The Lyin' King Must Go

Not content with misleading Britain into economic hell, Boris Johnson has now succeeded in misleading great swathes of the British public to their ultimate doom. Yesterday, after spending weeks claiming that the UK is "well prepared" to deal with the COVID 19 strain of coronavirus, his government finally admitted that the UK is, you guessed it... not well prepared. In fact, it desperately needs extra ventilators and staff to care for the critically ill among the 7.9 million who may need to be hospitalised. So desperately are ventilators required, that the government will pay "any price" for them, and even wants manufacturers of diggers and other heavy equipment to have a go at making ventilators instead. So much for Brexit Britain's export hopes. That's enough lies now. Any basis for trusting this lot has disappeared - and trust is absolutely critical if the public is to follow government advice. It really is time for Johnson and his Brexiteers to take a well earned rest from government.

Aside from the catalogue of lies before Christmas, consider the following timeline on coronavirus:

In 2016, the NHS ran a pandemic drill called "Exercise Cygnus" after which the Chief Medical Officer warned that the UK faced "inadequate ventilation". Here's the NHS England influenza pandemic response plan for 2017, which does not mention of ventilator/ventilation but refers to 'stockpiles' of peronal protective equipment and other 'measures'.

At the end of December and on 6 and 9 January 2020, warnings were issued of a 'flu-like outbreak' in China by Canadian and US monitoring systems and the World Health Organisation.

On Thursday 23 January 2020, the British Health Secretary, Matt "Mattymatics" Hancock insisted the NHS was "well prepared" for any outbreak of coronavirus in the UK, and told Parliament that the UK was "well equipped" to deal with any cases.

On 26 January 2020, Labour's shadow health secretary warned the government that "The NHS is currently under immense strain this winter with staff already working flat out and hospitals overcrowded."

On 31 January 2020, the lying continued:

Authorities have said the NHS is ‘extremely well-prepared’ for cases of the Wuhan novel coronavirus.

Chief Medical Officer for England Professor Chris Whitty said: ‘We have been preparing for UK cases of novel coronavirus and we have robust infection control measures in place to respond immediately.

On the same day, a British official attended EU health security meeting to discuss buying ventilators and protective equipment [updated 1.04.20].

On 3 February 2020, Hancock said again, "Our world-class NHS is well prepared and we are doing everything we can to protect the public."

That same day, Johnson gave a speech at Greenwich promoting Brexit.

And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage, then at that moment humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other.

On 4 February 2020, Britain was again represented at an EU health security meeting where procuring kit was discussed [updated 1.04.20].

On 11 and 12 February 2020, the World Health Organisation hosted a summit of 400 international to coordinate a global response to COVID 19, at which the Director General said:

As of 6am Geneva time this morning, there were 42,708 confirmed cases reported in China, and tragically we have now surpassed 1000 deaths - 1017 people in China have lost their lives to this virus. Most of the cases and most of the deaths are in Hubei province, Wuhan.

Outside China, there are 393 cases in 24 countries, and 1 death.

Johnson was then missing for 12 days in February, returning on 26 February, when Hancock told Parliament:

“We are taking all necessary measures to minimise the risk to the public... we are still in the phase of the plan which is contain – where we aim to contain the virus, both abroad and here at home, to prevent it becoming a pandemic whilst of course ensuring plans are in place should that happen.”

On 29 February 2020, NHS doctors were warning that the government has "no idea" on coronavirus.

On 2 March 2020, Britain was again represented at an EU health security meeting where procuring kit was discussed [updated 1.04.20]. 

On 3 March 2020, a survey of 1,618 NHS doctors found that 99% "were not in agreement with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s assurances that the health service could cope with a major coronavirus outbreak in the UK".

On 6 March 2020, Johnson said, "We are ensuring the country is prepared for the current outbreak, guided by the science at every stage."

On 12 March 2020, the WHO announced that COVID 19 could formally be described as a "pandemic", with 20,000 confirmed cases and almost 1000 deaths in Europe. The WHO's director for the region said:

More and more countries are now experiencing clusters of cases or community transmission. We expect that in the days and weeks ahead, the number of cases and the number of deaths will continue to rise rapidly, and we must escalate our response in such a way as to take pre-emptive action wherever possible. Such actions may help to delay the pandemic, giving health-care systems time to prepare and assimilate the impact.

On 12 March 2020, Johnson began to change tune, saying, "unfortunately, more families are going to lose loved ones before their time."

On 13 March 2020, Britain was again represented at an EU health security meeting where procuring kit was discussed [updated 1.04.20].

On 15 March 2020 - over seven weeks after assuring the public that the NHS is "well prepared" - Hancock "admitted to the UK being unprepared for the toll this pandemic will take. Particularly he spoke of a shortage of ventilators and the trained staff needed to operate them."

On 16 March 2020, Johnson also began begging for ventilators, with the reality being:

"Ventilators are vital as medical experts estimate that between 10% and 20% of those who succumb to the virus will need critical care. Many of those will need help breathing.

Although firms stand ready and able to produce more ventilators, a lack of clarity on design specifications and component sourcing mean that production remains many weeks away."

Updated: 21.04.20

On 19 March 2020, the European Commission announced a bid to stockpile ventilators and protective equipment. That same day, Hancock stated on BBC Question Time that the UK was participating in the EU procurement bid. On 24 March, the Commission announced the protective equipment would be available in two weeks.

But, on 26 March 2020, Johnson announced that the UK would not participate in the EU procurement bid because he had decided Brexit Britain should get its own ventilators... presumably unaware of Hancock's commitment to participate on 19 March. Within hours he tried to claim instead that the UK had not received the 'email' in time to participate (despite a British official attending four EU health security meetings where procurement was being planned).

Ironically, Johnson himself began showing symptoms of having caught COVID19 on 27 March, and found himself in hospital on 5 April 2020 and intensive care on the 6th. He left hospital on 12 April to rest at Chartwell House for 2 weeks...

Meanwhile, on 21 April 2020, Sir Simon McDonald, chief civil servant in the Foreign Office confirms to a Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the UK not participating in the EU procurement exercise was "a political decision". "Ministers were briefed on what was available, what was on offer by the mission in Brussels and the decision is known." Yet the same day, Hancock tells the daily press briefing that he decided the UK was in the EU procurement scheme and it remains in, but the scheme has not yet delivered...

All this from someone who keeps promising to "do whatever it takes".

How many more such phrases must be rendered meaningless by this snake oil salesman?

Time to run these con men out of office.

Compassion Separates Rational Liberals From Populist Libertarians

For those driven to despair by the rise of Brexit Johnson (or Trump or any of the other right wing demagogues), "How to Beat a Populist" promises some relief. We know that the populist, libertarian message is emotional, nationalistic, angry, false and divisive. We know that rational argument seems a waste of time and we shouldn't allow ourselves to "get dragged down to their level", but with the populists dominating the political scene it's hard to know what else to actually do.

Enter Larry Diamond, from Stanford University, jangling a bunch of keys that might just unlock a more rational future.  Here's a flavour of what to Do:

• Pursue an inclusive strategy - connect with the doubters among the populist support base
• Appeal to their interests and positive values
• Stick to liberal principles and behaviour
• Show humility, empathy - even love - understand why they answered the siren song of illiberal populism, and what positive, unifying messages or policies would address those anxieties
• Focus on positive, practical, evidence/issues-based policies that expose/exploit the populist's failings and vulnerabilities
• Offer a liberal, democratic vision for unifying pride in the country (patriotism, not nationalism)
• Offer hope and excitement for an optimistic vision of a better future 
• Find lively and creative ways to communicate a message of hope, inspiration, and concrete policy alternatives with passion and conviction. 

Here's a flavour of what to avoid:

• writing off anyone who voted for the populist as or "deplorable” 
• questioning the morals or motives of populist sympathizers
• tit-for-tat 'slugfests'
• the muck of ridicule, invective or verbal abuse.  
• ideological or 'radical' policy proposals 
• looking backwards
• being boring
• falsehood. 

Overall, the message I'm getting is to be compassionate. At the end of the day, everyone is let down by a populist leader. Some were duped into believing, some knowingly believed and others never  believed and even vigorously opposed, but it's kind of irrelevant to the future - the "Now What?"  We are all victims, and we must club together to dig our way out of the populist hole.

Beyond The Brink: The Brinkmanship Is Over For #BrexitBoris And His Merry Band Of Brexidiots

Source: Byline Times

Boris Johnson has always known that leaving the EU is not in the UK's interests. Now he must live with it - and each of us must take our own path out of this mess.

Like spoilt kids, Johnson and his Brexidiot cronies want Little England to have the benefits of EU membership without the obligations. 

Their only weapon has been brinkmanship - threats of a referendum, threats of invoking Article 50, threats of leaving without a withdrawal agreement, and now threats of trading with no free trade deal. 

But the EU27 have called Britain's bluff every single time, and now Britain is beyond the brink. 

All that is left is endless whingeing about how tedious it is to be a 'third country' and the negotiation of 600 international trade agreements. 

There is no half-way house. 

This is crippling for services, in particular. The City can push for 'equivalence' instead of passporting for financial services, but knows that equivalence can end quickly (ask the Swiss). Everyone else is stuck with a mish mash of different rules, including inconsistent recognition of qualifications and some weird visa restrictions for business travellers. Why else would the EU have simplified it all with just 'four freedoms of movement' for goods, services, capital and labour? What else would tempt others to join the trade club?

So people and businesses must simply adapt to the UK's new status.  If you want to export anything to the EEA, then relocate the relevant operations to an EU27 member state, get qualified there (as I did in 2018) - whatever it takes.

The time for trusting the UK government to look after your interests is over.

You're on your own.

Well, At Least We'll Learn A Lot From These Lunatics

"You only learn when things to wrong," my first legal boss used to remind me, and he wasn't wrong. Four years at the bar, sifting through the debris of old deals, taught me a lot about negotiating new ones. Observing the slow decline of Reuters in the mid-90s was another tutorial, as was enduring the tech boom and bust, working through a bunch of old loans that GE had bought a decade later and then launching Zopa into the teeth of the credit boom and ensuing financial crisis. Advising on the odd regulatory hiccup since then has reinforced the concept, which also helps with morale, of course. And with so much 'going wrong' on such a grand scale right now, maintaining morale is more important than ever. So what do we stand to learn? Well, I reckon the top 3 lessons of 2020 will be: the importance of facts, that the worst is yet to come and we need to figure out how to preserve government know how for when it can be used again...

You Can't Fight The Facts: The Truth Will Out...

The current crop of populist leaders have all seized power by targeting nationalistic lies at the gullible. The marriage of patriotism and intelligence has ended in divorce. Whether it's #ScottyFromMarketing downunder, Trump, Modi, Maduro, Bolsinaro, Erdogan, Orban or our very own #BrexitBoris, they've all avoided letting the truth get in the way of an emotive story. 

It's not unusual for politicians to lie, misinform and gaslight their voters. What is unusual is the sheer scale of the latest political mendacity. 

Yet, the bigger the lie, the harder it is to control or suppress the truth, and one by one these fascistic fantasists are finding themselves facing hot blasts of unadulterated fact. Eventually their lies will be exposed for all to see, and any majority support will melt away.

But don't hold your breath...

Nationalist Economies Will Get Much Worse Before They Get Better...

The 'quid pro quo' (to borrow a well-worn phrase from 2019) for this love affair with lies is that nationalist governments are not focused on their societies' genuine problems, let alone solving the root causes of those problems. Nationalism involves denying the real problems and blaming others for imaginary ones. This creates new problems while the country's infrastructure and governing processes decay. This has been a constant feature of the Trump regime, in particular (as Michael Lewis has observed), but is perhaps best encapsulated by Brexit. 

Reversing the decay will require an electorate to fall out of love with the lies and support reform. That would give politicians permission to identify and define the actual problems, prioritise the most pressing ones, burrow into the data to identify the root causes and the improvements that would provide the most bang for the buck, and put in place the warning systems to alert us to future failings. The changes would need to be communicated carefully, in the face of inevitable resistance by the rump of nationalist disciples. But that process would take a looooong time, since anyone who understands the issues today will have lost interest, retired or found a new role by the time things get bad enough for anyone to want to fix them, let alone muster widespread support for doing so.  

Compare that process with Dum Cummings latest blog post (ironically entitled 'Two hands are a lot' since he couldn't find his arse with both of them). His undoubted success as a right wing, nationalist, populist political strategist will be dwarfed by his failure as a government strategist. But the Johnson government will have to be seen to fail before anyone else will get a mandate to undertake the huge job of reversing the decline.

This raises the problem of how to avoid losing government know how in the meantime... 

Preserving Government Knowledge

How to manage the transition from one manager to another (succession-planning) is a major issue for everyone, especially large organisations and government departments. Michael Lewis has revealed that it was not something that ever concerned Donald Trump, and there is plenty of evidence from British civil servants that it was not a high priority for Cameron or May, and it is certainly lost on Boris Johnson. Many senior civil servants have left government, often simply to retire. Their knowledge and experience will have been lost without adequate transition arrangements. Meanwhile, the ministerial leadership, policies and/or performance of departments like the Home Office, Health, Work and Pensions, Prisons and Transport seem on the slide from bad to worse.

Similarly, areas of policy and funding that the UK agreed to centralise within the EU, and the framework on which Britain trades with the EU and other countries under EU free trade deals will be lost. Britain doesn't have any civil servants duplicating tasks that were performed at EU level (like funding the EU's least economically developed regions, 6 of which are in the UK); and the EU trade deals cannot be replicated outside the EU (and certainly not within the 11 months May and Johnson negotiated).

In the microcosm of a large government department poorly overseen by ignorant ministers and deserted by seasoned officials, or a region dependent on development knowledge and funding, this represents a massive dislocation. To put this in context, Venezuela's institutions collapsed in under 20 years, and the Soviet Union fell apart in 6 years. Hell, it only took 40 years for Britain's entire economy to collapse after the Romans left. 

The history of the British civil service is littered with experiments on how best to equip the nation's institutions with the right knowledge, expertise and experience. It does not make encouraging reading, but if Britain's economic history is anything to go by, it seems likely to take at least 10 years to turn things around, if there's the will to begin the process and work at it...

Conclusion

If we only learn when things go wrong, we're going to learn an awful lot!  

How To Enjoy Boris Johnson's Amazing* Brexit ShitShow™ - Season 5

Boris Biosuit - flameproof for winters in Oz or Brazil

Peering through the smoke billowing out of Scotty Morrison's Amazing* Coalfired CookOut™ I can dimly make out the shape and outline of someone or something that should make 2020 a truly fabulous year for the little Englander. But what about the rest of you? Here are my top tips, in no particular order...

Lock the doors and only deal with private couriers

The downside to travelling from all over Britain to participate in million-people marches is that Duminic Cummings knows what you look like and where you live. Moving around outside your house is ill-advised. Dim Martin controls the high streets through his network of pubs, and soon your postman will be replaced by a robot distributing IEDs manufactured by Britain First.

Robot delivering an IED made by Britain First

So make the most of house arrest by adopting industrial security measures and, say, redecorating the bedroom like your favourite hotel suite. Get sand and a plastic coconut palm for the living room. Have family members choose a different name, accent and style of beachwear each week to simulate your desired foreign resort experience.

And remember, use only private couriers to receive deliveries that have been specifically ordered by you personally, dig a deep trench just outside the front door and never accept a delivery for the nice neighbour(s). Those times are over.

Hedge Rising Food Costs by Speculating On All Black Tickets

Kiwi sheep are agents of the NZRU

The ride is over for farmers, particularly those who breed sheep. Once the British sheep have all been burnt or buried, agricultural subsidies will only go to landlords developing caravan parks for Tory voters. This will also be great news for Kiwi shepherds, who will dominate the British lamb market. All New Zealand sheep are secret agents of the New Zealand Rugby Union, so you can easily hedge your exposure to rising food costs by pre-purchasing tickets to All Black matches and flogging them on secondary ticketing sites or agreeing profit-share deals with local touts.

Commit to, Say, Building a Zip-line From Dover To France

Last mile of Dover to Paris Zip Line

As I've explained before, the key to success, wealth and happiness in this neo-post-truth world lies not in a hard day's work for a fair day's pay. No. In 2020, you will only be able to finance your house-bound fantasies by leveraging the 'bandwagon' and 'snowball' effects. To do this you must concoct a hugely ambitious, unique, deceptively simple, vaguely plausible scheme that is not actually achievable or demonstrable but is nevertheless the kind of thing in which your victims investors can have faith.  Boris Johnson himself has succeeded with commitments to an airport in the middle of the Thames, a 'garden bridge' in London, Brexit (of course) and, most recently, a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland - or vice versa, depending on your point of view - whereas the best part about a zip-line from the UK to France is that it's one-way.

* causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing.

The Age Of Conspicuous Thrift Returns With A Vengeance

A decade ago, amidst the echoes of the global financial crisis, we were talking about a new Age of Conspicuous Thrift and the 'counter-Veblen effect' when "preferences for goods increase as their price falls, over and above the traditional supply and demand effect, due to a conspicuous thrift amongst some consumers." A week ago, it was pointed out there are more food banks than McDonalds outlets in the UK. And a survey by Mazuma Mobile, the mobile phone recycling firm, has found that 85% of Brits regularly purchase pre-owned products instead of new, from books and handbags, to computers and mobile phones. In fact, 45% plan on giving pre-owned items as gifts this Christmas and 52% would happily receive them.

Over the past decade we've had very low interest rates, plenty of cheap credit, £36bn in PPI compensation (though some is yet to be paid), strong employment and some feeble growth, yet UK household debt remains at record levels and the UK economy is shrinking. That means 2020 is set to be a very hard year, which explains why so many Brits are battening down the hatches - particularly those in the early stages of their careers. Previously, those aged 25 – 34 were most likely to purchased pre-owned items as gifts, but they've been overtaken by 18 – 24 year olds. 

Londoners (60%) and the Northern Irish (66%) are happiest to receive pre-owned items as presents, yet even the lowest figure is still 43% (in the North West), which means conspicuous thrift, rather than conspicuous consumption has really taken hold in the UK. 

Craig Smith from Mazuma Mobile says: 

“Attitudes are changing towards pre-owned shopping as people become savvier with their cash...  many of us are simply happy to receive something we like, especially when it’s better for the environment and our wallets. In fact, over a third of those we surveyed (37%) said they would consider having an entirely pre-owned Christmas this year, including gifts and decorations!"

The top 10 pre-owned items purchased among the 2,000 people surveyed by Mazuma Mobile via OnePoll in October 2019 were:

1. Books (68%) 

2. Cars (62%) 

3. Furniture (49%) 

4. Clothes (43%) 

5. Jewellery (37%) 

6. Musical instruments (35%) 

7. Mobile phones (34%) 

8. Televisions (32%) 

9. Handbags (29%) 

10. Computers (29%) 

It's Time To Focus On Johnson's AltRight And Russian Links

With Boris Johnson desperate for a quick General Election, it's important to be aware that the Trump Presidency is simultaneously unravelling over links with Dmitry Firtash, securities fraudster Lev Parnas and the mob and the British authorities are reported to have their own concerns about some of Johnson's relationships. The legality of these need to be clarified if we are to have any chance of avoiding another election featuring fake news and dodgy funding, though Facebook isn't proving helpful either...

Johnson's links with Trump's AltRight pals include Steve Bannon and the Breitbart Boys - like Trump's speechwriter and rally fluffer, Stephen Miller. Bannon has advised Boris Johnson, among other European right wing political party leaders. And Miller attended the Innotech Summit hosted by Johnson's pole-dancing "friend" Jennifer Arcuri, whose links with Johnson are also the subject of investigation. Matthew Elliott chaired Johnson's Vote Leave campaign, and brings an array of AltRight contacts and funding links.

Johnson has also been linked to Russian tycoons Lebedev and Temerko, while Tory Brexidiots and Vote Leave's campaign director and Johnson adviser, Dom Dum Cummings, have long-standing ties to Dmitry Firtash - the same Ukrainian 'oligarch' at the heart of Trump's attempt to lift sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and for the Ukrainians to publicly investigate his 2020 campaign opponent - for which Trump is now being impeached.

That's also important because Vanity Fair recently reminded us that:

"...Trump called Johnson on July 26, two days after the new U.K. prime minister took office, apparently to ask BoJo for help compiling evidence to undermine the investigation into his campaign‘s ties to Russia. For those of you keeping up at home, that’s just one day after Trump spoke to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and asked for “a favor...”

Note that US Republicans consider that donations arranged by Trump henchman Lev Parnas are so dodgy that they were simply returned.

All of this also makes you wonder again where Arron Banks' £8m donation to the Leave cause might have ultimately came from... even if it was not unlawful.

And with Fakebook determined not to police political advertising and yet to admit any wrongdoing to the UK's Information Commissioner over Cambridge Analytica, we could well be in for another dodgy British election.

Do You Know You Are Using And/Or Exposed To Artificial Intelligence?

Source: datamation

Amid the news that the Department of Work and Pensions is using artificial intelligence to decide benefits claims, a third of UK financial firms recently told the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority they were not using 'machine learning' (a subset of AI) in their businesses. That's pretty concerning, given the kind of AI we all use without realising and the fact that anyone wrongly denied benefits will need short term finance. That response also begs the question whether those firms know how their many stakeholders are using AI (whether unwittingly or not). If their suppliers, intermediaries, customers, investors, competitors and the government are using AI, then how does that affect their own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats? And how does that in turn affect their stakeholders? No city on Earth is ready for the disruptive effects of artificial intelligence. Also worrying is the finding that smaller, fintech firms seem to believe that machine learning is no use to them. And given the problems with AI explained below, it's important for everyone to consider whether and how they rely on or are otherwise exposed to the two thirds of financial firms who are actually using AI... hyping the benefits without understanding the shortcomings will harm our trust AI where it could be helpful.

What is AI?

The term "AI" embraces a collection of technologies and applications, with machine learning usually featuring at some point:

• narrow artificial intelligence
• machine learning
• artificial neural networks 
• deep learning networks 
• automation
• robotics
• autonomous vehicles, aircraft and vessels
• image and facial recognition
• speech and acoustic recognition
• personalisation
• Big Data analytics

At the recent SCL event I chaired in Dublin, Professor Barry O'Sullivan explained that AI technologies themselves may be complex, but the concepts are simple. In essence, machine learning differs from traditional computer programming in that:

• traditionally, we load a software application and data into a computer, and run the data through the application to produce a result (e.g. how much I spent on coffee last year);

• while machine learning involves feeding the data and desired outputs into one or more computers or computing networks that are designed to write the programme (e.g. you feed in data on crimes/criminals and the output of whether those people re-offended, with the object of producing a programme that will predict whether a given person will re-offend). In this sense, data is used to ‘train’ the computer to write and adapt the programme, which constitutes the "artificial intelligence".

What is AI used for?

AI is used for:

1. Clustering: putting items of data into new groups (discovering patterns);
2. Classifying: putting a new observation into a pre-defined category based on a set of 'training data'; or
3. Predicting: assessing relationships among many factors to assess risk or potential relating to particular conditions (e.g. creditworthiness).

The Challenges with AI

The primary concerns about AI relate to:

1. cost/benefit - $50m in electricity to teach an AI to beat a human being at Go, hundreds of attempts to get a robot to do a backflip, but it can't open a door;
2. dependence on data quantity, quality, timeliness and availability;
3. lack of  understanding - AI is better at some tasks than humans (narrow AI) but general AI (same as humans) and superintelligence (better than humans at everything) are the stuff of science fiction. The AI that can predict 79% of European Court judgments doesn't know any law, it just counts how often words appear alone, in pairs or fours;
4. inaccuracy - no AI is 100% accurate;
5. lack of explainability - machine learning involves the computer adapting the programme in response to data, and it might react differently to the same data added later, based on what it has 'learned' in the meantime; 
6. the inability to remove both selection bias and prediction bias - adding a calibration layer to adjust the mean prediction only fixes the symptoms, not the cause, and makes the system dependent on both the prediction bias and calibration layer remaining up to date/aligned over time; 
7. the challenges associated with the reliability of evidence and how to resolve disputes arising from its use; and
8. there's a long list of legal issues, but lawyers aren't typically engaged in development and deployment.

This means the use of AI cannot be ignored. We have to be careful to understand the shortcomings and avoid hyping the benefits if we are to ensure trust in AI. That means challenging its use where the consequences of selection bias or false positives/negatives are fatal or otherwise unacceptable, such as denying fundamental rights or compensation for loss.

Instead, artificial neural networks and deep learning are better used to automate decision-making where "the level of accuracy only needs to be "tolerable" for commercial parties [who are] interested only in the financial consequences... than for individuals concerned with issues touching on fundamental rights."

Being realistic about AI and its shortcomings also has implications for how it is regulated. Rather than risk an effective ban on AI by regulating it according to the hype, regulation should instead focus on certifying AI's development and transparency in ways that enable us to understand its shortcomings to aid in our decision about where it can be developed and deployed appropriately.

The Conspiracy Theory Of Conspiracy Theories

I'm fascinated by conspiracy theories, and just happened across the Daddy. Corey Doctorow, the entertaining science fiction writer, believes he's found the source of them all:

"... [conspiracy theories] aren’t attributable to ideology or mind-control rays... at root, they are a disagreement about how we know whether something is true or not. When we argue about the flat Earth, we’re not just debating the shape of our planet: We’re debating the method by which we can know its shape....40 years of rising inequality and industry consolidation have turned our truth-seeking exercises into auctions, in which lawmakers, regulators and administrators are beholden to a small cohort of increasingly wealthy people who hold their financial and career futures in their hands. Industry consolidation makes it startlingly cheap to buy the truth: Once an industry consists of a handful of players, it’s easy for everyone to agree on the play, and the only people qualified to be referees are drawn from the companies’ own executive ranks, whence they will return after their spin in governance’s revolving door."

Not only is this thesis merely political hogwash designed to justify a call to break up certain industry oligopolies, but it also serves to highlight how the human brain works to make conspiracies attractive in the first place (as explored by Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman and Nicholas Taleb, often mentioned here). 

The central problem is 'overconfidence' - the belief that our existence is somehow 'controlled' rather than random (also at the root of creationism vs natural selection, for example).

I mean, just imagine if all the data that every human perceives really were "bought" or curated by "a handful of players" - let alone after only 40 years of trying...

A moment's thought, let alone a cursory read of James Gleick's excellent history of humanity's attempt to master information reveals this would not be possible. And many different conspiracy theories abound in the many different communities around the planet.

Even complaints about deliberate misinformation causing the outcome of specific votes, like Brexit, are overdone. As Taleb points out, such outcomes may be classified as Black Swans - surprise events that we try to rationalise by hindsight. Lies and misinformation might be part of the swirl surrounding Brexit, yet may really only correlate with the result without being causative - they could be just as symptomatic of a deeper malaise as the result of the vote itself. 

That's not to say lies and electoral violations should be overlooked or go unpunished - or that we should not try to rectify obvious economic mistakes or life-threatening misconceptions like the "Anti-Vax" movement. But ultimate 'control' just isn't an option. We can only minimise our exposure to the downside, and maximise our exposure to the upside, of the major events that shape our history.

Applying that to Doctorow's theory: the break of up of industry oligopolies may be worthwhile for certain reasons, but that process will not somehow restore human control over the 'truth' - any more than it will alter human psychology.

Why Suggest A Bridge Between Scotland and Ireland?

Popularity develops through the snowball effect and the bandwagon effect. Some things or people are popular because they're useful, solve a real problem or are widely appreciated for some intrinsic quality: the wheel, a rock song/group, the telephone...  But what if you have nothing genuine to offer? How do you create your own snowball and bandwagon effects out of thin air? 

You do what every snake oil salesman in the Wild West did, what Bernie Madoff did, what every religious sect leader has done, what reality TV show producers do - and what the likes of Farage, Johnson and Gove have done...

You create or 'boost' something hugely ambitious, unique, deceptively simple, vaguely plausible but not actually 'real' in the sense of being achievable or demonstrable. Something in which your victims can only have faith.

Committing to solve a really big, actual problem is out of the question. Firstly, it's really hard and will take a long time, because it involves changing actual behaviour and fighting inertia - the resistance to change. Secondly, it won't make you exclusively popular because you'll likely be competing with lots of others trying to solve the same problem. You won't stand out in the crowd. You won't capture peoples' attention.

And real problems won't capture your followers' imagination or their faith.

To make your victims cling to their belief for a long time, you also need a goal that’s really big and ambitious - because, if they go for it, a big project will commits lots of people, money and resources that can't easily be redeployed.

And if the goal isn't 'real' it can never quite be achieved or delivered or found (think the Holy Grail): the quest is never-ending. Once you’ve got your popularity snowballing it's just about the journey, not the destination. Nobody wants to stop believing (and spending). Negotiating trade deals is an endless process - the job of leaving the EU successfully will literally never be "done". There's no easy way to leave the cult. Inertia is now on your side!

Here are some examples of projects that were or are hugely ambitious, deceptively simple, vaguely plausible but not actually achieved or achievable that seem to have been conjured up to boost someone's popularity... You'll see that Johnson's proposal for a bridge between Scotland and Ireland fits right in - get that feasibility study started!

• an airport in the middle of the Thames;

• long term stock market returns of 11% (not the widely accepted 8%);

•  Farage's decades long quest for Britain to leave the EU;

• the 'Leave' campaigns, as backed by Johnson/Gove and Farage/Banks;

• the garden bridge;

• donate X% of your income for eternal salvation;

• build a bridge between Scotland and Ireland. 

And finally, a word from the perpetrator of the biggest fraud of all time... (or is it?)...

Which UK Government Policies Would Prevent Free Trade Deals?

We know that the Johnson regime wants a No Deal Brexit, and that Labour only opposes that subject to agreeing its own form of Brexit. But any form of Brexit would doom the UK to lengthy trade talks and related political turmoil in a situation where Brits can no longer live and work freely in 30 other countries or trade freely with the EU and other countries under EU free trade deals. A limited 'transition' or 'implementation' period merely sugar coats the pill: Brexit spells the end of freedom of movement for labour, goods, services and capital.

In this context, the prospects for new free trade arrangements are absolutely critical, and a key consideration is whether any UK government policies or party conference 'manifesto commitments' stand in the way of negotiations. 

I've started a general list below, including policies that could either directly prevent a deal being agreed and those that could discourage businesses from a partner country actually investing in the UK or undertaking trade anyway:

• breaching the Good Friday Agreement - the US congress has already signaled that it will not approve a free trade deal with the UK that endangers the GFA;

• nationalisation plans - EU state aid rules already permit nationally owned assets (though rules on nationalising/subsidising railways are changing, for example) but Labour has said that it wants to nationalise a much wider scope of the UK economy and "rejects the whole principle of free trade";

• capital controls: the UK government might first introduce controls aimed at preventing the flight of funds resulting from policies that are not compatible with existing foreign investment or that will make the UK uncompetitive with other investment opportunities. Nationalisation plans would be a particular problem given the amount of foreign ownership of utilities and other formerly public assets. There must also be concerns that foreign nationals will want to get their assets out when they wish to leave (and before any capital controls come in). Capital controls are also part of a country's monetary armoury for numerous other reasons - especially when an economy is teetering on the brink of disaster. Capital controls are excluded in US free trade deals and would likely be contested in international arbitration, subject to the IMF's power to require them to safeguard its resources. We've heard nothing from Johnson's crew on this (although the Tories have been traditionally very reluctant to introduce meaningful constraints on dodgy funds flows and Johnson cares even less about the rule of law), but John McDonnell has tried to assure people that Labour won't introduce capital controls while talking about plans that effectively require them. Problem is that governments may not warn people before introducing capital controls for obvious reasons...;

• breakdown in the rule of law - traditionally not associated with the UK, but that reputation has been vastly undermined by the antics of the Conservative Party during the past four years and particularly the Johnson crew during the Leave campaign and over the past few weeks. Threats not to implement customs checks or to withhold payments due to the EU under budgetary commitments are particularly concerning. Nobody wants a deal that involves constant disputes and endless international arbitration proceedings; and businesses won't trade in violation of terms where that lands them in hot water or isn't otherwise in their interests.

Clearly, any government also has to be careful not to lose sight of many other factors that contribute to people and businesses' assessment about the relative attractiveness of doing business in a country more generally - such as unusual or extraordinary taxes on income, property and transactions.

The Latest Designer Drug: 1D10C

Drug classes A, B and C to remain

UK drug enforcement officials say a new drug has taken hold in Britain, pushing 'traditional' class A drugs aside.

Code-named "1D10C",  the new drug comes in powdered and liquid form, and can be administered through any external body orifice, with many even preferring to receive it in the form of inhalers, eye drops and ear drops, making detection almost impossible.

Effects include unexplained euphoria, self-confidence and loquaciousness - the tendency to be overly talkative.  

Side effects include paranoia, delusional episodes, lack of concentration, the inability to grasp complex problems, lack of empathy and poor verbal and non-verbal reasoning.

While not yet classified, officials have begun investigating the sources and usage patterns of 1D10C in Britain. Recent admissions of drug usage among political candidates has drawn officers' attention to their ranks, as well as individuals working in media, public relations and political lobbying organisations, as well as large political donors.

While declining to give further details or to be named, one senior investigator said, "We see the flow of political donations in support of projects that are obviously flawed or based on a mistaken understanding of how certain processes or industries work as likely indicators that this drug may be being distributed and abused in large quantities." She declined to say when the investigation would end, or the likely outcome, but one possible result would be a recommendation that the drug be classified in order to restrict its availability.

Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party declined the opportunity to comment.

Is BigTech Still Battling The Entire Human Race, Or Just Some Of Us?

Readers will be familiar with my view that we consumers tend to be loyal to 'facilitators' who focus on solving our problems, rather than 'institutions' who solve their own problems at our expense. Previously trusted service providers can also lose their facilitator status, and I'd argue that Facebook has already done so (owing to privacy, electoral and extremist content scandals) and Google is firmly headed in that direction (through behaviour incurring massive EU fines). Yet, despite announcements designed to suggest increasing transparency, it seems BigTech is actively resisting independent human oversight and the perceived battle between computers and the human race is far from over...

Part of the problem is that 'BigTech' firms still operate as agents of retailers and other organisations who pay them vast amounts of money for exploiting our personal data targeting advertising at us, rather than as our agents for the purpose of finding what we need or want while shielding us against exploitation. In fact, this is the year when digital advertising spend will exceed spending on the old analogue 'meat space' channels. 

Combine that exploitative role with rogue artificial intelligence (AI) and you have a highly toxic reputational cocktail - particularly because AI based on machine learning is seemingly beyond human investigation and control. 

For instance, Amazon found that an AI programme used for its own recruiting purposes was terribly biased, but could not figure out what was going wrong or how to fix it, so had to simply shut the thing down.  Alarmingly, that suggests other AI programmes that are already notorious for being biased, such as those used for 'predictive policing', are also beyond fixing and should be shut down...

Many BigTech firms are appointing 'ethics boards' to try to avoid their AI programmes heading in inappropriate directions. Trouble is, not only is there doubt about what data scientists might view as inappropriate (which drove the appointment of ethics boards in the first place), but these boards are also generally toothless (only CEOs and main boards can decide the actual course of development), and tend to be populated by industry insiders who sit on each other's ethics boards. 

It is unclear, for example, whether the recommendations of the ethics committee overseeing the West Midlands police 'predictive policing' algorithm will be followed. Meanwhile, 14 other UK police forces are known to be using such AI programmes...

Another worrying trend is for AI firms to prevent investors voting on the company's plans, using "dual class" share structures that leave voting control with the founders rather than shareholders. Lyft is the latest to hit the news, but other offenders include Alphabet (Google), Blue Apron and Facebook, while Snap and Pinterest give shareholders zero control. Those firms might argue that stock prices are a check in themselves. But the stock market and investor greed are notorious for driving short-term decisions aimed at only maximising profits, and even giant regulatory fines are subject to appeal and can take a long time to be reflected in share prices. Voting power, on the other hand, is more qualitative and not simply a function of market forces - and the fact that it is being resisted tells you it's a promising tool for controlling BigTech.

Regulation will also be important, since fines for regulatory breaches are a source of revenue for the public sector that can be used to clean up the industry's mess and to send signals to management, investors, competitors and so on. I'm not suggesting that regulatory initiatives like the UK Brexidiot ToryKIP government's heavily ironic "Online Harms" initiative are right in the detail or approach, but Big Tech certainly cannot keep abdicating responsibility for the consequences and other 'externalities' associated with its services and approach. There has to be legal accountability - and grave consequences - for failing to ensure that AI and the firms themselves are subject to human control.

I guess the real question might be: which humans? 

Are England & Wales Ready For A Hard Border With Scotland By 2023?

With Brexit madness in full flow the case for a hard border with Scotland by 2023 is also gathering momentum. Here's why...

Even amidst the corruption and lies in the Leave campaigns during the EU referendum of 2016, Scots still voted overwhelmingly in favour of Remain 62% to 38%. 

If Brexit proceeds, the UK government believes the British economy will under-perform by about £15bn a year in terms of government tax receipts, meaning it will need to borrow more and more to maintain current spending. Even if you believe in unicorns , it's therefore likely that extreme pressure on public spending across the UK will mean declining public services and increasing misery for many. 

Against this backdrop, the economic concerns during the first Scottish independence referendum seem less troubling. After all, Scotland (population 5.4m) is larger than 7 EU member states and even if it's economy is more precarious than other small EU members, it might prefer the protection of the world's largest trade bloc to a flat-lining UK. This could also mean that qualms about accepting the Euro would fall away.

At any rate, Scotland now intends to hold a second independence referendum by 2021. As Brexit impact and uncertainty worsens, it is likely that bruised Scots will be more likely to vote for both independence from the UK and for membership of the EU.  The original margin against independence of 55:45 could therefore easily reverse.

Just as the UK is unlikely to be able to avoid physical checks at its border with Ireland, the remainder of the UK would be unable to avoid physical checks at its border with Scotland. But, perhaps more crucially, Scottish politicians seem unanimous in saying that Northern Ireland must not be placed in a better trade position with the EU than Scotland - which would be the case if the 'backstop' were to kick in.

It's also been suggested that under a 'semi-Brexit' England & Wales might benefit from this type of scenario in their ability to agree trade terms with the EU, rather like the Isle of Man.

Of course, the sensible option is to revoke the Article 50 notice and stop all this nonsense entirely, but British politicians are too scared of the fascists for that...

Why Laura K's Kasual Reference To The KKK Kan't Stand

Theresa May is no stranger to race scandals. As Home Secretary she engineered the "Hostile Environment" policy that resulted in the wrongful detention and deportation of lawful immigrants (the Windrush scandal) and has since insisted it remain government policy.

So it was no real surprise that 'Theresa The Appeaser' would invite a bunch of white male 'hard Brexiteers' for Sunday lunch at Chequers. 

But it was surprising to learn that a mysterious "couple" of "insiders" now refer to said Brexiteers as the "Grand Wizards" - a title favoured by the Klu Klux Klan, the banned hate organisation that recently reared its hooded head outside a mosque in Belfast.

What was shocking, however, is how we learned this, and the lack of any disclosure as to whether senior KKKConservatives are referring to themselves as leaders of a hate organisation - or what activity has led other "insiders" to use this specific title in relation to them.

Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC's Political Editor, clearly had the inside story on the latest internal machinations of Theresa May's lunch guests and introduced the news of another meeting by stating that "The 'Grand Wizards' (the new name for the Chequer's (sic) daytrippers apparently) also had another meeting this morning, were (sic) they discussed again whether they could get on board to back the PM's deal...". 

Wait, what?

An hour later, Laura claimed to have checked her Tweets and had a bit of rethink. Not much of one, though, because she made the situation worse by stating: "...for the avoidance of doubt, couple of insiders told me using the nickname informally, no intended connection to anything else".

This demonstrates that the "couple of insiders" and Laura herself knew of the outrageous nature of the reference to the KKK generally as well as how it might be taken in this context. Yet there was no sense that she understood that this was itself newsworthy (as subsequent events are proving) - indeed what other journalists might well have considered a 'scoop'. 

Were the "couple of insiders" who informed Laura K of "using the nickname informally" in fact any of the Brexiteers themselves?

It's worth noting that Sarah Vilethe wife of Chequers attendee Michael Gove had tweeted on Saturday the word "lynched" in reference to the People's Vote March and hubby has previously likened himself to the Grand Wizard... stating in a speech in Oxford on 7 September 2016 that: 

“I feel rather like the grand wizard of the KKK giving an address to the AGM of Black Lives Matter.” 

(thereby neatly taking the opportunity to poke fun at the latter organisation and what it stands for - two dog-whistles to far right, white supremacists in one!).

Sarah Vile Vine has since also Tweeted "In fairness, not clear that THEY have given themselves that name." [My underlining of the weasel words, her capitals].

In other words, it remains entirely possible that one or more of the hard Brexiteers have indeed given themselves that name - and we need to know whether that is the case.

After all, it is well known that, despite being banned in 26 EU countries, the KKK and far right hate preachers are attempting to spread their twisted ideology throughout Europe. And the recent event in Belfast shows they are having some effect. 

To be able to guard against the spread of hate and racism we need to know whether the KKKConservatives - and the Prime Minister herself - are making the KKK welcome. And, indeed, if this is something the BBKC itself is happy to condone - or at least ignore - rather than stamp out.

Our votes - and the BBKC's licence fee - depend on it.