on which it’s based is from the 1950s. AI is a fertile space for the imagination to range over a vast space.

Fictional speculation about AI has veered towards the dystopian end of the scale. Although that’s not the whole story by far. One example of good AI is the sentient android in the Star Trek universe. The android “Data” based on the USS Enterprise, strives to help humanity and be more like us. His attempt to understand human emotions are often significant plot points. He’s a useful counterpoint to evil alien intelligent machines that predictably aim to destroy us all.

Where fiction helps is to give an airing to lots of potential scenarios for the future. That’s not trivial. Policy on this rapidly advancing subject should not be narrowly based or dogmatic.

Where there isn’t a great debate is the high-level objectives that society should endeavour to achieve. We want technology to do no harm. We want technology to be trustworthy. We want technology to be understandable.

Yet, we know from experience, that meeting these objectives is much harder than asserting them. Politicians love to assert. In the practical world, it’s public regulators who will have to wrestle with the ambitions of industry, unforeseen outcomes, and negative public reactions.

Using the words “world leading” successively is no substitute for resourcing regulators to beef-up their capabilities when faced with rapid change. Vague and superficial speeches are fine in context. Afterall, there’s a job to be done maintaining public confidence in this revolutionary technology.

What’s evident is that we should not delude ourselves. This technical transformation is unlike any we have so far encountered. It’s radical nature and speed mean that even when Government and industry work together they are still going to be behind the curve.

As a fictional speculation an intelligent android who serves as a senior officer aboard a star ship is old school. Now, I wonder what we would make of an intelligent android standing for election and becoming a Member of Parliament?

[1] The UK’s AI Regulation white paper will be published on Wednesday, 29 March 2023. Organisations and individuals involved in the AI sector will be encouraged to provide feedback on the white paper through a consultation which launches today and will run until Tuesday, 21 June 2023.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)

Progress?

For 99p in a well-known charity book shop, I picked up a tidy little paperback book. It’s wonderfully illustrated, mixing humour with one or two earnest thoughts. Originally, it would have been about 3 shillings[1] (15 new pence) to buy. So, I may have paid over the odds.

Was C. Northcote Parkinson[2], right? Certainly, when I listen to the epic tale on HS2[3] it does get me wondering if Parkinson’s Law works as well in the 2020s as it did in the late 1950s. Progress is slow, as work expands. The more there is to do, the more there is to do.

The UK’s number one railway project, High Speed Two, HS2 is a massive project. It’s image of yellow jacketed workers stomping across chewed-up fields is a long way from the reality. In the back rooms and offices are thousands of planners, managers, and administrators toiling intensely. Politicians posture over reams of reports and change their minds at every juncture. There’s a hitch every week.

Given my experiences, I should be able to make some judgements about Parkinson’s Law. That is to say that: work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. It’s generally associated with Government administration and the operation of a civil service. My observation is that large scale industry is just as guilty of this characteristic. 

It can be said that a large aircraft could not be certified until the pile of paper needed to do so weighted as much as the finished product. This tong-in-cheek saying stems from the frustration that builds-up when progress is slower than people would like it to be. What a “pile of paper” means in the digital world is more difficult to ascertain but it’s a lot of stuff. 

Whatever the merit of Parkinson’s Law, the arguments made for it have been undermined as employment practices have changed dramatically since the 1950s. Internal structures of bureaucratic and deep hierarchical organisation are no longer the fashion. The whole phenomena of Buggins’ turn[4] still exists but is in abeyance. Much of industry may have shaken it off, but the political world still clings-on and offers jobs on seniority rather than by merit. Hierarchical organisations that feed on a certainty of their continued existence remain plentiful, but they are now more subject to more disruption.

Parkinson does mock the large organisations of his time. Some of his anecdotes resonate perfectly with the world of the 2020s. These are observations of human behaviour.

One that rings a bell with me is the description of a board meeting were agenda items are methodically addressed in order. Let’s say, the subject of item 9 on an agenda is for a major investment expenditure and the next item, item 10 addresses staff car parking spaces. No prizes for guessing which one gets the most discussion time. When faced with complex financial arguments and detailed pages of figures there’s a tendance to defer to those who know about that sort of stuff. When faced with a subject that everyone understands and impacts everyone in an obvious way, the temptation to engage in discussion about the later is overwhelming.

Let’s conclude that progress that doesn’t take account of the human factor is going to hit the rails or maybe worse.

[1] https://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/journal/curators-corner/shilling/

[2] Parkinson’s Law or The Pursuit of Progress, John Murry Paperbacks, 1958.

[3] https://www.hs2.org.uk/

[4] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/171256/who-was-buggins-of-buggins-turn

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

There’s a good argument for boring politics. Yes, it’s reasonable to get aerated about big choices and fundamental differences in belief. However, a lot of politics is implementing policy and taking corrective action when something goes wrong. For the bigger part of practical politics, the qualities of attention to detail and diplomacy are of paramount importance. One thing we know for certain is that we got the exact opposite from former British Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson[1]. Gesticulation and flowery language took the place of thoughtfulness, care, and compassion.

Johnson denies lying to the UK Parliament. He once revelled in his performances at the dispatch box in the House of Commons (HoC). His period as UK PM was turbulent and full to the brim with bullish rhetoric. There’s no doubt that there’s an audience who laps up those political theatrics.

In the promotion world, adverts are supposed to be “legal, decent, honest and truthful.” In the political world, it would be asking a lot for all four of those to be observed all the time.

One place where there’s an extremely high expectation that a PM will be honest and truthful is while they are standing at the dispatch box[2] in the HoC. Now, that doesn’t preclude them from failing to say all there is to say about a given subject but what they do say should be correct. Better said; must be correct. In a lot of ways this is one of the primary responsibilities of a UK PM.

A PM, or Government Minister found lying to Parliament is committing a significant offence and carries the likelihood of suspension. It’s not a trivial matter, neither should it be.

In public, as a campaigning conservative politician there are lots of cases where Boris Johnson has been casual with the truth. Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU) was driven by a cacophony of factual falsifications and gross distortions of the truth. Boris and Brexit are synonymous.

A HoC committee will decide on the facts surrounding the downfall of former British PM Boris Johnson. His peers, as members of a privileges committee will make a statement on his behaviour in coming weeks. With all the evidence in the public domain now, it seems probable that the committee will find that Johnson was at least reckless, if not that he intentionally lied in the HoC chamber, fellow Members of Parliament and the country.

Although, it would be unwise to discount Johnson’s political comeback, one day, there may be a chance that his style of politics will be shown to be as damaging as we know it to be. This should be a turning point where accountability wins out over bluster and fibs. Let’s hope it is.

[1] Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is the politician, writer and journalist who was Prime Minister of the UK and Leader of the Conservative Party from 2019 to 2022.

[2] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/cultural-collections/historic-furniture/the-collection/scott/despatch-boxes-/

Drop Of A Tweet

I’ve got a couple of vinyl copies of “At The Drop Of A Hat”. They turn up in charity shops from time to time. Those responsible maybe from the 1950s but the genius of Flanders & Swann never wanes.

For those of us who grew up in the 1960s there are songs that embedded in our childhood. “Junior Choice” was a BBC programme broadcast on Radio 1 and 2. From that regular show there’s a whole string of comic sings that I cannot erase from my memories.

There one song that we are told started life in Scarsdale Villas[1], South Kensington, South West London. Now, a part of London where the house prices mount in the millions.

Introducing each of their songs there was often a monologue saying something about the song. So, we know, uniquely one famous song is inspired by a badly parked car but is about an animal.

It goes like this. Michael Flanders was a wheelchair user. Kensington Borough Council helpfully dug out a part of the pavement and curb outside his flat so that he could get around. He recounts his annoyance that a thoughtless driver would often steal his parking space. 

In his monologue he jokingly praises the independent minded councillors of Kensington adding – there’re all Conservatives. That little bit of humour is so British. It maybe goes to the heart of the BBC’s current problems. They could be saying to us all: “of course we are independent, we are all conservatives.” Equating conservative attitudes to being “independent” is the norm in my part of Surrey.

Back to the song. The antisocial parked car’s number plate began with the letters GNU. The rest is comic history. The two wrote: “The Gnu.[2]“

To make the song work. They pronounced the animal’s name “G-noo”. What could be better than a word that rhymed with “zoo”. A place where we might find a Gnu[3].

The English language was changed forever.

Perhaps the lesson for the BBC is to look at its comic history. Learn lessons. To rise above the serious and intense debate of the moment, concede and reflect in amusement, and at leisure.

Sport is entertainment but so is politics when it gets absurd and ridiculous.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarsdale_Villas

[2] https://youtu.be/j53z6RfFb7U

[3] a large African antelope with a long head, a beard and mane, and a sloping back. Also called a wildebeest.

Shameful

Let’s look at the current fetor objectively. Is it reasonable to say that the Government is using language that is reminiscent of political parties in Germany in the 1930s?

Politicians speaking stridently about making new laws plays well with media commentators and meets the need of being seen to be doing something, even if that something is highly flawed.

To marshal support for a much-criticised proposal, the language being used by Conservative politicians is harsh. Speaking in the House of Commons, a Minister said “there are 100 million people” who would qualify for asylum in the UK. This is reminiscent of the right-wing rhetoric used in 2016 by the referendum Leave campaign to say that 10s of million of Turkish people would come to the UK is we stayed in the European Union (EU).

Shamefully, scare stories about migration are the bread and butter of right-wing politicians much as they were in early 1930s in Germany. It’s clear, that the much-discussed Tweet by a well know football commentator[1], this last week has touched a political nerve. The truth often does touch a nerve.

There’s more than double trouble with Conservative politicians forcing the UK’s “independent” national broadcaster to sanction a well know football commentator for a private remark.

Godwin’s law[2] is known to politicians but maybe not more widely known. Basically, starting an argument by mentioning a comparison to Nazis is not a good a way to win a case. It’s that making an extreme comparison can undermine the credibility of a fair case against something bad.

Now, a national broadcaster with an obligation to aim for political impartiality, with respect to news and current affairs, is inconsistency jumping on the head of one of its popular faces. 

It’s sad that scrutiny of a proposal for a bad law is being overshadowed by an entirely unnecessary media spat. An unnecessary spat that is undermining free speech in the UK[3]. I do not think that Conservative politicians engineered this situation, but they unjustly are benefiting from it. The controversy is corralling right-wing support for a government bill that is full of holes.

I don’t know how we got to this ridiculous state but it’s part of a trend that has been evident since 2016. The reason an evil political party succeeded in Germany in the early 1930s is that they masked their true intent, and countless people discounted their prospects of electoral success. There’s an important lesson in history that we should never ignore.

The language politicians use does matter. It matters a lot.

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/gary-lineker

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[3] https://news.sky.com/topic/gary-lineker-7610

Small Boats

Are there really hundred million people coming to Britain? Or is this a desperate scare tactic adopted by a Conservative Minister who has run out of workable ideas? It’s certainly the sort of tabloid headline that a lot of conservative supporters like to read. As we saw in the US, with former President Trump’s rhetoric on building a wall these themes stir-up negative emotions and prejudice. It’s a way of dividing people.

Xenophobia is defined as a fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign. With nearly 8 billion people on Earth[1] the potential for this destructive fear to be exploited has never been greater. Here, the Conservative Party is increasingly dominated by xenophobia and demagoguery, whatever a change of leadership may be trying to cover-up.

Will Parliamentary debate save us from the worst instincts highlighted in the Government’s latest proposals on small boat crossings? That’s a big question when the ruling political party has such a large parliamentary majority. Debate is likly to be heated and lacking objectivity.

Pushing the boundaries of international law can cause reputational damage, even if these rum proposals are defeated. However, what concerns most commentators is the high likelihood that the proposed measure will not work. They are merely a more extreme version of past failed policies.

One of the poorest political arguments is to criticise an opponent for reasoned opposition. It goes like this: here’s my policy and by opposing, it without providing your policy, you automatically make my policy a good one. It’s like planning to build a dangerously rickety bridge, likely to fail, and pointing to those who criticise the project as a reason why it’s a good to project.

When spelt out, like this it’s clear how curiously subversive this shoddy bombast can be. However, one of the basic party-political instincts, to seek headlines and publicity, has overridden common sense in this case. In the Government’s case, legislating regardless of the consequences, is an act of political desperation. Sadly, that’s where we are in this pre-election period.

NOTE: In June 2022, the UK had a prison population of roughly 89,520 people. The detention facilities needed to enable the Government’s small boats policy would need to be in the region of 40,000 people. Yet, there’s no published plan for a significant expansion of detention facilities. 

[1] https://www.census.gov/popclock/world

App folly

Isabel Oakeshott is interviewed. We are no wiser. The ins and outs of the story of Conservative Government Ministers during the COVID pandemic lockdowns is a story that will be written a thousand times. Hectares of the social media landscape will repeat every embarrassing blunder and poorly thought-out assertion. These ins and outs need to be dissected but it’s not work for those tying to improve their mental health.

People who have had some exposure to British politics often love “Yes Minister”, the BBC series that overflowed with wit, twists and turns. It lifted the lid on the stumbling workings of Whitehall and the political class. At the time the series was made there were no mobile phones in every pocket and paper was still king. Civil servants carried bundles of files down endless corridors. This wood panelled and stuffy environment was a commonplace image.

Opening a file really meant getting a folder and putting numerous memos and reports in it. Staking it high with the record of decision-making for future generations of historians to dissect.

In the 1970s, the speed of communication was mitigated by the medium. When it came to paper trails, that was a relatively human speed. Typed up memos were rarely dashed off without a thought. Documents were released with an official stamp and multiple signatories.

Fast forward to the 2020s. Office desks appear totally different from the past, that is if one exists at all. Mobiles have concentrated super-fast digital communication tools into the palm of a hand.

That said, official and unofficial communication channels continue to play their part in the corridors of power. What is shocking, in the current news stories is just how much the unofficial communication channels seem to dominate.

Afterall, we are not taking about a release of official Government emails. It’s worth asking; why are Government Ministers using WhatsApp[1] so much? It’s a widely available commercial messaging application owned by the US company Meta.

Is the machinery of political governance getting so lax in the UK that we are behold unto a messaging mobile App over which we have no control what-so-ever? 

Globally, WhatsApp may have over 2 billion users but that’s no guarantee of its integrity. The system does get hacked. Ministers using unofficial communication channels as if they were totally within their control are foolish, unethical, and naïve, to say the least.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp

Every little helps

When drawing comparisons with parts of the UK, it’s responsible to say that the town I live in, Reigate[1] in Surrey is relatively affluent. However, much debt people may be carrying, the amount purchasers are prepared to pay for houses in this town is way above the national average.

Past associations between affluence and the habit of voting Conservative in local and national elections is well established. That said, for a good half of the population in Reigate there’s no love of what the Conservatives have done over the last 12 years. In fact, I would wager that a good number of former Conservative supporters are well and truly fed-up with the never-ending deception and incompetence of that political party.

Yesterday morning, just for a short while, in the chilly air a few local people gathered on a street corner to protest. Their concerns included polluted rivers, climate crisis, cost of living crisis, real incomes falling, idiotic Government rhetoric, corrupt politics, a damaging Brexit, and the suppression of the right to protest. The public response was overwhelmingly positive. Drivers tooted their horns in support, people waved and stopped to chat.

As is perfectly reasonable, there were a small number of passers-by who disagreed with the group’s banners and posters. Most often this was a shaking of the head or a traditional English gesticulation, but in addition one or two words were voiced. That’s the heart of the matter. It mystifies me how some people can be happy with the current predicament in Britain.

The most distressing words uttered were: “What’s the choice?”

There are several ways to interpret this negative shout-out. One: it could be a cry of genuine desperation.  Two: it could be a deep reticence accepting a bad situation and a loss of hope. Three: it could be a stubborn Conservative who’d be happy regardless of the situation.

This is what those who want to see change happen have got to get to grips with this year. To bring real change about there needs to be a big collection of people who openly welcome change. That does mean embracing those who are still sitting on the fence.

It means seriously building confidence that today’s troubles can be beaten. As can be seen from this small group’s posters the list of troubles is long, so this is no simple task. Hope for the future means overturning incompetent incumbents and giving a chance to competent fresh faces. It means having honest and practical solutions ready to go. It means having a vision. 

Rebuilding Britain’s liberal democracy is the vital and urgent mission.

[1] https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/whats-on/family-kids-news/surrey-commuter-town-surrounded-countryside-26293505