Politics – Page 5 – John Vincent

Humanity and Tolerance

Who doesn’t know this short sentence? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. It has a particular meaning in play Romeo and Juliet. It’s Juliet saying she doesn’t care about her loves’ family name. The source of their great troubles. Being elegant and fragrant it’s no surprise that Shakespeare chose to speak of a rose.

More broadly this phrase makes the point that calling something different doesn’t change its core characteristic. Roses might not be the best example since naming these flowers plays a big part in distinguishing between one and another. So many modern hybrids. Instead, let’s go for trees. “An Oak by any other name would be a noble tree”. Which remains appropriate despite the number of different types of Oak trees.

Over the weekend, I was standing under a large ancient Holm Oak[1]. It had to be pointed out to me that that this type of Oak tree is evergreen. Most Oaks are not. An aged, stately and weathered one is definitely a noble tree.

I’m finding the News reporting of the moment mixed-up and confused. The word “diversity” gets thrown around like a political football. Let’s be clear. Diversity is everywhere. It is not unusual. Names are labels that we use like a scatter gun. Often to try to pick-out, to differentiate one group of humans from another. Not always with good intentions in mind.

Let’s remember our essence and intrinsic quality is that we are human. We live on planet called Earth and we need to find ways to get on with each other.

Today, there’s rather a lot of us. Globally, over 8 billion. However, that’s not the key factor. Let’s face it, in Shakespeare’s time there was a fraction of that number[2]. All the great strife and troubles he wrote into his plays are here now, as much as they were in his time. Proportionally, the diverse range of people and their ways of living haven’t changed that much.

It would be wise to heed the lessons of history. As we segment, categorise and slot groups of people into specific camps. The digital age, social media has added a dimension to this process. Now, likes and dislikes pigeonhole people into “similar” groups.

Here, I’m trying to keep the topic generic. Recent judgements from eminent judges, although necessary, hasn’t added a much to social harmony. To say “the law is an ass” is no understatement. I certainly wouldn’t want to fly on an aeroplane designed by lawyers. Although, it would be safe since it would never get off the ground.

I believe, we should treat each other in a way that respects that we are human, and thus diverse. That means tolerance and mutual understanding are essential. Not optional. Creating the need for bathroom police is the dumbest thing venerable British judges have done in a while.

[1] https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/a-z-of-british-trees/holm-oak/

[2] In 1600, around William Shakespeare’s time, the estimated world population was around half a billion. London’s population was about 245,000.

Cartoons capturing us

To me, it’s fascinating how a few lines of pen and ink can sum up so much. One of the great underestimated influences is the power of the cartoon. They speak of their times, they speak of social niceties, they speak of the ever-moving conveyer belt of humour.

Every day the cartoons of MATT[1] sum up, in a witty way, what the News has to say. A little composed abbreviation of an event, a thought, or an idea. Not the least bit easy to do unless that’s your talent. Believe me, I’ve had a go, and the results were not good.

A picture can tell a thousand stories. Substitute for page of words. Often this is said about photography and not so much drawing. Pictures have a language all their own. Their properties escape the communication difficulties that language can throw up.

Back to the few lines. A minimalist drawing in black and white with a sentence is the basic format. I wonder which comes first. The witty line or the image? I’ll bet that varies from person to person. An idea must spring from the mind first.

Let me say right away that not every cartoon hits the mark. I’ve got a daily tear-off New Yorker cartoon[2] calendar. It has a cartoon for the day. In the morning, I’ve torn off the last day and pondered at the worst of them, thinking what on earth were they on when they selected this one.

The reason I started writing these words is a reaction to the cartoons of H.M. Bateman[3]. He’s from another era. A world of English etiquette that has faded with time. Although, I expect if you go to the races at Royal Ascot[4] Bateman’s world lives on in its modern form.

What came to my mind is the link between social media and Bateman’s view of the world. A lot of his cartons depend on the notion that just below the surface the English are about to explode at any moment. Like the 1970’s sitcom character Basil Fawlty.

Under the social equilibrium that enables society to function there’s a seething mass of rage. A bubbling anger that can spill over at the least provocation. Then reason turns into unreason.

A sense that a minor faux pas reveals a sense of injustice that has simmered for years. One small social blunder and an avalanche descends on the poor victim. So, is social media behaviour merely an extension of a human characteristic that has aways been there? That we can easily take a violation of etiquette or social norms wholly out of proportion.

And my further thought. Have certain unscrupulous politicians learnt how to exploit this suppressed emotion. Have encouraged the volcano to explode on que. Prodded and poked it. Even having lifted the vail on the weaknesses of you and I, meant that they could get away with innumerable gaffes, and blunders. There’s an essay for a bored writer to take-up.

[1] https://www.chrisbeetles.com/

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon

[3] https://www.hmbateman.com/

[4] https://www.ascot.com/royal-ascot

Revolution: Hype vs Reality

Talk is of a revolution[1]. That sounds sensational. It sounds like marketing talk aimed at creating an insatiable desire for something new. So, that kind of talk immediately switches on the cynical side of my brain. Is this hype or is it real?

We’ve had plenty of both in my lifetime. Colourful boys adventure books with novelties like nuclear powered aircraft and moonbase vacations. It’s not that “flying a kite” is entirely bad. Those imaginings of the future had pictures of prototype flying cars. Now, we maybe on the verge of that prediction becoming real.

AI is not new. It’s been a research subject for decades. What we have most recently is the coming together of concepts and the practical machines on which to run those concepts. Amazing has been the speed of progress. That’s a modest word considering the sudden adoption of new tools that go way beyond simple INTERNET search engines.

Bill Hunter’s line: “You can’t stop progress”. At least that’s the line I remember of the 1994 film Muriel’s Wedding[2]. It was said on a rocky path to “progress” induced disaster.

My curiosity centres around avoiding the hype and finding out what’s real. That’s in the vain hope that I might not be left behind in this rapid surge of “progress”. So, to keep up with the latest technical developments I clicked on a TED App. The boss of TED, Chris Anderson has recently interviewed Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI[3]. He’s the guy behind ChatGPT. AI has elevated new people into the spotlight. It’s given established technology companies a headache. Their desire to be in the pack, or leading the pack is mighty strong.

My takeaways form this interview are that AI will outpace human intelligence, in time. No one knows how much time, but the path is set. The direction of travel isn’t in the control of traditional institutions or government departments. Society must get its head around a time when we live with machines that out pace us.

Second, it would be nice to have an enlightened global regulator to ensure that the massive amount of development going on produces outcomes that are for the public good. Chances of that happening are about zero, although not zero. There’s even a possibility that the industry at work on this technology realises the need for a set of enforceable rules.

Questions of safety are paramount. Even though society debated the impact that the INTERNET would have on us, steps to provide protections and boundaries only came about after the event. Lost in a storage box, I once had a book called “The Sleeping Sentinels”. Basically, the thought was that political parties and the legal profession are always more than ten steps behind the technologists. We are highly reactive.

One interesting aspect of the interview was the pauses. What was evident is that it’s hard to find the right language to describe what’s happening. Walking a tight rope between sounding like Chicken Little[4] and a wise respected elderly professor. Revolution is the right word.

POST: It’s not just IT Why AI Demands a New Breed of Leaders

[1] https://youtu.be/Xv8FBjo1Y8I

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLDcevp5w5o

[3] https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_altman_openai_s_sam_altman_talks_chatgpt_ai_agents_and_superintelligence_live_at_ted2025

[4] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chicken_little

Unlocking Prosperity

“So, whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, ………”

This is the code of reciprocity. In other words, I’d like you to be generous to me, so I’ll be generous to you. Now, of course this works the other way around in a perverse way. Perfectly human, although it’s tainted with suspicion. I’d like you to be generous to me, but I think you are unkind, so I’ll be unkind to you.

I don’t think that’s what Apostles had in mind. Their teaching is first to urge us to be generous as a way of encouraging others to act similarly. A lot there depends on how you view human nature.

For a long time, the United States (US) has had relatively low import tariffs based on adopting a leadership position. It’s to say, you should be like us. If you do that, there’s a chance that we will both become more prosperous.

Generally, argue how you will, as a result the US has become the most prosperous nation in the world. I know it’s only one measure but looking at the numbers of billionaires by country 2025[1] the US stands out. Over a quarter of the world’s billionaires live in the US.

I started with a Christian quotation and so it may be appropriate to ask how generous those fortunate billionaires are towards the people of their own country? I won’t go there. A nations prosperity should not depend on the philanthropic endeavours.

This year a lot has changed. Established ways of working are getting all shook-up. Ambition, suspicion and rivalry are all taking centre stage. An ambition to be unquestionably greater than all others. A suspicion that most others are taking advantage. A fight over valuable and often limited resources.

Again, human history is littered with times when such forces took over. Interestingly, Christianity gained a footing at a time when the Roman empire was plundering anything it could get its hands on. However, I’m not advocating a moral code to moderate the instinct to be imperial.

All to often those moral codes are just moulded and shaped to fit the prevailing circumstances.

No, my appeal is to mutual advantage. The simple idea that 2+2=4 is not the be all and end all of reality. In human affairs we can with effort make 2+2 equal more. It’s that saying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s why people work together for common advantage.

Yesterday, I don’t suppose for a moment that ancient monument that I drove past would be there if it were not for the above benefits of having common goals and a willingness to cooperate. Stonehenge.

Trade barriers are foolish. Walls prevent the spreading of prosperity.

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/billionaires-by-country

Tariffs Fail

Do you need to be a monster brain in economics to get the hang of tariffs? If you deep-dive into all the complexities surrounding every possibility, maybe you do. Nevertheless, the basics are the basics. Much like erecting a wall. Putting up a barrier makes it harder to do business. Harder to communicate. Harder to understand common concerns.

It’s a perfectly human thing to do. We erect barriers all over the place. That garden hedge, wooden fence or brick-built wall are a statement that says, this bit is mine and that bit is yours. Rarely is this absolute. Both sides of these unnatural barriers have mutual interests. Not admitting that reality is a problem. In fact, disputes between neighbours are one of the most common forms of dispute.

A barrier isn’t an invitation for you to disregard the concerns of your neighbours, and vice versa. That all night party, with the music turned up to eleven, maybe fine once a year but don’t do it every week. Well, don’t do it unless you are quarrelsome.

Economic barriers, like tariffs, are going to happen. When perception is all, the idea that one party can protect itself from those who would wish to do harm or take advantage, is very powerful. I say “perception” because a threat doesn’t need to be real. Politics is much about perception.

Trouble is that erecting barriers has a painfully poor history of failure. If we go back to walls, there’s not one that has stood the test of time. Maginot Line[1] is a case in point. The lesson there is that a barrier concentrates the opponents mind on how to overcome it. The elaborate nature of a barrier is no defence to the inventive mind. Barriers are time limited.

Tariffs, and non-tariff barriers are much the same. They may work to advantage for a while only to crumble when their weaknesses have been discovered. Although, I would say that non-tariff barriers are more powerful than straightforward economic barriers. The point being that the former is far more difficult to understand, counter and control.

2025 is a year of volatility, at least so far. Talk of tariffs is on, then it’s off, then it’s on again. It’s the real cat on the hot tin roof. A hop, a jump, and a skip. Everyone is left wondering what comes next. Even if there’s to be any return to a form of reasonable stability anytime soon. That’s the point.

Disruption offers opportunities. At least, for those quick inventive minds with resources to hand. If you don’t fit into that category, then chances are there’s a big downside and a lot of hurt.

To give the monopoly of the home market in the produce of domestic industry…………………must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or hurtful regulation. Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations (1776).

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Maginot-Line

Power and Choice

How is it so surprising? This transformation that’s taking place. It’s undeniably so. With notable exceptions. Understandable ones. The stories that have filled the last 65-years of my life have been ones where the good American rides in to save the day.

Black and white movies were replaced by Technicolor images of hearty American hero types beating the bad guys. Batman, in his 1960s persona, would outwit dastardly scheming villains. Mild-mannered, decent, and magnanimous.

Fine. We were warned that the more ruthless side of American life was out there on the streets. Captured by iconic movies like Wall Street[1]. But that was the fashion of the times. The 1980s were, both in the US and UK a time of hard-nosed ambition. Often set against a backdrop of industrial decline and hardship summed up by Bruce Springsteen[2] and alike.

Everything has a price. Or so it’s said. In fact, it’s more accurate to say: “Every man has his price.” That crusty old German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche put it differently. Like fishing, he suggested that a bait that exists that can attract everyman. Can entice and win over.

If this is your sole mantra, I’d suggest counselling. It’s a shallow way of looking at the world. Not entirely wrong. It’s just incomplete. Let’s face it. The biggest decisions we make in life often have nothing to do with enticements, like money. Certainly, there would be no romantic fiction or fantasy if we were all matched by algorithm according to specified needs and wants. Hey, maybe that will happen one day. Afterall, I can’t discount such a development.

My point is that it’s one thing to make an offer to buy something but, in a free market, if you believe in such, then it’s entirely up to the seller as to how they react. Now, of course, the marketplace may be rigged. Powerplay has a part to play. Swaggering powerful entities, companies or people, may wish to “encourage” a seller to sell. Apply pressure. Crooks and hoodlums have been doing this for centuries. Like saying: “I’ll burn down your barn if you don’t let me have the extra pasture that I want.”

Above where I wrote of dastardly scheming villains, I should have painted a less wholesome picture. Indeed, that’s what happened to Batman. He became portrayed as darker as the villains he faced became darker.

So, how does President Trump want to be remembered when history is written? The Good, the Bad or the Ugly, getting back to the movies.

Greenland is not some titbit that a powerful man can grab and possess. It’s a large island. A cold, remote island with a culture and history all of its own. It’s up to the inhabitants of that island as to the future they choose. Is there an enticement that those inhabitants will not be able to resist? Who knows? However, it seems to me extremely unlikely that an aggressive approach will bring about assession to another country.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/

[2] https://youtu.be/W2X0Gf9jfz8?list=RDW2X0Gf9jfz8

The UK’s Path Back to the EU

It’s great to see a debate in the UK Parliament[1]. Monday, 24 March saw a debate on the UK joining the European Union (EU). A public electronic petition[2] called for this debate. UK MPs get the opportunity to speak openly of their experiences of the outcomes of Brexit. There’s little that is positive and an ocean of negative.

Lucky for them, at the end of the debate, MPs are not called to vote on the issues raised in this petition. Nevertheless, there’s enormous merit in putting the facts in the public domain.

The 2016 Brexit vote was an unpatriotic act of self-harm, but it is history. Gradually, bit by bit, every part of British society is coming to the realisation that we need to do differently in the future. One day, I have no doubt that the UK will join the EU. The “will of the people” is not static. It is incredibly arrogant of Brexit supporters to say that it is static.

Besides, the inevitability of change means that new ways of cooperating will be found because it is in the best interest of all the parties. The UK is a liberal free-trading country that believes in the rule of law.

In the debate, Government Ministers can take what is being said and rethink. It is no threat to democracy to consider a rethink. In fact, for democracy to be stuck in a deep rut – now, that would be dangerous.

Today, Brexit has been a wonderful generator of piles of meaningless paperwork. It’s destroyed businesses and ruined lives. The enormous damage that has been caused is clear. Sadly, the people who cause that damage are not inclined to take any accountability for the mess.

In the debate, a shadow minister digs-up the grumpy past. It is shameful that the Conservative Party has nothing useful to say on this important issue. It is like listening to a bad recording of an old set of lies and proven nonsense. In speaking, this politician displayed no interest what-so-ever in improving the position of the country.

With all the talk of “growth” being so important to our future, it is difficult to understand a reluctance to address the festering wound that has been caused by Brexit. We can only be more secure and prosperous if we work more closely with our nearest neighbours.

The Labour Party leans on its election manifesto of last July. It’s an awkward act of sitting on the fence and sticking their head in the sand. Now, that paints a picture.

So called, “ruthless pragmatism” is a peculiar Government policy position. It can mean 101 things to 101 different people in 101 different places. Citing “global headwinds” to excuse obvious failings is no excuse for sustaining a burnt-out Brexit winding on like a runaway train. It would be wiser to question everything as the wholly new circumstances dictate.

2025 is dramatically different from 2015. When I first returned to the UK from Germany. The tectonic plates of global affairs have shifted. The Atlantic is wider. The Channel is narrower.

Oceanus Britannicus should be no barrier to trade and cooperation.

[1] https://youtu.be/yJdFBSAvAhU

[2] https://petition.parliament.uk/

Laughing Through Politics

Maybe it’s not a new seam to mine. That rock of British popular culture that puts up a mirror to entertain us or even shock us. There’s always a space for the public to be tickled by the absurd or hamming up of clichéd characters. It’s struck me, particularly on rewatching British TV comedy, how what we find humorous is an indicator of how we might think more generally. Or there’s a peculiar connection.

Obviously, it would be good to look at this subject in an objective way. To see what the evidence says. However, it’s almost impossible to separate personal experiences from any general observations. Afterall, I went to school where we endlessly repeated lines from Monty Python’s Flying Circus. This had our poor teachers totally bemused. Long forgotten is the “woody and tinny words” sketch. It only took a teacher to say a woody word and we’d have hysterics.

Not that Python didn’t offer one or two educational opportunities. In imagination, if nothing else. Try “The Man Who Speaks in Anagrams[1]” as an example.

When Mrs Brown’s Boys[2] became popular, I knew we were in serious trouble. I may be a real snob, but this kind of British “comedy” is a throwback to the worst of the 1970s (almost). To me the show has no merit whatsoever. It’s a sop to a grim set of stereotypes.

Jamilla Smith-Joseph’s short article[3] does point out that British culture is one of seeing the funny side of both us Brits and those strange foreigners. Problem is that in a simmering Brexity climate, we find it so much easier to lampoon our nearest neighbours, European foreigners.

I matured from Python to then enthusiastically embrace “The Young Ones” in my anarchic student days[4]. Now, I rewatch the series and the impacts are curious. In so many ways 21^st Century Brits have become tame and unadventurous. The sheer destructive energy that let rip on TV screens delighted in upsetting established norms. Now, lots of people are embarrassed by what was called “alternative” comedy at the time.

Then we grew-up and got jobs. Tony Blair came onto the scene. Born out of that period of change was such masterpieces as “The Think of It”. Hope and optimism descended into spin and panic.

Popular culture and politics do connect. Is it a mirror like refection or is it a subconscious trend indicator? Or even a driving force that sustains a current way of thinking?

British popular culture is not going through a creative period. In 2025, there’s not a lot to recommend. Oddly it’s a series that started with a low budget movie from New Zealand that I find is the best comedy of the moment. “What We Do in the Shadow[5]” is variable in places but has horrendously funny moments.

So, come on British writers it’s time to better lampoon the toolmakers son who sits on the fence. One leg here, and one leg there. Labour’s latest adoption of conservative attire is surly worth funny lines. Something original. Maybe even out of this world.

[1] https://youtu.be/Q1sXeUHBHgk

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1819022/?ref_=ttep_ov

[3] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-very-british-euroscepticism-the-popular-culture-politics-nexus/

[4] Yes, I really did live in a rundown brick terrace, with a hole in the wall as space for a payphone, and a dodgy builder come landlord. Carpets with slug trails and an icebox as a shower.

[5] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7908628/

A Key Political Agenda?

Whatever you might think, I think Keir Starmer is turning out to be a better conservative Prime Minister (PM) than most have been in the last couple of decades. On his list of things to do is reforming this, and reforming that, and making bullish statements on the world stage. Agreed that there’s the usual amount of crafted BS. Compromise and dealing with reality, not the world as one might wish it to be, are as they ever are in politics.

He’s in the business of stealing the clothes of the official opposition. Across the chamber they panic. Yes, further along the benches, the howling menace continues to howl. Fighting amongst themselves this week. Questioning their leader is not allowed. However, it’s surprising how high they stand in opinion polls, even if this is meaningless at this point in the electoral cycle.

The normal opposition now comes from the Liberal Democrats and a small number of unhappy Labour Members of Parliament.

This week I was amused to read of the concerns about Quangos[1]. That takes me back. I remember writing a motion for a conference on that subject back in the early 1990s. At that time there was questioning of why there was so many Quangos.

As a country we seem to go through waves. They go like this.

For a while national politicians take the view that day-to-day operational decisions of a sector should be made by dedicated professionals and at arm’s length. This has the advantage of getting politicians out of the complex detail, avoiding blame when things go wrong, a degree of continuity and setting their minds to the higher calling of top-level budgets and policy.

Then, if sector hasn’t performed as well as desired, the Quango at the heart of the storm is set ripe for taking apart. Thus, day-to-day operational decisions go back to “accountable” politicians, surely to do better. This has the advantage of reigniting the pace of change, a chance to be radical, securitising lower-level budgets and the satisfaction of blaming the past system.

I think you can tell which part of the wave that has hit now.

A point of reference here is, as so often is the case, Yes Minister. There’s a story line where the civil service pack the Minister’s red box with so much information and decisions to be made that he’s completely overwhelmed. Initially, he’s keen to have information on everything. Then the realisation that path leads to madness slowly dawns.

Now, it’s not clear what type of civil service, and associated Quangos, the PM thinks work best. It’s not strange to say I don’t like what I’ve got. It’s better to have an idea what it is that you want. A reform agenda in name is a headline grabber. It’s not a substitute to having a plan.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840

The Human Touch

One of the most irritating aspects of bureaucracy is codification. What I mean is the need to tick a box that describes you or your problem. Restaurants, retailers, charities, religions, politicians and government departments all do the same. Sophisticated or crude administrative systems fall back on the same methods.

It’s immensely unsatisfying. Applicable to me, at this stage in life, is the age tick box. It doesn’t matter where the questionnaire or data gathering exercise comes from there’s always this box that starts at 65 years old. The previous box finishes at 64 years old.

This fits the respondent into the next step-up in age. Following from this simple date is a whole plethora of assumptions about the nature of a persons’ likes and dislikes, needs and wishes. An unsympathetic algorithm can then crunch numbers and send adverts for sheltered retirement homes, medication and certain types of undemanding travel opportunities.

Now, I could join the chorus of cries against bureaucracy. That would be popular but dumb. It’s a bit like the textiles we put on daily. We could go around naked as the day we were born. Trouble is that our present society doesn’t work well in the case where everyone is naked. Cold too.

So, it is with bureaucracy. It’s not going away anytime soon. The best we can do is to hunt for better ways of collecting data and making it useful for decision-makers and those who want to sell us something. Or even political parties that are keen to target us with their messages.

In the News this week is as good a sketch for an updated Yes Minister as any. Revolution is afoot. Suddenly the pen pushers who tie you up in red tape are going to be replaced with super-efficient algorithms and artificial intelligence to return us to paradise.

I think that’s the only reason Adam and Eve had to leave the garden of Eden. Nothing to do with apples. Well, not the ones that hang on trees. It was an iPad that had fallen though a time warp. Filling in a questionnaire on happiness it seems that one of them ticked the wrong box.

I see a difficulty with replacing civil servants with robotic algorithms and artificial intelligence. It might be the case that for routine activities, where the pattern of human behaviour is straightforward and well understood, a set of operations can be undertaken with a high degree of confidence that a good outcome will be provided.

Where I see the difficulty is that humans are notoriously messy. Inclined to irritation and not the least bit logical in their personal lives. Nothing that has been said this week is about truly eliminating bureaucracy, although that’s the illusion. It’s more about mechanising it using whizzy technology that’s so much better that that which has gone before (so they say).

Let’s just grow-up. We need public administration. We need it to work well. Fundamentally, it takes people to make it work. People who are motivated to work for the public good. People who are adaptive, caring and enabled to do a good job. Give them the tools to do the job. But are we kidding ourselves if we think complex algorithms and artificial intelligence are our saviours?