Inside the mind of the Beast

I found it hard to sleep last night, partly because I was brooding on today’s election. Lying awake, I was reminded of a metaphor which has struck me often in the years since Tony Blair ousted the Tories in 1997. In this the British electorate appears as a vast, lumbering beast — a kind of sleepy Leviathan. The Beast is not very interested in politics; in fact, most of the time it would prefer not to have to think about it at all. But every so often the buzzing of hornets (all of whom, in my dreams, look like Nick Robinson, the BBC’s Political Editor) annoys it into briefly paying attention to the fact that it has to make a decision. The Beast doesn’t like making decisions, so it tends to put off thinking about them until the last possible moment. And when it does decide, its choice is largely determined by two elementary factors. The first is boredom. The second is a vague — and not terribly enthusiastic — feeling that it’s time to let the other lot have a go.

This is the way all British elections are decided. Occasionally, the Beast makes its choice with a show of enthusiasm. This happened in 1997, for the obvious reason that the Tories had become so unutterably boring, incompetent and corrupt that even the apolitical Beast had noticed. In the 2002 and 2005 elections it opted to extend the New Labour hegemony with declining enthusiasm. But it was clear to some (most?) of us, that next time round it would be inclined to give the other lot a go. The succession of Gordon Brown clinched it — as Tony Blair had feared, and as I wrote about at the time.

As this interminable election campaign unfolded, the Beast was initially startled by a new kind of hornet — in this case the televised leaders’ debates. There was a lot of irritating buzzing about a ‘third way’ involving the Lib Dems and political realignment and constitutional reform. This initially sparked some interest in the Beast, but on inspection seemed to offer nothing but impenetrable complexity: it was a signpost to what looked like a thicket rather than a beaten path. So in the end the Beast decided that it was all too complicated and reverted to its time-honoured decision-rule.

The interesting thing, though, is that it does so with a distinct lack of enthusiasm. As I write, the BBC election seat calculator is predicting Con 284, Lab 257 LibDem 80 Others 29.

But FiveThirtyEight, the US analytical site which did such insightful work on the polls in the Obama election is predicting an interestingly different result: Cons 312, Lab 204 LibDem 103. I’m inclined to believe that this is what the Beast intends: a minority Tory government. But that probably means another election in October. Which only goes to show that the Beast isn’t much good at joined-up thinking. It can go back to sleep tomorrow — but not for long.

Facebook’s privacy policy: steady, gradual erosion

Revealing Timeline by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Viewed together, the successive policies tell a clear story. Facebook originally earned its core base of users by offering them simple and powerful controls over their personal information. As Facebook grew larger and became more important, it could have chosen to maintain or improve those controls. Instead, it’s slowly but surely helped itself — and its advertising and business partners — to more and more of its users’ information, while limiting the users’ options to control their own information.

Greek wealth: everywhere but in tax returns

A clip of the affluent Athens suburb of Psihiko from Google Earth.

Interesting NYTimes story.

ATHENS — In the wealthy, northern suburbs of this city, where summer temperatures often hit the high 90s, just 324 residents checked the box on their tax returns admitting that they owned pools.

So tax investigators studied satellite photos of the area — a sprawling collection of expensive villas tucked behind tall gates — and came back with a decidedly different number: 16,974 pools.

That kind of wholesale lying about assets, and other eye-popping cases that are surfacing in the news media here, points to the staggering breadth of tax dodging that has long been a way of life here.

A bit like Ireland then, but without the pools.

Vote for Toxoplasma gondii

Terrific rant by George Monbiot. Sample:

While Labour has liberated billionaires, it has trussed up the rest of us with 3,500 new criminal offences, including provisions that allow the police to declare any demonstration illegal. It has introduced control orders that place people under permanent house arrest without charge or trial. It has allowed the US to extradite our citizens without producing evidence of an offence. It has colluded in kidnapping and torture. Britain now has more CCTV cameras than any other nation, and a DNA database that is five times the size of its nearest competitor. The number of prisoners in the UK has risen by 41% since Labour took office.

This government blocked a ceasefire in the Lebanon; sacked Britain’s ambassador to Uzbekistan after he complained that the regime was boiling its prisoners to death; gave aid to a Colombian military that collaborates with fascist death squads; announced a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war; and decided to waste our money on replacing Trident. But worse, far worse than any of this, it launched an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands have died. This is the government that colleagues of mine on the Guardian want to save.

There’s a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii that colonises the brains of rats, altering their behaviour to attract them to the scent of their predators. The rats seek out cats and get eaten, allowing the parasite to keep circulating. This is New Labour. It has colonised a movement that fought for social justice, distribution and decency, rewired its brain and delivered it to the fat cats who were once its enemies.

Yep. But it still leaves me with the problem of who whom to vote for.

Footnote: Toxoplasma gondii

Inexorable decline…

… in the percentage of the vote going to the two big parties.

The TV debates aren’t responsible for the Hung Parliament that will follow Thursday’s election as surely as night follows day. A quarter of a century of decline in the combined Labour and Conservative share of the vote means that the two party stranglehold over UK politics is on its way out and Clegg’s TV performance was just a tipping point.

One of the wonderful things about the web is the accessibility of data. The Guardian has published all of the Guardian/ICM polling data since 1984. At Election 10 we took the combined Labour and Conservative share for every poll and created the graph above. In 1990 the two parties were claiming almost 90% of the vote between them this has shrunk to a little over 60% and it has been a steady consistent decline. A continuation of this would mean a government taking power that was opposed by around 65% of the population. Even our bizarre electoral system can’t sustain this.

Hmmm… I’m not sure about that optimistic conclusion. The British system can support a good many constitutional absurdities. But isn’t it interesting what a good long run of data can show, eh?

[Source.]

Danah Boyd on how privacy on Facebook is eroding

danah boyd is one of the sanest and best-informed observers of social networking. This is a good (but too brief) Technology Review interview with her on the subject. Sample:

Danah Boyd: People started out with a sense that this is just for you and people in your college. Since then, it’s become just for you and all your friends. It slowly opened up and in the process people lost a lot of awareness of what was happening with their data. This is one of the things that frightens me. I started asking all of these nontechnological people about their Facebook privacy settings, and consistently found that their mental model of their privacy settings and what they saw in their data did not match.

TR: What’s been driving these changes for Facebook?

DB: When you think about Facebook, the market has very specific incentives: Encourage people to be public, increase ad revenue. All sorts of other things will happen from there. The technology makes it very easy to make people be as visible and searchable as possible. Technology is very, very aligned with the market.

TR: Some people dismiss concerns about this sort of situation by saying that privacy is dead.

DB: Facebook is saying, “Ah, the social norms have changed. We don’t have to pay attention to people’s privacy concerns, that’s just old fuddy-duddies.” Part of that is strategic. Law follows social norms.

TR: What do you think is actually happening to the social norms?

DB: I think the social norms have not changed. I think they’re being battered by the way the market forces are operating at this point. I think the market is pushing people in a direction that has huge consequences, especially for those who are marginalized.

Change You Can Bereave In

Nice, acerbic NYT OpEd piece by A.A. Gill.

These are not three of the most engaging or noble statesmen the nation has produced. Mr. Cameron, the Tory, is personable — your mother would like him. A fresh-faced character who tries, and fails, with emotionally winning oratory. He always sounds like the coxswain urging the rowing team to pull together and straighten their straw boaters.

We look at Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat, and try in vain to imagine him going toe-to-toe with leaders like Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel or even the Queen of Tonga. In any other decade, the best he could have hoped for would have been a post as a junior minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, an ambassador’s bag-carrier. He speaks five languages but can’t say boo in any of them. His children all have Spanish names.

Gordon Brown is a character from a tragic opera, twisted by ambition and a Presbyterian sense of fateful destiny. He has waited 13 years, mostly in Tony Blair’s shadow, for this poisoned chalice and has a pessimist’s luck. He wrestles with an Old Testament temper, and it’s said that he has no friends. Certainly, none of them have come out to contradict this. Last week he was recorded by an open microphone petulantly calling a respectable working-class woman he had just spoken to in the street a “bigot.” Off the record, his advisers say they are quite relieved — it’s usually so much worse.

Are “Digital Journalists” really “scabs”?

Sylvia Paull has an angry post headed “The new scabs: digital journalists”.

ABC announced a layoff of hundreds of journalists this week and said it would work instead mostly with “digital journalists,” people who can do a variety of tasks, such as blog, tweet, and take digital photos. This is the first time I’ve heard the term “digital journalist,” and I’m not sure what distinguishes such a journalist from every other journalist who now must use the Web to report and communicate except that they are certainly much cheaper to hire.

A digital journalist probably doesn’t accrue vacation time, sick leave, or a pension. A digital journalist probably works on a contract basis and like many of the freelance journalists I know who once worked for a news organization, they write for several media rather than just one.

I wonder whether graduate schools of journalism now produce journalists or digital journalists. And can someone go from being a journalist to being a digital journalist, or does the journalist have to downgrade his or her reporting and communications skills first?

I can understand her anger/irritation, but the mindset implicit in her terminology is revealing. Mass-media print publication was a mass-production culture: and it prompted the rise of trade unions to provide protection from employees employed to work on what were effectively production lines. The term ‘scab’ (i.e. strikebreaker) comes from the early history of campaigning by unions who used withdrawal of labour as a weapon.

But the era of mass-production print is drawing to a close, and with it most of its associated baggage, including large bodies of unionised workers. It’s difficult at present to see what will replace the print system, but you can bet that it won’t be the licence to print money represented by ownership of printing presses and distribution networks in the analog age. A new business model for journalism will, I’m sure, eventually emerge, but it won’t be one that generates the vast profits enjoyed until recently by many traditional publishers. It’ll be leaner, more innovative, less stable and more competitive. So when leaders of the print culture portray the Net as the great destroyer of journalism, what they’re really complaining about is that it’s a destroyer of their cosy old local monopolies. For them, the undermining of journalism is just collateral damage.

None of this is meant to imply any enthusiasm on my part for what ABC has done, btw. The big danger in all this is that a new set of monopolists (Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube) will turn everyone into sharecroppers.