Category: Media

Political Intervention by Billionaires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooling Heated Debates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Critical Look at Clowns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flag Displays

Traveling here, travelling there, it’s not usual to see a national flag displayed. Whether it be on public buildings, airports terminals or stadiums it’s up there to celebrate belonging. National flags come out most often when major sporting events are underway. They appear and then disappear like a tsunami. It’s a field day for retailers. From the finest natural materials to the cheapest plastics, every size and shape is available.

I’ve kept a flags few, rolled up waiting for a special occasion. One Union Jack, a cross of St George, the European stars, a German one and a flag of the city of Cologne. I did have a Somerset County flag but now can’t find it.

Twice I’ve been to the last night at the Proms[1]. One of the fun parts of that evening is spotting the more unusual flags and trying to work out where they represent. Don’t tell me you know what the Northumberland flag looks like. I certainly didn’t until it was explained to me. By the way it looks like alternating red and yellow Lego bricks stuck together.

For me, as it is for most people, waving a flag is for a special occasion. Carnaval, a parade or Royal occasion. The Eurovision song contest, World Cup or Olympics. These are events where we come together as a community.

Frankly, going around and painting roundabouts red and white with the cross of St George, with cars whizzing around, is plain foolish. It detracts from the importance of the national symbol. What a grown man, in the recent News reports, thinks he’s doing with his tin of paint, I can’t fathom.

Flying Union Jacks, often upside down, from Motorway bridges is juvenile. Today, I saw one or two and it made me think that there’s likely three reactions.

One: ambivalence. That is, either not to notice or to ignore the display as much as ignoring the writing on the side of a large truck. Conveying no message other than what a waste of time.

Two: annoyance: That is, to go back to my point about degrading the symbol. Seeing the fixer as a pompous twat or intimidating bully with time on their hands. Stirring up political divisions for the sake of it.

Three: acclamation. That is, being distracted enough to put a big thumbs up to whoever bought the flag and tied it into position. On-board with plastering every road bridge with flags as an imagined rebellious act.

Doesn’t take much to figure out which one of those I might be. On this subject it’s as well to be as generous as possible. These acts of putting up flags for no reason obviously makes some people happy. Given that they are ranked number one in the world, I’d like to think that the flag waving is in support of England women and rugby union. Somehow, that’s a stretch given the utterances of the flag painters and the bandwagon jumping political stirrers.

Where public property is concerned it’s the duty of public authorities to take them down. Not to tolerate the defacing of public property. However, I can imagine this is just the provocation that some people are inviting.

POST 1 : Talk about utterly desperate bandwagon jumpers. Kemi Badenoch: It is shameful of councils to remove St George’s Cross flags | The Independent

Post 2: Now, I do approve of that. On the main A34 road someone has put up a County flag Berkshire Flag | Free official image and info | UK Flag Registry

[1] https://www.royalalberthall.com/tickets/proms/bbc-proms-24/prom-73

Why ‘Artificial’ in AI May Be Misleading: A Deeper Look

On reflection it seems strange to me that the biggest commercial push in technology should be called Artificial Intelligence (AI). Universally, this term has seeped into the daily media as being the only form of shorthand for the coming transformation in our lives.

Generally, the word “artificial” isn’t associated with desirable qualities. If I say that it’s opposite is “natural” then there is a wide gulf between the two. It couldn’t be clearer. Place a plastic garden chair next to an antique wooden chair – case proven.

Imagine a marketing campaign for artificial cosmetics as opposed to natural cosmetics. Which one do you think would be the more successful? It’s honest to say that a product is artificial given that it’s manufactured but it’s much more appealing to talk about its natural roots.

A desire to elevate natural content has a historical context. It’s the industrial revolution that provided society with a rich wealth of choice. Trouble is that a legacy image of dark satanic mills[1] and grim-faces of exploited workers is written deep into our culture. The natural world was assaulted and abused by the unstoppable steam roller of the industrial revolution.

It’s reasonable to refer to a complex digital system as an artifact. Not in the way of an archaeological discovery. More like a popular game, chess, checkers or go, in that it’s extant and associated with a set of practices and rules.

Today, AI doesn’t exist in nature. It may be inspired by nature, in terms of analogies with the workings of our brains. Neural networks and memory. Interconnections of circuits and wires and their arrangements are a human creation.

Having written the above, it does make me think; what will happen in 1000 years? A long time for our social structures and organisation but no time at all for any inhabitants of the Earth. Will someone be writing academic tones on the natural history of computers? Humans will be looking at them, and their evolution wondering how and why they got to do what they do. Much as we might now study ravens, rats and rabbits.

Surely AI will evolve. A natural process. Current systems will inevitably have deficiencies and flaws that get corrected in future generations. Experimentation is a human domain. Give it several decades and machines will be doing it for themselves.

The word “artificial” has a big downside. Although I’m having a lot of difficulty in thinking of a better general word. In my long-term scenario, what’s coming is a new branch of evolution. We know, the complexity of human behaviour is largely conditioned by our environment. We adapt. What AI may become, continuity dependent, will likely follow a similar path.

Whenever I visit the Natural History Museum[2] in London I like to look in on our ancestors. Today, our species, Homo sapiens, is the only human living. We once lived amongst our other human ancestors. Homo is the Latin word for “human” and sapiens is derived from a Latin word meaning “wise”.

There’s a story for you. Will AI eventually become Machina sapiens?

[1] “Dark Satanic Mills” is a phrase from William Blake’s poem.

[2] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

Paper in a Digital Age

It’s oblong and made of paper. My phone is oblong and made of a long list of exotic elements. Paper on the other hand is relatively simple. I’m sure a paperologist will correct me and describe its subtleties and complexities. Regardless, paper has been around for a long time.

Both have an ephemeral quality. Paper decays. It burns and bugs eat it. Digital media gets lost, overwritten or deleted. Without wires and suitable equipment, it doesn’t exist.

I think that God forbid, that if Armageddon did come to place, we’d find more paper remaining useful than surviving digital help. Henry Bemis[1] loved to read. Strangely, that’s what saved him from ultimate destruction. Try writing an equivalent story with an iPhone in hand and we would be disappointed with the results. That would really see a sad Bemis doom scrolling empty nothingness.

Contuining the banking theme. What I’m refereeing to here is an envelope containing my latest bank statement. Yes, I haven’t ticked the go paperless box on-line. To me there’s something reassuring about having a tangible paper copy of what exists in the digital ether. Even though it’s only a printout, it somehow feels more real.

Holding a statement in my hand, whatever its errors or miscalculations it cannot be altered. Unlike an on-line digital reading that a capable cybercriminal can flip in a second. Both have an ephemeral quality. One exudes a greater feeling of permanence.

Above “ephemeral” is the right word to use. My banking App on my phone is a good service. However, it encourages a certain neurosis. Whereas a paper bank statement turns up, periodically as a personal balance sheet summing up the ins and outs of a month, my App is changeable hour by hour, a less meaningful snapshot.

The News is full of this phenomenon. Snap shots of the county’s GDP going up and down every month are newsworthy but don’t tell us much about where we are going. That doesn’t stop politicians treating them as if they were a sign from some mythical deity. A small number that changes within a range of error doesn’t mark a beginning or end of an era.

I like tangible things. A paper report or statement is a tangible thing. I can hold it in my hand. It doesn’t change from moment to moment. It’s a record of a direction set, not an hourly windvane. However unfashionable, as a crusty gentleman of a certain age, I will continue to ask for a printed record of where I am and where I’ve been.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734683/

Composition of the House of Lords

Composition of the House of Lords (HoLs) is a subject whereby a length thesis could be written every week. Our UK Parliament comprises of two houses of widely different nature.

Whenever and wherever there’s a public institution that depends upon appointments made by individuals with a vested interest, there’s problems afoot. A couple of minutes looking at what politician Boris Johnson[1] did while he was Prime Minister (PM) is enough to discredit the whole appointment system. Conservatives have had a habit of thinking of the HoLs as their own private thiefdom.

Please don’t believe I’m damming all the members of the “upper” house of Parliament. There are numerous honourable and capable members, dedicated to public service, who use their time to ensure their expertise is applied to the scrutiny of legislation. The scrutiny of legislation is vital. It’s even more vital because the “lower” house of Parliament, The Commons, does such a poor job holding the Government of the day to account.

If I look at the total votes cast and seats for each political party as a result of last year’s UK General Election[2]. Yes, it was only just over a year ago. Then the political parties with the most votes cast for them do have a claim for proportionate opportunities to recommend new members for the HoLs.

Trouble is that UK General Elections (GE) can come along like buses. There are years of turbulence when the electorate are consulted in quick succession. So, the idea that the composition of the HoLs should reflect the last result of a GE, that’s for the birds. An MPs term of office is that time between GEs. A member of the HoLs sits for much longer, a lifetime.

Should the HoLs reflect proportionally the composition of The Commons? Well, this one too would merely copy the turbulence of electoral fickleness to both parts of the Houses of Parliament. Not a good recipe for long-term stability and decent governance.

Please don’t believe, because of the above, I’m saying that electing the HoLs is a bad proposal. Quite the opposite. It’s that electing the HoCs and HoLs at the same time for the same term of office isn’t a good idea.

For the time being we have an important public institution that depends upon appointments. That quiet exercise of favouritism and gerrymandering is a legacy that resists reform. Will one enlightened day turkeys vote for Christmas? Better not hold our breath.

[1] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/new-life-peerages-in-2023-boris-johnsons-resignation-list/

[2] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10009/CBP-10009.pdf

Do MPs Need Multiple Jobs?

It’s a question that has been raised time and time again. Is a Member of Parliament’s job a full-time job? What I mean is should an elected parliamentarian have more than one job? Do they need it?

Say, a journalist, presenter, documentary maker, official of a political party or union, company director or even a doctor.

There’s a repetitious ding-dong argument that goes on along the lines of – look at this example of great achievement and they were both occupied doing numerous jobs at the same time. Equally there’s the argument – look at this talented person who crashed and burned as a result over commitment and lack of attention to detail. Case by case examples can be found.

Sadly, a case built on individual examples of achievement, or the reverse doesn’t move things forward much. It’s a sort of selective sampling to prove a point. Fame and notoriety play a part too. When a hero, genius, guru or an influencer complex exists rules get bent. Mythical qualities can be ascribed to the subject of attention.

It’s true that some individuals have a capacity for work that goes way beyond the norm. An intellect that shines bright. A refreshing originality or perspective that changes the game.

Now, I’m a down-to-earth straightforward liberal. It’s does matter if you are a King or a Queen, an Olympic athlete or a massive titan of industry or a brilliant orator we are basically all the same. We see the sun rise and we see it set (weather dependent). We walk the same Earth. We are as likely to experience mental or physical challenges in life as any other human.

Back to my question. Is a Member of Parliament’s job a full-time job?

I’d start with the ways and means MPs get elected. It’s rare, if ever, that an individual is so well known that they step into a parliamentary seat with no affiliation, preparation, finance or support. Those people who provide such essential back-up have expectations. Expectations that the candidate, if elected, will dedicate their full-time efforts to their new role when in office. Not too much to ask, methinks.

Given that you and I have finite time and energy, playing multiple roles inevitably dilutes the time and energy available for any one role. Super humans haven’t been invented – yet. Whatever the myths. If a British MPs job is genuinely full-time then where does the extra time and energy come from to do another job?

By saying that an MPs job is not full-time, hasn’t the local electorate been sold a pup. I’m sure that when votes are cast in each constituency an expectation is set-up that a candidate will do a decent job if elected. A moral commitment is made as good as any binding contract.

I agree, that polarising this argument to the extreme isn’t helpful. MPs must manage their time and energy between home and work as most people do. I guess, what’s important is the prioritising of parliamentary duties to the degree they deserve. In other words not taking on equally demanding jobs at the same time.

Some of the cynicism towards British politics, that exists today, stems from MPs abusing their duty by prioritising income and / or notoriety in some other public facing role. Making being a Westminster MP merely a way of achieving other personal goals.

It’s not easy to make hard and fast rules for the above situations. A moral imperative should prevail. Sadly, it doesn’t aways go that way.

Desperate Politics

I’ll be generous and say that I don’t think Jenrick knows what he is doing. I’m taking about the Conservative British politician Robert Jenrick[1] who is, or has been by the time this gets out, the Shadow Lord Chancellor. Desperately ambitious politicians do all sorts of foolish things to get a headline. With the Conservatives in the doldrums the word desperate is truly applicable.

When looking at his published CV it’s reasonable to think that he might know something, at least the basics. At least some history. Yes, he’s just another well to do lawyer with an Oxbridge education but that’s so typical of Conservative British politicians. At least, he had some kind of working life before taking on parliamentary politics. Today, in Westminster he’s still a Johnny-come-lately having been first elected as a Member of Parliament in 2014.

Jenrick embraced social media to the extent that the right-wing of politics see him as a sort of top-ranking pinstriped influencer. Even if his amateur video antics look like an humourless Benny Hill dressed in a business suit and tie.

Today, he’s crossed a line. Stirring up hate at a time when problems need solutions not mindless rhetoric, is despicable. To say that “British women and girls[2]” are unsafe because of small boats is offensive propaganda designed to drive political debate into ever more nasty territory.

Yes, we have been here before in Britain. Conservative politician, Enoch Powell’s fiery “rivers of blood[3]” speech did a lot of harm, but it got him in the text books. Some do believe that the heart of the Conservative Party is English Nationalism. Wrapped up in the red and white flag of St George as an exclusive club of aggressive narrow-minded men and their followers.

I’ll be generous and say that’s not the conventional Conservative Party. At times of its greatest success, and let’s face it, that political party has been highly successful in winning elections, it’s been a broad church. A diverse party that has encompassed a wide range from woolly liberals to traditional imperialists.

If Jenrick thinks that jumping on bandwagons and stirring up hatred is the way to go he’s foolish. We are not in the 1930s, or even the 1960s, this is a new age and a challenging one at that. Social media was supposed to be a great educator and liberator. In some ways it is but within its walls are pits of despair and stinking wells of polarisation and Xenophobia.

Addressing the public disillusionment that exists by pointing the finger at one group or other as being the root of all our problems is totally mindless. It only seeks to elevate the profile of minor demigods and snake oil salesman (conmen).

Inflammatory speeches get headlines; there’s no doubt about that sad fact. For a moment eyes turn to the speaker, but history turns away from them. In comparison with the 21st century challenges the country faces the so called “small boats” are a small one. Real solutions to real problems are needed not hideous grandstanding.

POST: Xenophobia is the fear or dislike of anything that is perceived as being foreign or strange

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/people/robert-jenrick

[2][2] https://www.gbnews.com/news/robert-jenrick-britains-women-girls-endangered-migrant-crisis

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/enoch-powell-rivers-blood-legacy-wolverhampton

Data Interpretation

More on that subject of number crunching. I’m not so much concerned about the numerous ways and means to produce reliable statistics as the ethical factors involved in their production.

Two things. One is the importance of saying truth to power and the other the importance of seeing things as they really are rather than how you or I would like them to be.

Starting with the first. If ever it was a hard day to say this but asserting truth is not one of several options, it’s the best option.

Whatever any short-term gains there are in distorting a description of a current situation, in the longer term the truth will out. Now, that may not have always been so. It’s often said that the victors write history. That famous view had some validity when literacy was not universal or when texts were chained in church libraries. Now, information speeds through the INTERNET (and whatever its successor will be). Controlling or supressing information has become like trying to build a castle out of sugar on a rainy day.

The second factor is more troublesome and, for that matter, more difficult. It could be the tug of war between subjectivity and objectivity. What we see is so much dependent upon the observer. What we hear is conditioned by what we’ve heard in the past.

I saw this often in the interpretation of a written narrative. Aviation accidents and incidents are reported. Databases full of multivarious reports of different origins siting there waiting to be read. This is a good thing.

It’s the choice of language that shapes our understanding of past events. That can be voluminous and contradictory. It can be minimalist and ambiguous. It can have peculiar expressions or fuzzy translations. Even if reporters are asked to codify their observations, with a tick box, there remains wide margins.

The writer of a story often knows what they want to say. It might be obvious to them what happened at the time of writing. Then it’s the reader who takes that up. A text could be read years later. Read by many others. Similar stories may exist, all written up differently. Hopefully, slight variations.

Seeing things as they really are, rather than how you would like them to be, without bias, requires more than a degree of care. A great deal of care.

It’s hard enough for an enlightened and skilled analysist to take a sentence and say “yes” I know exactly what happened. Not just what but all six of these – who, what, were, when, how and why. In future, the artificial intelligence tools that get used by authorities will have the same challenge.

For all our technological wonders, it’s the writers of reports that shapes our understanding. From a couple of sentences to a massive dissertation.

Try telling that to a maintenance engineer whose last job of the day, before going home, is to file an occurrence report after a terrible day at work. In a damp hanger with a job only half done. Tomorrow’s troubles looming.

POST: Rt Rev Nick Baines and his Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 is thinking the same this morning. Truth is truth. In his case it’s Christian truth that he has in mind. There lies another discussion.