Tag: Politics

The Value of Public Service

In praise of public life[1]. That sound like such a strange sentence to utter about this last week. It’s been local election week. First Thursday in May is traditionally the day of elections in the UK.

It’s good to say that a political life is a positive. I’d say most councillors elected in this crop are motivated by the simple idea of public service. Yes, a lot of them will have completely different understanding as to what that means but there’s a general desire to make life better.

Naturally, there are the exceptions. That is those people who are ideologues, intent on imposing their views on people regardless of rational belief or any basic understanding of how the world works. Yes, I am talking about the blip that is the current results for the Reform Party. Blip it is. Like it or not, the turnout for local elections is sadly unimpressive.

Party politics is in jeopardy. I’ve nothing to object to politicians who take an independent line. It’s often those individuals who cross boundaries and unravel roadblocks to stop a stasis descending over a political assembly. A council chamber full of sheep helps no one.

To command popular support a practical political party must be a board church. We have a common expectation that decision-making forums be made up of our peer group. It’s embedded in the jury system. If decision-making in the public realm becomes so disconnected from everyday life, then respect is lost. However, if ever changing newspaper headlines drive governance – well, you get my point.

I say, conventional Party politics is in jeopardy because popularism is distorting the playing field. If a political Party becomes a rabble-rousing creature that sits on the backs of the electorate, then no good will come of it. That’s especially true when issues pursued are nothing much to do with the remit of a Council.

My prediction is that the new Reform councillors will soon get locked into lots of noisy arguments over issues that bypass the things that need to be done in each locality. No fixing potholes or planting trees when meaningless debates about “woke” can be had. No improving recycling achievements or properly funding care provisions. No building affordable housing or cleaning up waterways.

For political leaders and parties to regain respect and support there needs to be less communication about the possible ways and means and more about what’s been done. Populism takes over when people become fed-up with endless jam tomorrow arguments. The cycle of empty promises feeds the demigods.

My advice. Even if it’s just one pothole is fixed – tell people.

[1] Book Title – In Praise of Public Life : the Honor and Purpose of Political Science

Finding Balance

Regulation can be a contentious issue. That’s an understatement. A spectrum of views extends from the complete libertarian to the past soviet model. Citizens shouldn’t be encumbered by any restrictions to the State has the right to dictate every aspect of life. Clearly, there are immense downsides to either of these extremes. Luckily, although not everyone will agree, the set of political choices available in the UK covers the wide range from the far-right to the far-left. These labels are deficient when it comes to the detail. Often these two camps are similar in their authoritarian ways and means.

Rejecting the extremes, being a liberal, means finding a balance. That means a minimal number of rules and regulations to achieve the prosperity, safety and security goals that most people happily support.

A pendulum swings in the British political cycle. Never quite sure what the cycle time is on this one. What’s for sure is that our society’s tendency is to go from urges to tighten-up rules and regulations to impulses to eliminate or relax them with gusto. Often, the aim is to tweak or protect economic stability or tweak or promote economic growth. After the banking crisis of 2008 it was the first of these, now it’s the second.

Brexit is a strange oddity. Although, great claims were made for the loosening of the ties that bind us, the reality has been much onshoring of past rules and regulation. The forces of continuity have some good arguments.

It’s reported that Prime Minister Starmer is considering dynamically aligning UK regulations with EU regulations, as if that’s not happening pragmatically and piecemeal already. OK, this is not consistent across every sector of the economy. It’s a mixed bag. Politicians banging the drum but not doing much.

Let’s say the financial services market goes a different way from the technology sector. One has a history as long as your arm the other is being made-up as we speak. Clearly, there are risks in both deregulation and overregulation. Thus, I get back to that notion of finding a balance.

To hardened Brexiters EU and UK rules constrain. To their supporters they enable, facilitate and transform.

Now, what’s difficult to discern is where do Starmer and Reeves stand?

A direction of travel, to encourage investment in the UK, has been touted. That implies alignment rules. Investors rightly seek the largest market on offer. Like it or not, the UK is not the US, or even the EU when it comes to the size of its economy. Maybe, it’s taken Brexit to realise that we align as a matter of common interest. Mutual benefit.

Most of our safety and security goals are not subjects of intense competition. If you fly internationally, why would it make sense to compete on safety or security? The general expectation is that common high levels of safety and security are desirable.

As the weather improves so we are heading towards a year of the Labour Party in power. There’s disappointment and concern about the timidity of their actions. The word “reset” is banded about. A ridiculous word. Press the reset button to restore a past condition. No, choices need to be made. Closer alignment and partnership with the EU are the rational choices.

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 21st 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/