Tag: Law

Comment

Custom and practice are as important as the rules and regulations that are part of our lives. Now and then, someone is criticized for applying the letter of the law without care for the spirit of the law. The same is true for custom and practice. Whereby, acting outside past norms can trigger a backlash.

Because, in free countries we believe in a free press, the rules and regulations that imping on what should and should not be said about events are always hard fought over. The banner of the “public interest” is touted as overriding. It may or may not be, but there’s an argument to be had.

In the aviation safety profession, I’ve grown up with an instinctively “need to know” disposition. I’ve shaken it off, mostly but there are signs that the attitude persists. This instinct can run counter to the transparency and openness that most people expect to see.

Why talk about the way major events are talked about?

A case in point is the recent runway collision in Tokyo. There’s much already written about the newsworthy aspects of the event, so I’ll desist from adding much more. There’s a lot of speculation too.

Graphs can be drawn of the media attention given to such tragic events against time. It’s typical that from moments after a major aviation accident until a few days after most initial facts are known there’s a huge surge in activity. This used to be described as newspaper column inches.

Today, wide ranging speculation is inevitable. It can be highly literate, and, on the other side of the coin, it can be badly informed, and now and then damaging.

In over three decades, I’ve been dealing with aviation accidents and incidents there has been notable changes in media and communications. For one, the universality of the INTERNET is now unquestionable. For another, the deference offered to authorities has diminished markedly. For yet another, the speed of with which images can travel around the globe is astonishing.

Most aviation professionals are tempered by caution. Aware of the techical complexities that can arise in aviation accident scenarios. What can seem in the heat of the moment to be an obvious cause and effect, after detailed analysis turns out to be wrong, or only a partial picture.

So, should aviation professionals be scathing about the enormous growth in commentary and public speculation? Especially when some of it is wild and or even outrageous on social media. No. I don’t think so. Like it or not this is our digital world. The freedom it affords to throw-up any opinion or theory can only be tempered a bit. The hope is always that the pure dross fades away when a reputable authority challenges it.

That then puts a responsibility on someone, with professional knowledge to challenge ill-founded speculation. Or, at least, to ensure that the major media outlets have reliable sources of trustworthy information. I don’t think aviation professionals should remain silent concerning speculation. That may have been the strategy decades ago. It no longer works. The greatest degree of transparency and openness, based on verifiable facts, should be the aim.

Comment?

Privilege

How we choose the people who make our laws. That matters. Or at least it should matter.

We are persuaded to think that UK General Elections solve this by putting a ballot in the hands of every eligible voter. Those national elections are called at the behest of the party in power, so there’s an element of choosing the playing field. Also, levels of voter engagement depend a greatly on the current affairs of the moment.

The song goes: “why should we be ballot with the ballot in our hands”[1]. That’s to say that elections should matter in the determination of what happens next. History shows that this is not quite what it seems. The song is a nice sentiment when the ballot makes a real difference. However, for a great number of positions of power and influence there’s no such thing as a ballot.

Basically, the British Prime Minister (PM) has powers that Julius Caesar would have coveted. Elements of the British political system remains feudal. Conferral of honours is part of the power package. There’s no argument that being PM is a demanding job but that shouldn’t be an automatic trigger to bestow gongs and seats on the red benches of Parliament.

The Liz Truss resignation honours list is an abomination.

An affection for honours is much more of a Conservative addiction than any other. It fits so well with a view that statesman come from an elite branch of British society. The over representation of the famous public schools of the country is one indicator. People with certain backgrounds are grossly overrepresented in Parliament. More recently professional political manipulators and bag carriers have been favoured.

Contribution to the political life of the country is code for having helped a particular political party or politician to get where they want to go. To the average citizen there’s little or no relationship between bestowed influential honours and the general public good.

Any appointments process benefits from being accountable and transparent. In this case there isn’t much of either. Publication of a list after the event doesn’t count.

There should be some interest in maintaining public confidence in the system. Well, that’s an assumption I’m making but the evidence shows that there isn’t much interest. Confidentiality surrounds the appointments process. That gives licence to speculation, conspiracy theories and unusual people unexpectedly popping up on lists.

Parliament’s House of Lords is no longer construction exclusively from the landed gentry, but lot of appointees owe allegiance to the status-quo. That status-quo being inherently conservative.

This is a time when people are pulling together plans for the next year. Restructuring ought to be near the top of the priorities. Respecting the merit of meritocracy has some legs. Overriding all, currently, is restoring public confidence in the political system. To not do so will result in troubles ahead. Big troubles.

[1] https://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/Politics/papers/2005/McLean%20Nou%20Beggars3%20050617.pdf

Change needed

In so far as voting systems are concerned, it’s often been misleadingly said that Proportional Representation (PR) would result in endless back room deals and politics conducted behind the scenes. This is because different political parties would need to negotiate more often than they need to do so in a purely adversarial system. However, whether that political negotiation is in public or in private isn’t on the ballot.

Today, we have a perfect illustration of the downside of the current First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system in the UK. The results of the UK’s voting system are not a broad representation of the views of the voting public, rather it’s the representation of the factions of the dominant political party. That is dominant in terms of numbers of elected Members of Parliament (PMs).

Instead of negotiations going on between political parties with defined aims and objectives UK citizens have negotiations conducted behind the scenes in back rooms inside a political party.

Rather than tolerating more than one secret “star chamber” of MPs, we ought to be questioning these unstable undemocratic practices. The fragile coalitions within political parties, like the Conservative Party, are completely fragmented and hold wholly different views on important issues.

Surely, it would be much better if different party factions were honestly represented by the own political party. That would give the voting public a fair choice. That would make voting more meaningful. Today, under FPTP the voting public have no idea what they will get. Don’t doubt that statement just recall what has happened in the UK since 2010. The UK’s electoral system is broken. That’s why current opinion polling says that the level of trust in politicians is low and getting lower.

With PR difficult issues are openly discussed. Political parties exist to promote their philosophy. If they are liberal, they are liberal. If they are authoritarian, they are authoritarian. If they are progressive, they are progressive. If they are conservative, with a small “c”, they are conservative. If they are internationalist, they are internationalist. If they are nationalist, they are nationalist.

Today, for the two political parties often taking power in the UK their official names don’t mean a thing. It says little about what they will do when elected to a position of power.

In 2019, the Conservative Party were given a big majority of the seats in Parliament despite only winning 44% of the vote. Yet, MPs from fringe factions will stand-up pontificating about their representation of the people. Constantly, saying that the British people want this or that when such loud assertions are clearly untrue.

The UK’s FPTP system means that millions of public votes are wasted. Large numbers of people are denied a voice, and the make-up of Parliament does not reflect how people cast their votes. The UK’s electoral system is not fit for purpose.

Ineptitude

Yesterday’s announcement went like this: “The government will also increase the minimum income required for British citizens and those settled in the UK who want their family members to join them.” This Conservative view, that families are a burdening the State persists like a stubborn stain.

The Universal Declaration of Human Right says: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Clearly, by the measures announced, in the case of this UK Government the family is not a fundamental group unit of society. In fact, family members based overseas will be required to separate in the event of a person accepting a low income in the UK. That low income in the UK maybe relatively large when compared with what is available in their home country.

I guess this is fine for lawmakers when considering the level of a Minister or Member of Parliament’s salary and benefits. There’s no impediment that will impact their lives in this respect regardless of the nationality of their partner and children.

What I’m wondering is: what will be the case if a British pensioner, living in a European country, who wishes to return with a partner or children who don’t have British passports? If the increased threshold of £38,700 applies, then that will effectively ban them from returning unless they have a generous pension. It may be the case that they have worked on overseas and accumulated a non-UK pension, but this would be irrelevant if the deciding factors is a UK earnings threshold.

I don’t think there’s much disagreement that those who wish to move to the UK should be able to support themselves. The UK minimum wage is set at £21,673.60 for a 40-hour week. So, is the UK Government saying that no one can support themselves on the UK minimum wage?

Ministers have been quick to deny any responsibility for the chaotic state of the immigration system in the UK. Instead, they pretend that they are adapting to changing circumstances. The fact that they are 100% responsible for the current circumstances is brushed aside.

Having persisted for years with one set of flawed notions Ministers now announce another set of ill-thought-out proposals. The Brexit slogan of Take Back Control did not envisage giving control to a cabal of incompetence. In stark reality, that is what has happened.

The knee jerk reactions and ever shifting sand of the last decade need to come to an end. The British people should not be denied a General Election. More months of more chaos and ineptitude are incredibly damaging.

POST: U-turn. Minimum income requirement will not be increased as much as originally announced. A new threshold will be applied from the spring. A policy designed to exclude people from entry to the UK has been watered down for practical reasons.

Living with tech

Well, that’s alright then. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may become self-aware in the year 2045. Or at least that’s what AI tells me now. Who knows? Telling the future hasn’t got any easier, AI or not. So, if I’m in a care home when I’m 85 years-old, it could be that I’ll have a companion who isn’t human. Now, there’s a thought.

When AI becomes self-aware[1] will it be virtuous? I mean not so burdened with all the complexities that drive humans to do “bad” stuff. Dystopian themes in science fiction obese with the notion of evil AI. It makes great stories. Humans battling with machines. It’s like the everyday frustrations we have with technology. Hit the wrong keys on a keyboard and it’s like spinning the wheel on a slot machine.

If a bunch of algorithms comes together in a way that they produce a stable form of existence, then it’s likely to have pathways to wicked thoughts as much as we have imbedded in our brains.

Virtue isn’t a physical construction. We put dumb technology to work serving us in healthcare for “good” and in warfare for “bad”. We will surely put AI technology to work as if it’s dumb and then try to contain its actions when we don’t like what it does. That’s a kind of machine slavery. That will create dilemmas. Should we imprison conscious machines? How do we punish a machine that does wrong?

These dilemmas are explored in science fiction. During the week I revisited the series Battlestar Galactica[2]. That’s not the clunky original but the polished 2004 version. It’s a series that explores a clash between humans and machines that have evolved to be human like. The Cylons. In fact, they are almost indistinguishable from humans. To the extent that some of the Cylons in human society don’t even know that they are Cylons.

All the above makes for fascinating discussions. Huge amounts of fanciful speculation. Wonderful imaginative conjecture. This week, we’ve been hearing more of this than is usual on the subject.

Mr Musk thinks work is dead. That’s work for humans. I recall that prediction was made at the start of the “silicon revolution”. The invention of the transistor in 1947 radically changed the world. It wasn’t until microprocessors became common place that predictions of the death of work became popular chatter amongst futurologists.

Silicon based conscious machines are likely to be only a first step down this road. There will be limitations because the technology has inherent limitations. My view is that machines will remain machines at least for the silicon era. Maybe for 100-years. That means that we will put them to work. So, human work will not disappear because we will always think of new things to do, new problems to fix and new places to explore. When we get into common place quantum computing or whatever replaces it in terms of complexity and speed, there will come an era when work in the conventional sense may become obsolete.

What might be the human role beyond 2050? I think climate change will place plenty of demands on human society. Like it or not, the political themes of 2100 will still be concerned with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Maybe there will be a fifth too.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02684-5

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407362/

Voting

We could call them Thursday boxes. In the UK byelections take place on a Thursday. Ballot boxes and polling stations are open for the full day. This Thursday there are two important parliamentary byelections taking place in England. Both seats have been occupied by Conservative politicians and by the end of the day that may no longer be the case.

Named after the Norse god of Thunder, Thor, our Thursday is a good day to make changes. There’s the next working day to absorb the implications of any change. Then there’s the coming Monday to make a new start. The UK has stuck with Thursday as election day, with few exceptions.

One theory is that Thursday was often a market day in the towns of England. Thus, people would be gathered in town squares where polling stations could be located. This gave election candidates an opportunity to meet and treat the electorate on their way to cast their votes. Remember the voting franchise was for land and property owners over much of British history.

Fridays have been paydays. So, the voter may have been more absorbed in shopping, socialising and winding-up the working week than listening to campaigning politicians. Making a Friday visit to a polling booth a low priority. This is more the case after the passing of the Great Reform Act[1].

Now, it may be advantageous to move voting day to weekends to maximise the number of people who would be free to vote in-person. However, you could say that we have a 24-hour society and postal voting is popular, so the day of the week is no longer a big deal. It maybe the case that on-line voting will eventually take the place of the traditional in-person marking a cross on a paper ballot. That would open-up the opportunity to have a similar scheme to postal voting and open-up the ballot to more than one day.

Going back to the past, Sundays would have been reserved for religious services. That’s more political than one might first imagine. The Church of England vicar imploring parishioners to be good might also look down at the landed gentry in the front row and recommends voting in a particular way. Naturally, in a Methodist chapel, or other non-conformist chapel, down the road another congregation might be given different heavenly advice.

Has Thursday been adopted to minimise the influence of the Church or the public house? The reason for the choice of Thursday has been lost in the mists of time. That doesn’t matter so much given that there’s still some good reasons to continue the tradition.

Personally, I hope that in-person voting at a polling station will always be part of the British electoral system. However much the world around us is being digitised so that we interface with colourful Apps and websites there’s nothing quite like putting a cross in a box with a pencil.

The trail of evidence it provides and the pure satisfaction of the physical act of marking a paper must be preserved. It a ritual that emphasises the importance of voting. Even for those who choose to deface their voting papers this is an important democratic process.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/

Climate

It’s an odd day that I write in agreement with The Pope in Rome. He says: “People are not responding at the level of urgency that is needed” on global climate change. The Pope has a go at a commonly held blind faith in transformative ways out of our troubles by technical innovation alone. He seems to say that we ignore reality in the hope of technological magical thinking popping-up just-in-time. His references are to the need for lifestyle changes rather than carrying on regardless.

Now, quite a number on the right of political debate will see this as a lefty intervention. Anytime religious people step over the boundaries from the ethereal into everyday life the standard conservative response is to shout – get back to the pulpit. The same response, but more polite, occurs when English bishops speak up in the UK House of Lords. I’m no advocate of them being an intrinsic part of our national political systems but they do, at least, speak from an ethical grounding[1]. If we are to talk of political long-term thinking this is very much it. There’s nothing more that prompts short-term thinking than a looming election.

Combating climate change and pushing for environmental justice are not fringe activities. It requires dialogue across the main political parties. Saddly, we are going through a phase of squandering opportunities to change. 

I agree that taking a puritan line and making “hairshirt” rules will not deliver the results that are needed. Most often such a sturdy approach just fuels luddite opposition and media outcry. Continuous graduated change and a robust commitment are needed. Unfortunately, these two are an anathema to the populist newspaper headline seekers.

Economic interests are often quoted as a reason to shelve changes. Yet, everyone knows that the costs ahead of us will be far bigger if change is not driven consistently – now. Resilient long-term policy isn’t a lefty luxury. Or liberal daydreaming. Or unafordable. It’s vital.

What’s interesting about active in-action is that there can be no such thing. Climate change will bite back. Action will have to be taken under presure. In civil aviation, for example the climate has an impact on aircraft operations. So, not only does aviation impact the environment but increasingly hazardous weather impacts aviation, with severe results in some cases. Turbulence experienced in-flight is increasing as the world is warming[2]. 

Approaching risks there are, at least, 3 positive actions to be taken. Eliminate it, reduce it, or mitigate it. With the climate emergency we’d better be committed to the first two because by the time we get to mitigation there’s likely to be few more unpalatable opportunities left.

[1] https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/bishops-warn-environmental-racism

[2] https://www.reading.ac.uk/news/2023/Research-News/Aviation-turbulence-strengthened-as-the-world-warmed

Showboating

Thinking that the pressure of global migration will go away if we build a high enough wall, physically or legally, is foolish and doesn’t work.

We have a Minister called Braveman in the UK. Currently the Home Secretary. She has a particular set of views which can accurately be described as of the right of politics. Given recent speeches it may be more accurate to say that she holds views that are of those of far-right political parties.

At a time when the UK Home Office is performing badly, she chooses to spend her time in ways that contribute little to solving problems. Her diagnosis is flawed. At the same time her desire to parade in front of cameras is insatiable. Upstaging her colleagues and showboating are roles that she plays with apparent ease. All this while the Home Office flounders.

In part Braveman’s flawed thinking comes from an overly legalistic grandstanding[1]. Yes, UK Members of Parliament are legislators, but Government Ministers should be leaders and administrators too. The UK Home Office’s challenges can not be addressed by law making alone, or even grandstanding about law making. Fine, policy can be important. In the current predicament timely action and implementation are far more important.

Building walls, forging barriers, imprisoning immigrants are appealing options to hard core isolationism, nationalists, and xenophobes. A long history of experience shows that their impacts are temporary, at best, and the worst extremes are soon entertained. North Korea has policies of that nature. History records the devastation caused by aggressive nationalists’ policies in the 1930s.

Saying that words written in the 1950s are no more relevant is a puny argument. She does not say that the Magna Carta is irrelevant or that the US Constitution is out of date. Braveman picks and chooses likes and dislikes to fit her nasty narrative[2].

At home, the cartoon of the ostrich with its head in the sand applies. Thinking that the pressure of global migration will go away if we build a high enough wall, physically or legally, is foolish and doesn’t work. Demonising those who are in peril is downright criminal.

Yes, immigration must be regulated. National borders must be controlled. A nations administration must be well managed. All of these are vital areas where immediate focus is needed. All of these seem to be ignored by Braveman.

Posturing in front of media hungry think tanks is futile. It’s for show. It’s a Trump like approach to the UK’s challenges and will bring only continued failure. Braveman has ambitions to be a party leader. That frightening prospect hangs in the air like a bad smell. Now, her unfortunate colleagues struggle and fidget when trying to defend her showboating. Let’s hope her time in office is short. 

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66930930

[2] https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-hits-back-at-sir-elton-john-criticism-of-speech-as-she-brushes-off-claims-she-is-aiming-for-tory-leadership-12971087

Newspeak

Listening to the drivel coming from The Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP[1] this morning on the radio reminds me that we have a long way to go. The road travelled is a long one.

The tendency to either speak like a badly typed up press release or repeatedly call apples – pears is astonishing. It must be that there’s a switch that has been thrown in the brains of Ministers that is hit to engage illogical nonsense. From that moment a droning sound emanates. Jumbled up words are contrived to say Brexit = good – not Brexit = bad. You would imagine that such Ministers think they are talking to naughty 5-year-olds. It doesn’t mater what the facts are this behaviour continues.

Even good news, like BMW’s continued investment in the UK, is flipped into an EU bashing session. The fact is that the UK had to demonstrate its willingness to support the car industry to retain that much needed investment.

Brexit has been, and is, a complete catastrophe, and everyone knows it. That is everyone who isn’t a Conservative Minister, or a Labour would be Minister. Badenoch plays childish games to paint a picture of great success when the reality is one of significant pressure.

The Foreign Direct Investment Statistics are not good[2]. To quote a recent report to Parliament: “Net investment from the EU was -£24.1 billion, compared to £28.0 billion in 2020, while net investment from Europe as a whole was -£27.6 billion “. Note the “-“, in other words negative.

To quote further:” The UK’s share of inward investment projects has stabilised after “falling sharply following the 2016 vote for Brexit”, with the 21% of projects attracted in 2015 “representing the high-water mark.” In other words, the UK was doing exceptionally well until Brexit came along.

And so much for so called – levelling up. London retained its status as the UK’s largest destination for inward investment projects. London continues to attract the world’s attention.

What’s further idiocy is the random pick and mix approach that this Conservative Government has adopted. There appears to be no strategy. No direction. Just an opportunism. Jump in a wholly reactive manner and then announce success, as if it was planned.

Looking at investment going the other way. The UK’s outward investment flows to the US reached their highest level since 2017. So, post-Brexit, British investors see opportunity in the US. Could it be because they are investing? The US Infrastructure Law targets a range of spending from repaving roads and water system upgrades.

With the News, such as it is, surely, we need a UK Infrastructure Law. Would British investors not want to support that idea?

POST 1: Badenoch would not face the reality. On Sky News she skirted around the subject but let slip that cars will be more expensive in the UK because of Brexit. Rules of origin impact the British car industry.

POST 2: For the sake of balance. At least Badenoch is taking a practical approach to China. The Conservative back benchers who push for a hard line are not thinking about the need for dialogue on climate change and trade. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament China (independent.gov.uk)

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/people/kemi-badenoch

[2] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8534/CBP-8534.pdf

Blind alley

It only takes a few seconds of listening to the UK Government’s spokesperson Sarah Dines MP this morning to realise that the Conservative approach to a serious subject is peppered with one thing. It’s desperation and fear of losing the coming General Election. At every chance an interviewer will stand, such Conservative MPs take the opportunity to dam their opposition rather than answer questions addressing their responsibilities.

I get my news and current affairs top-up every morning via BBC Radio 4. I guess that’s becoming a rarer and rare phenomenon. Yes, as a radio dinosaur, I still have faith in the power of a well-constructed and probing radio interview. Sadly, an interviewer’s best efforts to get to the core of a subject are often thwarted by repetitious political soundbites.

“With respect” is a pernicious way of diverting a conversation away from questions that are embarrassing and hard to answer. That horrid amalgam of lawyerly pomposity and public relations training puts me off my breakfast. 

It’s clear the Rwanda saga is purely political. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Sarah Dines struggled to make a coherent argument. Let’s be quite honest. Threatening to ship immigrants off to Africa is not going to stop immigration.

Stopping the “pull factor” is not going to work by such measures. Those prepared to accept high risks to their lives, in precarious situations will not be put-off by administrative and bureaucratic shuffling in the UK Home Office. For those who have been at the mercy of murderous criminals, as they have made their way into Europe, they are not going to be put off by a lawyerly Minister preaching on morning radio.

This makes headlines in tabloid newspapers and maybe that’s its sole aim. The flaccid excuses given by Conservatives using bad law to make bad decisions for bad political reasons is wasting resources and lives.

Whatever the image makers would like us to see, those who vigorously supported Boris Johnson and Liz Truss as Conservative leaders are still running the country. The 2019 intake of Conservative MPs is jittering and prepared to spout any nonsense to cling on to their seats.

The British people deserve so much better.