A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

...almost none is a disaster. Here's the House of Lords on Artificial Intelligence:

“These principles do come to life a little bit when you think about the Cambridge Analytica situation,” he told the Guardian. “Whether or not the data analytics they carried out was actually using AI … It gives an example of where it’s important that we do have strong intelligibility of what the hell is going on with our data.”

The HoL (or one of its committees) has published a call for regulation of AI because of scary foreign monopolies:

In a wide-ranging report, the committee has identified a number of threats that mismanagement of AI could bring to Britain. One concern is of the creation of “data monopolies”, large multinational companies – generally American or Chinese, with Facebook, Google and Tencent all named as examples – with such a grip on the collection of data that they can build better AI than anyone else, enhancing their grip on the data sources and creating a virtuous cycle that renders smaller companies and nations unable to compete.

It's not at all clear as to whether the committee's concern is data collection and use (for which we have the new GDPR regulations and the Information Commissioner) or artificial intelligence. They produce a vague set of 'principles' (including one lifted straight from 'I Robot' - one wonders whether they read the book) and then present the standard response of fussbuckets:

“Of course, if in due course people are not observing these ethical principles and the regulator thinks that their powers are inadequate, then there may be a time down the track that we need to rethink this.”

Ah. "Nice AI you have there, would like to see it damaged"!

Judging from the principles, the nonsense about Cambridge Analytica and the threat of unspecified regulation, what we have here is the classic approach of the ignorant - "I've never tried it but I don't like it" - combined with regulatory authority - "we don't know what it does so we'd better stop it just in case". And if you don't think they're ignorant, suck on this...

“We want there to be an open market in AI, basically, and if all that happens is we get five or six major AI systems and you have to belong to one of them in order to survive in the modern world, well, that would be something that we don’t want to see.”

....

Blue Labour Peer proposes Fascist style House of Lords

Mussolini believed in a corporate state where a large part of the democratic structures were elected through functional groups (workers, business sectors and so forth) - a bit like this from Maurice Glasman:

The Lords, in contrast, should represent vocational democracy. There should be people elected from each sector, whether that be electrical or academic, medical or administrative. Doctors should vote for a peer, as should nurses and cleaners. It would give an incentive to the organisation of carers, builders and gardeners, who would each select a representative from within their organisation.

Aside from being pretty impractical it acts to create blocs within parliament solely vested in sectoral interest - with the result being that, as Italians discovered, you have to have a licence to open a sweet shop or set up as a gardener. Or as Benito put it:

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.

...

Members of the House of Lords are politicians - however you get them there

****

A chap from You Gov wants a 'politican free House of Lords':

So the answer is clear: to make the House of Lords a politician-free zone. By all means keep the bishops, the former generals, scientists like Lord (Robert) Winston. But anyone who has stood for election, or worked in politics, should be automatically disqualified. The Lords should be chosen from leaders across all other walks of society – what is referred to in Westminster as ‘real life’ – with the express mandate of keeping the political class in check.

There are two problems with this idea. Firstly, Freddie Sayers should check the definition of politics (and therefore of politicians). Politics describes those circumstances where we require - or believe we require - a collectively agreed policy but have people advocating mutually exclusive options for that policy. It is the means by which we make that decision. So anyone involved in deciding between mutually exclusive policy options is, ipso facto, a politician. So those great and good drafted in under Freddie's scheme cease being lawyers, doctors, generals and vicars becoming in short order good old politicians.

The second problem is that we assume that members of the great and good are not attached in any way to any party political or ideological position. This is plainly nonsense for all that the great and good protest about this, laying claim to a grandness raising them above such petty distractions as party political discourse. After all, for all his eccentricity, Lord Winston sits as a Labour peer - I presume this indicates his adherence to that Party's essential ideology.

Just because you have followed some other course in life and (since this is the House of Lords) not bothered with such risky and time-consuming things like actually getting elected, doesn't mean you aren't a politician. Once you become engaged in the process of determining, administering or scrutinising public policy you become a politician - no different to those strange creatures who inhabit the House of Commons.

Finally, a comment on this part of Freddie's nutty idea:

Impossible though it may be for our MPs’ political brains to compute, a politician-free appointed chamber could actually be the most democratic solution.

Excuse me but precisely which part of being appointed to a political position by virtue of some panel of grandees constitutes democracy?

If you want a creative and different House of Lords - how about a lottery?

...

To the new Corporate State - "Ave!"

In a fit of bizarre historical blindness some of my Conservative colleagues - led by a right Jesse -  down in the big city are proposing that members of the House of Lords be elected by institutions - corporations if you will:

The seven point plan includes a proposal to allow mass membership organisations – such as the CBI, TUC, General Medical Council or even the RSPB – to elect their own peers. 

Connoisseurs of fascism will note that this proposals echoes the very essence of Mussolini's 'Corporate State' - the spirit of Gabriele d'Annunzio's Charter of Carnaro:
 

Whatever be the kind of work a man does, whether of hand or brain, art or industry, design or execution, he must he a member of one of the ten Corporations who receive from the commune a general direction as to the scope of their activities, but are free to develop them in their own way and to decide among themselves as to their mutual duties and responsibilities.

What has possessed these politicians god alone knows. Invoking the idea of corporatism as superior to democracy is not just crass but a direct attack on the principles of personal autonomy - individual freedom - that us Conservatives cherish.

Reforming the Lords to give a bunch of national institutions - unions, guilds, special interest groups - the power to appoint legislators would hand to those organisations (not remotely to their members) a power not justified by the UK being a democracy.

....

Whatever be the kind of work a man does, whether of hand or brain, art or industry, design or execution, he must he a member of one of the ten Corporations who receive from the commune a general direction as to the scope of their activities, hut are free to develop them in their own way and to decide among themselves as to their mutual duties and responsibilities.

 

If we have to have Lords reform can we at least try to break the party stranglehold on politics?

****

So the Lords Reform bandwagon is off and rolling as the Liberal Democrats return to their obsession with putting changes to our constitution ahead of less important things like sorting out the public finances, getting a balanced set of rules for the financial sector and improving those core services to the public – schools, hospitals, social care.

And the Liberal Democrats want what it says in the Coalition agreement:

...a 300-member hybrid house, of which 80% are elected. A further 20% would be appointed, and reserve space would be included for some Church of England bishops. Under the proposals, members would also serve single non-renewable terms of 15 years. Former MPs would be allowed to stand for election to the Upper House, but members of the Upper House would not be immediately allowed to become MPs.

This, we’re told by its advocates, is a ‘radical’ solution – quite why defeats me. We replace a wholly (more-or-less) appointed body with one where people are elected for a very long time by a partisan, party-driven system. Instead of a house filled with independent-minded folk bringing expertise from a host of different backgrounds, we get another load of politicians. With all the flaws that go with this – closed party selections, central campaigns, funding problems and a disconnection with the electorate.

If we want to change (and, as a conservative, I tend to subscribe to the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” school of politics), let’s make a bigger change than just handing control of the Lords over to political party hacks. 

We could use a lottery to create an electoral college (or even to choose the members of the Lords).

We could get local councils to nominate members – perhaps proportionally across regions or sub-regions.

We could have elections without campaigning or party labels.

And we could relocate the House of Lords to Bradford.

These are radical changes. Simply electing the Lords – regardless of the system used but especially if it’s on some regional party list system – isn’t radical but is a retrograde step that gives power to dying political parties in preference to a real extension of democracy.

....

The only way to achieve this would be to scrap it...

****

...surely?

The Government attempted to quell concern that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could effectively become a ‘development tax’ this week, during a Lords debate on the Localism Bill.

Since it is a government impost on development, it is surely a tax? After all, if the developer thought that "community infrastructure" necessary it would build it and cost it within the proposed development?

The only way to stop it being a development tax would be to scrap it or make it voluntary.

....

Campaign Diary: Day Four - Denholme, the AV referendum and curry!

Of the 40 delivery rounds in Bingley Rural, only 16 remain on my dining room floor - this is excellent. Took some down to my ward colleague, Baroness Eaton - had a bit of a giggle about being a "Lord" plus some ace gossip that I can't tell you about! Spent the morning in Denholme though - sad to see the way in which some folk are obviously struggling - evidence of aborted DIY projects, maintenance left undone and a depressing feel about parts. Sad that the good times passed so many folk by - hopefully the tax changes and such will help a little.

Also got a new deliverer - on the back of wanting to campaign against AV. Which was excellent news as the regular deliver for that patch can't do it any more! And reminded me that I've yet to encounter anyone on the doorstep who thinks changing to a new system of voting is a good idea - bear in mind that I'm not mentioning the referendum (selfishly I find my election to be more important).

I've received a few e-mails and phones calls following delivery - shows people are reading the leaflet which is good. One or two of these are real issues with the Council while the others are more political - will respond appropriately!

Last part of the campaign day was canvassing on Long Lane in Harden - really good response, nothing like a bit of sunshine to get a smiley response on the doorstep! And plenty of Tories too so we rewarded ourselves with a curry - at the fabulous Moghul's in Keighley (where we did some actor spotting).

A good day!

....