Category: Democracy

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 19th 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

Winds of Change

At the start of a new Carolean Era. Wow, I’ve been wanting to say that for some time. Yes, it’s a new era in this country. In Britain, we mark the passing of history by reference to the monarch of the time. Georgian, Edwardian, Victorian, Elizabethan and so on, it’s a tag to place a period in history. They are often associated with national accomplishments, culture and styles that were fashionable.

It’s a blustery wet day in London and King Charles III is being crowned sovereign. Apparently, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II had to contend with wet weather too. At the age of 73, King Charles became the oldest person to accede to the British throne. I’d say in 2023, we can no longer say that 73 is old. There are numerous Heads of State across the globe who can top that easily.

We don’t do this designation act with politicians, but we do use a shorthand for their time in power with a reference to their approach to the job or an iconic slogan or two. Thatcherism, Blairism, the white heat of technology or you have never had it so good, or things can only get better.

What’s great about the beginning of the Carolean Era is the signals of political change. Hopefully we will no longer need to hold our head in our hands in astonishment at the utter folly enacted by our elected representatives. Well, maybe less so as we run up to a General Election.

This week’s local elections in England are an awakening. Voters have decided – enough is enough. There are a more than a thousand less Conservative Party councillors in the country. This is democracy at work. I’ll quote Dick Nolan, who wrote in The San Francisco Examiner in 1966: “Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.”

The Conservative Party has performed so badly over the last decade they deserve to be put out of power for the next decade. Now, extrapolating from this week’s political earthquake to the result of the next General Election is a doggy business. That said, the trend seems set and the expectation is that a political change is inevitable.

Although, I feel secure in saying this there’s always at least one catalyst that can upset this prediction dramatically. For this I’ll go back to Mrs Thatcher. What would the politics of Britain look like if the Falklands War of 1982 had not occurred? This short international conflict transformed the climate of the day and, no doubt the Prime Minister. However, people might think of the successes and failures of that time the result was the strengthening of her premiership.

Local elections recent held the Conservative Party to account in one way. The bigger story will be written over the next 18 months or so. Mayism was chaotic. Borisism was a total disaster. Trussism was insane. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s time in office maybe as that of John Major. The boy with his finger in the dam awaiting a flood of change. Let’s see what the country looks like after a weekend of pomp but also of reflection.

Oath

Oh dear. What do they say: the road to hell as being paved with good intentions. Maybe that’s a bit extreme. It’s not necessarily “hell” that I’m talking about here but something that does the opposite of what’s intended. I can image the planning meeting where someone pipes up – I’ve got an idea.

Swearing allegiance to the King[1] might sit well in a Hollywood movie of knights in armour and English castles standing proud against the green, green countryside. In the 21st century it sounds quaint and patronising to say the least. Strange vestiges of the historic riddle of our constitution.

The public is being asked to swear allegiance at the King’s coronation. These words are proposed: “I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law…….”

Now, I know that Members of Parliament (MPs) must swear a similar allegiance before taking their seat in Parliament. MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote, or receive a salary until taking an oath or affirmation[2]. For them it’s more about being elected lawmakers than allegiance to a single person. It would make much more sense if they swore an oath to the British Constitution but there lies the problem.

Such quintessentially British activities hark back to a day when everyone knew the rules of cricket, knew their place and, as John Major once put it in his failed Back to Basics[3] campaign, old values. In 1953, the time of the last crowning, Britain was a deferential society, now it’s not.

The question is – should a “modern” constitutional monarchy be asking for allegiance in this public way whilst knowing that most the population will ignore the whole exercise? Not only that but a considerable number of people will think the exercise utterly ridiculous.

There’s not so many large counties in the world where subjects are asked to swear an oath to an unelected head of state and his dysfunctional family. That’s a family that has filled the media with unhappy stories for years. It gets stranger and stranger depending on how you look at it.

It’s not what you might call democracy or meritocracy in the normal sense, it’s more of a ritual of imperial legacy. In this green and pleasant land some people think this is a fantastic advertisement for our great nation across the world. I disagree.

British Citizens have a proud allegiance to their country, but this is to one man and his whole family. Now, that is peculiar. It’s feudal. Sadly, to point out the obvious just gets branded as anti-monarchist.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65435426

[2] https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Basics_(campaign)

Crown

It’s a difficult time to be a British republican. A couple of reactions to mention of an alternative to having a monarchy is – don’t be a spoil sport or the alternative would be worse.

The national celebrations coming up are not the problem in my mind. Nothing at all wrong with having a big nationwide event in May. Especially given the grim time the hospitality industry has just been through and the natural inclination to celebrate springtime.

Sadly, I have to say that the British republican movement, such as it is, is throwing away the opportunity to pose the questions on the good and bad of having a prominent monarchy in a modern country. “Not My King” is a ridiculous campaign slogan[1]. I believe we’d be better off as a republic but that belief lives with the pragmatic acceptance that there will be a King and he will be the Head of State. Pretending that is not so doesn’t help win the case for change.

Generally, I think there’s an ambivalence[2] about the whole subject amongst the British public. That is however much the BBC talks-up the whole coronation. Nobody much is complaining about having an extra Bank Holiday. Nevertheless, a widely held view is that Charles III will be on probation as a King. If the British monarchy continues to be embroiled in controversy and exist primarily as source of a tabloid headlines, then it will continue to decline as a symbol of the national and last no longer than a decade. The feeling that a monarchy interested in survival should have skipped a generation is a strong one. Their past survival has been mostly because of relative modernisation and not wallowing in ancient rituals.

According to polls, public support for the monarchy is age dependent. This maybe because of the claimed propensity for people to become more conservative, with a small “c”, with age. On the other hand, this is a new age. We have never had the global information revolution that is shaking the foundations of society in the way it is now.

I’m a supporter of British republicanism because we are citizens and not subjects. Although, I do recognise that the different status of people can be of dreadful intricacy given our history.

In Britain, some aspects of our unwritten constitution are “too easy” to change because of a passive Head of State. Conversely, some aspects of our unwritten constitution are “too hard” to change because of being constrained by custom, tradition, and the power of veto by those with inherited influence.

Ironically, post-Brexit, British republicanism is more allied to maintaining sovereignty than our crumbling[3] existing system of governance. That is as much about the sovereignty of the individual citizen as it is of our society or the State. Republicanism has always been about liberty. A few passages from Tom Paine (1737–1809) are enough evidence in that respect.

Good luck to His Majesty King Charles III. He’ll need it.

POST: Not me or, no relation in so far as I know: John Vincent (historian) is a British historian and professor emeritus of modern history at the University of Bristol. He is known for his works on political history, especially the 19th and 20th centuries, and for his controversial views on democracy and monarchy.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/27/notmyking-billboard-campaign-launched-by-anti-monarchy-activists

[2] https://natcen.ac.uk/news/british-social-attitudes-monarchy

[3] The last six years have illustrated the weakness of the current settlement.