Random reactions

Britblog is up

Tim Worstall's Britblog, edition 15, has been posted. In addition to the typically quirky British shtuff you would expect to find, he links to two posts on ID issues. Murkee links to a BBC article that referenced an LSE study projecting higher costs. Some of the projections are overblown, but ya gotta admit that the real price tag is unclear.

Talk Politics offers two posts on the subject. The first (IMHO) is a bit overblown on fears of linked information added to the database. Who's got time to read this? Even direct marketing companies that make their living on linking information can't find the time to mine their data--I'd be more worried about keying errors. His second post, though, is great--a pledge that should surely be offered MPs to propose an amendment forbidding third parties (the inevitable banks and credit card companies) to store and use information they obtain as a result of an ID scheme in action.

Worstall says he has yet to find an argument in favour of ID cards on the web. He won't get one from me, nor from Ideal Government, which covers this in great detail. (Like that colour scheme?) I will say that the one thing citizens expect from a National ID scheme--protection from identity theft--is almost certainly the one thing they won't get. That alone makes the scheme not worth pursuing.

Cycle Incompatibility for Tony Blair

There are currently major technology initiatives being carried out at principal government Departments--Work and Pensions, Health, Defence, and 'waves' of incorporation and integration of technology improvements at the others.

They are, by and large, sound in design and are being implemented by large systems integrators with experience. They will probably achieve notable efficiencies.

Unfortunately, it often takes five years to install, integrate, train and redesign work practices to start seeing the benefits of large programmes such as those now in progress. Tony Blair's government has, I am told, about 18 months to show fruits of his Labours.

Clocks are ticking at two different rates. Will Blair's government try to force technology change at a more rapid pace (quite difficult to do), let Gordon Brown take the credit (perhaps more difficult for Blair to do), or suffer from criticism from Conservatives (and perhaps the public, though I think they are too complacent absent a recession) about the slow pace of reform?

It will be an interesting period. I will try in subsequent posts to talk through the planned benefits of each of the major initiatives. They are ambitious and could change the way public services are thought of, perceived and delivered. If they proceed.

Joined Up Government

What do we mean when we talk about 'Joined Up Government?' Is the Gershon initiative merely about local councils sharing call centres?

I'm sure there are benefits to doing so. But it seems that these benefits would pale in comparison to joining up service delivery at the front lines. Is there any reason why a worker at a Job Centre cannot also provide information, forms and processing for the National Insurance or the Department of Work and Pensions? They might need a little training and a lot of joined up technology to do so. But isn't this truly the place to start? Why can't you apply for a driver's license and a passport at the same place?

Wouldn't we be able to find better uses for some of the buildings? Wouldn't we be able to find better uses for the workers?

Wouldn't we reduce driving, congestion, pollution, frustration and lost communications?

I know it's a good 'thing' to make government organisations more efficient in their administration. But couldn't we just once concentrate on delivering better services more efficiently--from the user's point of view?

Harriman Enterprises encounters an obstacle

Glenn Reynold's Instapundit links to a CNN article about the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to prevent advertising in space. Whilst some might question the U.S. Government's ownership of the medium, others remember Robert Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon. Does the FAA intend to regulate airborne advertising in the atmosphere, as well?  Do British skywriters and balloon adverts (are there any?) have to have FAA permission?

Okay--back to government and tech

Ideal Government follows up on yesterday's story about racist policemen recorded during harassment by a mobile phone. What Ideal Government doesn't follow up on, I will.

Police should record all interactions with citizens themselves. There are far more bogus claims regarding police misbehaviour than actual instances of such, and more safe convictions would result from ubiquitous recording. Indeed, ubiquitous recording would act as a check on police behaviour. As the technology now permits such (just look at mobile video blogging, podcasting, etc.), local police authorities in the UK could actually do this without much in the way of commitment of financial resources.

By the way--the BBC also carried a story on how mobile video recorded a 'Happy Slapping' assault on a teenager. The video was taken by the assailants and is circulating the mobile community. Apart from the stupidity of filming yourself committing a crime, what is the status of mobile video and/or audio records as evidence?

Energy vs. Policy

Tim Worstall posts (with several links) on nuclear policy in England. It's an issue I've followed most of my life, as my father was a marketing man for Pacific Gas & Electric during the commissioning of the Diablo Canyon plant at the same time that I was a temporary hippie. Imagine the excitement at the dinner table!

The economics and relative safety of nuclear power were (IIRC) first covered for the popular reader by Jerry Pournelle in essays later published as A Step Farther Out.

Very much like capitalism, nuclear power seems monstrous when examined in isolation. It is only when compared to all the other alternatives that both are clearly best of bad lots. France and the U.S. Navy, being despotic regimes that didn't have to worry about costs, just got on with nuclear power and made it work for them. As England seems bent on concentrating political power in the hands of a handful, it should be able to take advantage of nuclear power in the same way.

Because I am not convinced by most arguments regarding global warming (I believe it has been happening at a fairly constant rate for 11,000 years without our assistance and will continue to do so), my support for nuclear power is political, not environmental. Nuclear power would give alternatives to the UK that it needs and does not have under current plans. Whether it should be the primary, or only major source of power is very much open to question. The economics of nuclear power are tough to work through--in fact, nuclear power inspired 'deep' accounting as environmentalists chased the hidden costs to ground. But to take nuclear power off the table of energy policy alternatives for the reasons commonly advanced is daft.

Strictly Political

Back from my vacation in France, and thinking about Politics without the technology.

France is a good place to consider American and British politics, and French news coverage of the UK elections and American shenanigans makes two things pretty clear:

1. The UK conservatives and the American Democrats are failing miserably at their appointed tasks of moving out of the last century. No new ideas, no interesting leaders... It's as if Bill Clinton and Michael Portillo never existed.

2. The UK Labour party is avoiding the principal mistake of the American Republicans. The Republicans are forcing process changes as if they were never again going to be in opposition. Witness the Republican drive to eliminate the filibuster for judicial appointments. The Democrats should fight them just hard enough to lose with grace. Tony Blair is smarter than George Bush. I guess that's not really news, though.

Two weeks in France left me with one overwhelming impression. I truly believe the French are playing the Long Game, with honest goals of re-becoming a World Power in capital letters. Their manipulation of the EU , their treatment of the Dom Tom (French dominated territories), their shameless pandering to China, their superior technological infrastructure investment--and performance, if you look at the TGV and their utility sector--all point to their positioning another generation to take advantage of what French leaders must believe is a coming collapse of Anglo-Saxon models of society. Quick--someone tell me I'm wrong. Please!

Howard, Blair, Kennedy--and me

I'm going on vacation to a country where, in my opinion, they do very little right. I speak of course of France. I don't like their politics or their politicians, I loathe their policies, I don't like the way they treat citizens, visitors or tourists. I distrust the Nanny State writ large.

But France does one thing right that is becoming more important to me. Health care. France does not have waiting lists. France has clean hospitals, access to any GP, better IT than the UK or America.

You may say that it is wrong to judge a country on one factor only. You may be right. But read the following carefully.

The French live, on average, five years longer than Americans or the British. Despite being just as obese (outside the Parisian modelling halls), despite an unhealthy diet (steak and chips, steak and chips, could I have another litre of red wine, sil vous plait?), despite a sedentary lifestyle, the French live five years longer.

It's the healthcare system.

Here in the UK, we are having an election that is focussing on healthcare, when we can change the subject from immigration, which is being used as racist code by the Tories. But when they speak about healthcare, everybody is talking about how much more they are going to put into the system. Despite Labour's targets, Conservative promises of choice and the Lib Dem's focus on local provision of services, none of them are talking about improving the output of these services.