History – John Vincent

Free to move

Good old BBC. Let’s try and be nice to the British political extremes. All in hope of getting that reporter’s gem. The got’y moment. The “ah, so you don’t really mean it” moment that can get nailed on a website or flamed out on social media. The cosy feeling that a truth is revealed.

There’s one social good that the BBC delivered this morning on my radio. I was reminded, over breakfast that the Reform Party is just a home for renegade Conservatives. Nothing, more or less. The part of the former Conservative Party who thought Thatcherism was a bit soft.

They tout polices that have not weathered the storm. Failed, time and time again. Like downed rotten trees in a high wind. Add to that a fantasy series of promises about being more efficient and the darkness of the rabbit hole is all consuming. However much they talk over questioners, the bare bones of tickle down economics remain at their core. Give more money to those who already have it and mystically everyone will benefit. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss on overdrive. It would be deeply satisfying to see the Reform Party crumble. However, I fear that’s not going to happen as long as wealthy people keep throwing money at this political group.

This week is one where a shift in political momentum could go horribly wrong. For the last few weeks, the governing party has been slowly climbing up the opinion polls. Some say, at last the Labour party is being the Labour party. Others say that a massive dose of realpolitik is a betrayal of the progressive creed. As usual such rumbling debates are alive and well.

On the table is talk of “freedom of movement.” I wish it weren’t expressed in that way. Mainly because it’s not entirely what those three words say it is. It’s an oversimplification.

From my point of view, it’s essential to apply some pragmatism to the debate about who comes and goes from this country and why. One thing is absolutely clear; Brexit has made the situation much worse. Over the last decade, control of this country’s borders has become a rolling nightmare. Endless newspaper column inches of negativity.

As Europeans we should have a degree of freedom to move. A right to mobility is real. To live, work or retire in each other’s countries. There are conditions attached. I remember having to register in the German city of my residence. Freedom doesn’t come without bureaucracy.

There’s a strong national interest in getting the whole European economy moving. The notion that our island status affords a separation that means we are unaffected by others is utter nonsense. In fact, in the current economic circumstances this country could occupy a major leadership role in Europe.

The world of politics and diplomacy are intertwined. The difficulty is that this fact is difficult to translate into everyday public sentiment. Our eyes are focused on the big issues, and the cost of living is one of the biggest. So, making arguments for “freedom of movement” must come with attachments. Again clearly, Brexit did not make goods in the shops more affordable. That lie has been sunk.

To maintain stability in a complex world, countries need to work together. For us, the best chance of that happening is with our neighbours.

I have discovered an unfamiliar word. Gefühlspolitik – being driven by emotion, is the road to endless disappointments. Churning over the same old ground, being fooled by snake oil salesmen and Machiavellian masters.

pipeline clogged up

Education policy over the last 40-years has a lot to answer for. Not at its best. Sadly, its best is only available to less than a quarter of the population. When you have classes on how to design a cereal packet taking precedence over how to cut a piece or wood or wire a plug or cook and egg or check a shopping bill then we are in ridiculous territory.

Do I jump on the bandwagon and blame Margaret Thatcher? We’ll it’s a nice conspiracy theory of politics. That said, there’s a hint of truth in the assertion. The Thatcher governments did start the drive towards a service-based economy where the importance of manufacturing industry was diminished. So, practical and vocational skills training were reshaped. They became unrecognisable. Then successive governments took money out of post 16 education.

Waking up in 2026 to a drift that started in 1986 is great, if a little late. A new education and training transformation is surely needed but is it the one that the current Prime Minister (PM) has in mind? His writings suggest that he’s a nostalgic sentiment towards vocational skills.

Former Health Secretary Alan Milburn is working on the subject. His report is expected soon. Recommendations centred on a redistribution of government funds towards employment support are likely to be on the cards.

I know it’s a repetitive complaint to make because it’s said often. Now, what schools are obliged to teach and life as it’s lived are miles apart. In fact, life as it will be lived, in the lifetime of pupils in school now. A gap, that has always been there has been encouraged to grow.

Shall I blame another Conservative politician? An admirer of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. That “ever-popular” past Brexit promoting ex-Minister. Mr Gove to be precise. Yes, that blame would be more than appropriate. Obsessions with narrow national performance statistics was misguided. Not unimportant but overly prioritised.

It’s time to urgently get more young people into places that provide opportunity and personal growth. Totally regardless of their background and the places where they grew-up.

One recent comment I’ve heard from industry is this; we’d like to take on more apprentices if we had more experienced people to mentor them at work. Not only that but the apprentice levy hasn’t kept up with inflation. Not only that but business is tough so the focus must be on the here and now, if we want to be here tomorrow. In otherwards, the recruitment pipeline is clogged up.

There’s a degree of uncertainty too. Not that this is new either. The shape of the jobs of 10-years’ time isn’t easy to plan for given the race to implement ever more advanced technology. I say that’s not new. What I may be underestimating is the pace of change.

The plus here. Young people are the digital natives. They stand a much better chance of adapting to the rapid pace of change than anyone who, like me, grew up in the analogue world.

If Burnhamism is to mean anything this problem must be cracked[1]. It’s urgent. A subject for several red boxes. For the PM to push hard on.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq0melgpre23o

Not again

The art of politics. If you view politics as a war of ideas, then there’s a role for both attack and defence. Where dividing lines are drawn harshly and prisoners are not taken. One idea wins and the others, however sound are banished.

I suppose that’s a reason there are so many barristers (lawyers) in British political life. They learn how to win by framing arguments in an adversarial setting. There’s little room available for compromise or concession. No second place as winner takes all. That said, the “war” analogy is not terribly useful in many respects. One aspect of a barrister’s life is to be single minded when in court but more amical in the tearoom after business is done.

Slightly different subject. I still believe in the “bell curve.” Juvenile as that may seem, in present circumstances that simple curve says a lot. Over the years I’ve stood on a lot of doorsteps. Had lots of fleeting conversations about every subject under the sun. Well, almost. The impression that stays with me is that the general public is nowhere near as polarised in their views as the News of daily politics would have us believe. The gap between life as it is lived and life as it is depicted in council chambers and parliament is persistent. That is whoever is in power.

Traditional the political bell curve has “right” and “left” painted on either end. That’s a polarisation that the media is comfortable with as it mirrors long memories. Wasn’t the world simpler in Cold War days when the camps of East and West were so easily characterised. When Socialist workers and Tory landed gentry were firmly fixed stereotypes.

Anyway, it’s a reaction to a seasoned politician (lawyer), on the far-right of politics, defending his position, on the BBC Today programme this morning, that I’m reacting to. A documentary is to be exposing some members of a British political party as being outspoken, making objectionable remarks and being extremely offensive (in my opinion).

Listening to a politician’s defence, that mainly consisted of deflection, was boringly predicable. When it clearly doesn’t, making claims that a system of vetting weeds out people who do not share the values of a Party, that becomes a hollow argument. The age of wisdom of the saying – when you are in a hole, stop digging – comes to mind.

So, what about the mismatch? The gap between where the public are and where the ends of the political spectrum would like us to think they are. This is not a new dilemma. In fact, our British adversarial structures of governance encourage it.

Sadly. if the media output and political debate are polarised there’s not much chance of getting to grips with cost-of-living pressures or getting the trains to run on time or stopping the water companies polluting our waters or caring for those in society who need care.

The polar ends of the political spectrum have nothing to offer in building a better world.

Let’s hear more from those who are trying to fix things that need fixing. Less from those who place more value on conflict and divisive language. Drawing from the pulpit, blessed are the peacemakers. Well, I’d be happy with; blessed are the less well-known people who strive to make things work. Who works tirelessly to build a better world.

As I said in [insert conference venue]

It’s Autumn. This morning, my garden is getting some desperately needed rain. On the News, stories are of the Conference season ending. That’s the part of the year when UK political parties gather their members and supporters at venues up and down the country. Conference rooms buzz and hotel bars sell out of snacks (and beer). Several themes keep popping up. These themes are regardless of the political party or their philosophy. They fit nicely into speeches. They get a hearty round of applause. It’s not that 2026 is different from other years. What’s remarkable is that it should be different.

The three recurrent popular themes I have in mind are:

Offer of give aways or a policy announcement focused on potential supporters.
Majoring on the unique powers one party has, as opposed to others.
An announcement that’s magical thinking dressed up as seriousness.

The first is about planning for future elections. It’s no good expecting voters to flock to a party unless the members and supporters of that party are lined up ready to go. Door-stepping, leaflet deliveries, donations, local meetings all depend on voluntary engagement. Big money can shift the dial by paying campaigners to do some groundwork. There’s no substitute for local people doing their best in every constituency. Whatever the financial situation.

Second. Answering the question of – why vote for us? There must be a USP. This is often more to do with personal belief than practical reality. Wrapped up in a projection of values, there must be a specialness that motivates people. It can be irrational, unrealistic, and colourful rhetoric.

Say, Conservatives cut taxes. Although history shows that they don’t. Labour protects workers. Only that they often cosy up to big business when in power. Liberals herald freedom and equality. Only to agonise over both, perpetually. Greens are ambassadors for the planet. Only to see their ill-considered efforts backfire. Reform is businesslike. Only that every week there’s resignations and scandals.

Third. To capture the national News cycle at least one new announcement must make a splash. This eye-catching commitment or instant policy may be forgotten in just a few of days. For example, the Conservatives “iron dome” is a godsend for newspaper cartoonists. Next general election the proposal will be locked away in a cupboard.

I don’t want you to think that the list above is a grumpy old man being too cynical. There’s a political legacy here that is incredibly difficult to shift. I can report, contrary to business as usual, there are developments this year. Perhaps another list of three will help.

Firstly, the UK political landscape is unusual. There are five national parties vying for the public’s attention. All five parties have a chance of making breakthroughs. All five party leaders are smiling about their own prospects.

Second. Huge issues leave all politicians scratching their heads. Stumped. Rapidly advancing technology and its impact on society and the workforce of the future remain a minority interests. Big answers to big questions are not forthcoming.

Third. Turbulence experienced every day, whether it be volatile world affairs, climatic changes or the rising cost of living seems to have politicians clutching at straws. Unable to show it but all to conscious of the unpredictability of the electorate. The impact of events.

We live in interesting times.

What’s next?

Brexit hasn’t gone away. Hushing up the debate doesn’t solve a problem. It makes it worse. Trying to run a marathon whilst carrying a weighty load of baggage on our backs is never going to get easier. Knowing that those weights can only get heavier makes it even worse.

If I remember rightly, which I do, those promoting this failed enterprise talked of a Singapore-on-Thames[1] like Britain that would stroll the world like a colossus. Free of entanglement with our neighbours. We’d be able to command cheap goods in the shops for all. Costs would go down and standards of living would go up. A mighty English lion would roar, and the rest of the world would tremble. The deception was criminal. It still is. What’s been delivered is the exact opposite. It’ tragic.

Now, we have a Prime Minister (PM) who must go out of his way to defend the Union. The United Kingdom (UK). Making passionate speeches about the world his parents inhabited. Kindling nostalgic emotions to emphasis the government’s commitment to holding our Union together.

If the Brexit vote was motivated by a public concern over immigration and freedom of movement, then what the UK has as a result is significantly worse than what we had during our membership of the European Union (EU). I know these subjects remain of great concern, but the direction of travel post-Brexit is 180 degrees from where we need to be.

Listening to industry in the UK amongst the issue that make them very unhappy, Brexit is never far from the top. The uncertainty and red tape that persists makes trading difficult. Finding, training, and retaining the skilled workforce they need has got harder. Costs keep rising as UK influence over world affairs weakens. Brexit is like a weighty millstone around our necks.

It would be nice to think that the advocates of Brexit have a solution to the problem that they caused. However, painful as it maybe, if you listen to them all they do is carp. Point the figure of blame. Then propose even more Brexity type ideas that mean digging an even bigger hole for us.

There’s hope. At least hope in rhetorical terms. This week, the PM has been floating a set of possibilities[2]. It’s characteristically vague. I don’t criticise him for the caution, given the volatility the political landscape and the financial boost his opponents have gained.

A decade ago, I continue to think that the Leavers did not win the Brexit vote. It was lost by the Remainers. The Leave campaign deployed their arguments with passion and marketing knowhow. Remainers, of which I was a guilty party, majored on logic and rational debate. Sticking to the facts. Sadly, being as attractive as an economics lecture by the gloomiest professor in town. Besuited business highbrows boring the pants off the public.

That’s the dilemma. We know, not only by facts, but now by experience that Brexit was a massive mistake. We also know that pure facts alone do not cut through however conclusive the arguments may be. Charts and statistics have their place only when they move the heart.

I hear this with industry people I talk to. It goes like this; surely the public can see that we need to reengage with Europe. Especially with the conflicts that are raging around the globe. Those words that – we are stronger together – have never been truer.

If there is another UK referendum soon, then the case for being an EU member must be an enthusiastic and visibly patriotic one. No castigating former Leave voters. Such a national campaign must be forward looking, positive and inspiring. An emotional anthem to unite us around the cause. A real world approach to the real world.

[1] https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/brexit-could-singapore-on-thames-become-reality

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmlyewr0lnj3o

It’s that season

It’s a time of seasons change. Autumn is upon us. Or Fall, if you like. I’m in the Northern Hemisphere so we have just passed the Autumnal Equinox. That means 12 hours from sunrise to sunset. A time of transition. In prospect are shorter days and longer nights.

Looking out of my kitchen window the display of trees, off in the distance are starting to become a colourful array of different tones. Long lost is the crisp greenness of Spring. Nature is tunned into the cyclic dance that our planet performs. It’s not just mellow tones that characterise this month. It’s mellow moods too. A sense of summer being lost to the records of history. No longer a subject of everyday talk. Now in a long record of hot dry seasons pointing the way to more to come. Its impact remains as we wait for winter rains to refill the aquafers of the surrounding hills.

Autumn comes as the ground remains hard. Dry and difficult to dig. Some trees look eager to shed their leaves. Sadly, some are in their death throws. Southern England takes on a faintly Mediterranean cloak. Climate change heralds a shift that is painted in the landscape.

In England, this is a political season too. It’s an occasion for political parties to assemble their supporters in seaside towns and major cities. To make grand speeches and toast electoral successes. To sidestep mistakes and forget exiles and defectors.

So, just as nature is undergoing a transition, national politics tries to do the same. There’s an analogy here. It’s the unpredictability of the size of the shift from one state to another. Change is predicable. What’s not is the range, either as subtle realignment or a starquake like shock. I suppose that’s why the News media take the time to report conferences. Nothing nicer than a rumbustious argument about beliefs or a sharp rebuke of an irritating campaigner. Political party managers strain every sinew to project a sense continuity with freshness and vitality. Often the truth is far from that curated image of harmony and common purpose.

What I’m asserting is that this season no different if a socialist, nationalist, popularist, liberal, libertarian, or conservative (all with no capitals). Or any mix of these competing ideas. Anarchists and totalitarians are a little different.

Leader’s speeches are atypical conference highlights. These are intended to encapsulate the ambitions and achievements of a political party. They address woes about threats too. Rarely, if ever do they talk of weaknesses.

I listened to the complete speech of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. It’s good to see that these political events are broadcast for everyone to watch. Our democracy depends on people being informed. Seeing events as they unfold.

Sir Ed Davey is a capable politician. His longevity in the business is testament to that fact. He’s been a national political party leader for 7 years. Out staying many other party leaders in the UK.

As leaf fall happens so the response to a speech can be written before the speech is given. Opponents have branded his efforts as the dead walking. Tough talking is portrayed as overreach. Some even find his sincere manner as embarrassing.

For me, he’s good at what he does. Trouble is that what he does is part of a legacy. He tends to always sound the same. If I look a couple of years ahead at a future UK General Election, then something new is needed for the Liberal Democrats. Now, there could be a snap election. In which case Ed Davey is ideally placed to build on past achievements. So, there’s the real gamble.

Money vs. Integrity in Elections

Money and politics. There’s a combination that goes together like clouds and rain. It’s difficult to conceive of one without the other. Money doesn’t guarantee success, but it does tip the balance in the favour of those who have it. If a political party is out of sync with the voters, then piling on the pounds will barely tip the scales. Same is true if a candidate’s credibility is in the pan. What money does in the run up to elections is summed up in three points.

One. It is used to influence the climate of opinion. Journalists are a fickle bunch. Raining issues down on them and pushing hard gets lots of coverage. Having a team of fresh thinkers drafting speeches and doing research (hard graft) means arguments can be placed for maximum impact. Volunteers can be superb. Trouble is there’s never enough of them to go around.

Two. Professionalising campaigns. British politics, at a local level, is renowned for its amateurism. In so many ways that’s a wonderful situation. Petty reveries, few ancient but dedicated leafleteers, committee rooms with dry rot, out of date records of voting intentions, a dream, never fulfilled, that a bigwig’s visit is just around the corner, all that and more. Money does afford the recruitment of motivated campaign managers and organisers who know how to get a message out and follow-up on voters’ concerns.

Three. Pure swagger. Saying that a new candidate will never win here, is not from around here or is an accidental choice of a struggling local committee, they can all be pushed aside. Money allows even the most desperate, disorganised, dishevelled individual to be bigged-up. Confident candidates, with adoring supporters run the full distance, whatever the inevitable knocks. Money is great for maintaining momentum and papering over the cracks.

It’s interesting to note that none of the above means that a constituency gets a better Members of Parliament at the end of the process. However, if all the candidates on the ballot have access to some of the above then local voters do get a wider choice.

On the basis that no political party will ever win all the seats in the House of Commons, targeting has become the number one strategy. Only expend resources where they may best produce positive results. That can be 300-400 parliamentary constituencies, all with their idiosyncratic issues and 70,000 voters poised to put a cross in a box. A third of them will not bother with the entire process.

So, what’s the problem with money? Well, that depends what you hold in your heart about liberal democracy. Afterall the ideals of democracy are played out in a fraction of the 200 or so, sovereign countries across the globe.

My view is that all citizens should be eligible to put themselves forward for election to a political post. The pool should be as wide as possible. Naturally, there are a few exceptions, jail being one of the more notable. In standing for election there should be a reasonable level playing field. Ideally, it’s effort, ideas and talent that should win the day. Not piles of cash or undue influence.

For the voters, it’s come as you are. I lament when hearing of candidates trying to change minds on the doorstep with nothing but a metaphorical pea shooter and tendency to take the moral high ground. There are difficult issues to address. Where vast amounts of money can be destructive is where they used to shift the climate of opinion onto subject that are far away from the ones that really count. The major topics of education, health, employment, tax, and spending should never be marginalised. I’d even add transport to that list.

Vast sums thrown about by wealthy people distort that level playing field. That’s not right.

Britain Needs a Written Constitution

Who cares? That’s what a lot of people might say. I mean look at our everyday problems. A cost-of-living crisis, crumbling infrastructure, conflicts in the world, turbulence of identity politics and a host of live issue that would take the whole page to list.

Lord Sumption, a crusty establishment lawyer debates with Baroness Chakrabarti, a lefty advocate and lawyer. Both capable and seasoned debaters with respectably different backgrounds. Listening to one I might say; that’s a sound reasoning. Listening to the other I might say; exceptionally good point. Thus, I my view remains the same whatever their debate.

So, for a brief few minutes this morning the subject of a written British constitution hit the airwaves. I can’t break the habit of listening to the Today programme on the BBC Radio 4.

Firstly, to explain. The UK, and its parliamentary way of doing business, is unlike our cousins across the other side of the Atlantic. They are now celebrating a nation’s coming into being, 250 years ago. The foundation stone and a launch into nationhood was a written constitution.

We have done thing differently in the UK. It’s not so easy to trace our constitution back to a moment of birth. Naturally, I will cite one document that has influenced both nations. The Magna Carta’s importance[1] is recognised across the globe. Not only by its influence on modern constitutions but what it says about the rule of law.

[Last year, was the 800th anniversary of the sealing of one version of the Magna Carta].

As an infant a school trip we made was to Runnymede. My teachers clearly wanted to plant an idea in our heads long before we would have any appreciation of what it meant.

[That primary school trip included a visit to the Rufus Stone[2]. A place where I wandered off and got lost in the New Forest but that’s a story for another time].

What I’d say to both Sumption and Chakrabarti is that the subject you debate is fundamentally important. However, it’s easy to get hung up on the word – constitution. As if there’s only two models of such a key construct. To put it basically, one we make it up as we go along and the other, we write rules on tablets of stone.

An argument for leaving things well alone is the flexibility that the traditional make it up as we go along approach can offer. Parliament being sovereign, without question. Even when it’s foolish and unrepresentative. To counter this supremacy of the executive is the dangers of fragility and vulnerability that can be exploited by an errant leader, despot or tyrant.

An argument for change, one I favour, is that our medieval system holds the country back and its not as if we don’t recognise the importance of solemn written commitments. Every Act of Parliament is as such. In fact, Acts can be enabling. So, why can’t a written constitution be an enabling document. It doesn’t have to be overly constraining or practically unamendable.

The problem lies not with agreements in favour of a written constitution; it’s more a problem of how on earth can British society take up this challenge when its mind is on so many day-to-day trials and tribulations. It’s a modern dilemma.

We have a partially broken system that’s unsuited to the coming decades, but we don’t know how to fix it. To fix it, everyone needs to engage.

[1] https://www.magnacartatrust.org/home

[2] https://new-forest-national-park.com/the-rufus-stone/

Digital Age Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current State of Aviation Safety: Data-Driven

The present day. Today. There will be Press Releases galore at this air show. I expect ambitious and upbeat predictions. More orders. More growth. More developing markets. Demands for more skilled people, more performance, more pressure for the early adoption of rapidly changing technologies.

My subject is safety. Where are we with aviation safety in the present day? There’s a sound legacy. Afterall aviation has a long tail. What we have now, and if I look at the Farnborough Airshow catalogue of ten years ago[1], is digitisation. The ambition to be data-driven. A continuing drive to exploit data of all kinds. Extracting information from ever increasing sources in aviation.

This desire for actionable safety intelligence is not new. On my desk I have a coaster celebrating the UK CAA’s MOR Scheme[2]. That’s been alive for 50 years (1976-2026). Occurrence data has been, and is being, used to construct all sorts of safety performance indicators. These indicators can be useful but it’s not always so. They are fuel for safety management systems.

I used the word “actionable” with purpose. Today, making the results of safety data analysis useable by front-line actors and responsible managers has been a challenge we wrestle. I’ve often heard it said – that’s great but what do I do about it? Too many “greens” on a chart and complacency can set in. Too many “reds” and everyone goes into panic mode.

I have been fortunate to work with a number of safety initiative. One called the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) in the US. To match its work, on this continent, I set up a European version; ECAST in 2006. The focus was on data-drive analysis. There’re safety teams for Rotorcraft and General Aviation too.

These safety initiatives came about a reactive way. Reporting in 1997, the Gore Commission, was a reaction to dilemmas that is still with us. What to do in the wake of catastrophic accidents. And more pertinent to this talk; what to do when the global accident rate curve looks flat at the same time as predictions are for a significant growth in global air traffic. Reading this report now, the predictions were horrifying. Predictions of one large aeroplane fatal accident every week by now. Luckily, commercial air transport didn’t suffer that fate.

I should NOT say “luckily”. Current safety performance is down to an enormous amount of work done by thousands of aviation professionals over a sustained period. Not only this but shocks, whether they be financial crisis, volcanic eruptions or global pandemics, have tested this industry severely.

Taking on board what was learned over the decades, safety management has developed and matured. Incorporated in aviation’s safety regulatory framework, it’s now practiced across the whole industry. Almost. We don’t just react. We now have Safety Plans. Lists of actionable tasks aimed at continuous safety improvement. On the scale mentioned earlier – we are proactive.

Let me stop. This is not a utopia. I’d say at least half the global aviation industry is struggling with the need to be proactive. So, the road we are travelling on remains a long one. We don’t just need the capability to do better; we need to maintain the will to do better.

[1] 50^th Farnborough Air Show in 2016.

[2] https://www.caa.co.uk/about-us/make-a-report-or-complaint/report-something/mor/occurrence-reporting/