C2H6O rules

Apparently the petition against banning shops making discount offers on alcohol is the biggest we have ever seen in the Island.  I can grasp that people might sign simply as a mechanism to register a protest on the performance of the States.  But for it to be even bigger than the petition to remove GST on food seems odd to me.  Admittedly the population has increased a little since then, but even allowing for that, it seems to have been signed by a bigger fraction of the population.

The latest spending survey I can find was in 2009/10.  From that the average weekly spending can be derived:


Food & non-alcoholic drinks  £73.70   , of which   gst 3.51,  alcohol   £9.10  

The average household would have to be buying all its alcohol at a 40% reduction to be financially better of than removing the GST on food.  Of course there are some skewed factors in there - a proportion of households do not buy or consume alcohol, though I image almost all buy food.  

One to the key reasons for the pricing  prohibition is the detrimental health impacts of drinking.  That is clearly true in excess , but of course there are plenty of unhealthy foods too.  I am coming to the conclusion that collectively our lifestyles in the Island are outrageously unhealthy. I don't have figures to demonstrate that, but there is a study I came across from the USA that I think is indicative.

This study looked at  4,745 people across the USA and assessed them on four simple criteria of healthy lifestyle.

• 71 percent of adults didn't smoke
• 38 percent of adults ate a healthy diet
• 10 percent had a normal body fat percentage 
• 46 percent were sufficiently active 

However only 2.7%   meet all four !

The reaction to the  pricing proposal interests me from another angle too.  I think it demonstrates just how deskilled and dependent we have become.   It really isn't hard to ferment a drinkable wine - and some like gorse flower are nectar.  Cider can be made with nothing more than mashed apples if you want to, though you will get more reliable results if you use steriliser and yeast too.  Sure if you are a well paid fund manager or lawyer you might argue your time is more valuable spent earning  money that making wine, but then  you won't be material affected by the pricing policy.  


I shouldn't be surprised.  We've come to a state where there are people making money walking other people's dogs , and companies that put together flat pack furniture!   





https://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=630

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2016/03/only_27_percent_of_us_adults_l.html

http://www.cicra.gg/_files/CICRA%2014-06%20groceries%20final%20report.pdf

Athens regained?

Planting season is now in full swing, so it is far from certain I will be get to the BCS talk this week on AI.  That is a disappointment for me as I was working in AI in the 1990's and was an external supervisor for a couple of Ph.D. candidates.

The topic has been more prominent in the press the last year than it has for some time.  I have been collecting  articles and snippets.  It is not uncommon to see heightened press coverage of  paradigm changing technology when the economy is in difficulty.  It is the sort of jam tomorrow promise that those who are dazzled by the delights of growth cling to when recession  abounds.   But there is real potential here, it isn't just vapourware.


One of the reasons the various techniques of AI were very useful when I was working in the field still pertain.  It can quickly identify a good enough answer to an otherwise unsolvable problem.  That is often the case in scheduling and timetabling  where they may be no solution that satisfies all constraints.  It is certain the case in aspects of fluid mechanics (which is where I was applying AI) since the fundamental Navier-Stokes equation has not been solved mathematically.



Of course things have changed over a quarter of a century.  Certainly machine learning has advanced significantly.    Go is a game that has too many possibilities to be practically determinable, so the fact the Google's DeepMind AlphaGo recently could beat the world champion demonstrates that.  The machine learnt  by playing against itself.


I doubt anyone has much in the way of reservation about AI being used to solve such otherwise difficult to impossible problems. The worries come from a different branch of the discipline - autonomous behaviour and control systems.  This is where we have started to see human like presentation and behaviours from machines.  There is even an hotel in Japan effectively run by human like automata.  (I dislike calling them robots, because we've had robotics for many years on factory floors  - they are brilliant but they are not what most people imagine when referring to robots).


The issue is when we defer executive action to machines. In effect we surrender control. Some of the systems I worked on were presented quite deliberately as decision support systems.  There was no executive capability, simply information and advice to human  operators.  Hopefully faster and more reliable and condensed  information, but nonetheless  just advisory.  


As we approach the point where autonomous units can carry out mundane, repetitive  tasks reliably we have to ask some very serious political and ethical questions.  If we ignore the transition phase for now, it is possible to envisage a marvellous future.  Imagine a world without drudgery where production if delegated to autonomous entities.  Sounds good, but it is very dangerous.  How do the ordinary people then earn a living? If labour is insignificantly cheap (as it would be with efficient capable AI units), then the  only value is in control of resource or in artistic and intellectual endeavours.  


Humanity has been here before on occasions; just  substitute slaves for the AI entities. In ancient Athens, citizens (not women, slaves or foreigners) fought in the army and were expected to participate in policy formulation.  Citizens were paid to attend the forum, so even the poorest were not excluded.   There are other  models of slave based societies of course, like the Romans.  They were so dependent that when it was proposed they have a uniform in the city for slaves, it was defeated by pointing out that slave would realise how numerous they were and revolt would surely follow.


 
 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/artificial-intelligence-ai-dream-or-reality-tickets-21320057867


http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=5

It is 2008 all over again

Three meetings are on my radar for this month.  Each reminds me in some way of 2008. 

A number of groups have been invited to workshop sessions on Shaping our Future.  There is a report on this somewhere on the States web site and yes it is our old friend 2035 again.  I took part in the Imagine Jersey event  in 2008.  It was a travesty of consultation, a one dimensional view of the future looking solely at financial  impacts of a growing elderly population and social security and pensions.  It was a railroad to the pre-selected acceptable outcomes.  One of the points I made repeatedly in the subsequent elections was that we needed to do this exercise properly, looking at  how the world would change by 2035 and well beyond just the money.

So here we are over 7 years on and we have only just got to realising we need plans for all the other aspects of life in the future.   I know some of the people attending  these sessions.  If it is as badly handled as 2008 there will be uproar.

You my be aware I sometimes contribute to Rural magazine on local organic production and my stockless smallholding .  This talk is right up my street. Robin Page is an entertaining speaker though his politics and mine are poles apart.  He has stood for the UK and European parliaments a few times as a Conservative and in 2010 as a UKIP candidate.   I have put a link below to his experiences with the police, around 2008 eventually winning a four figure sum compensation payout .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560699/I-fought-law-I-won--How-Robin-Page-challenged-police.html

Lastly we have the AGM of the Jersey Climate Action Network.  This is the eighth one, so the origins are  in 2008.  You can read a bit of its nascence here  http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/2090.html. 

http://www.gov.je/sitecollectiondocuments/government%20and%20administration/id%20imaginejerseyfinal%20report%2020100323.pdf

Digital Divisions

Digital technology was touted as the great new hope in the Island's latest economic plan.  It ought to be a useful way to diversify the economy, but as I have commented elsewhere if is concentrates on financial services it could end up increasing strategic risks.  The other driver for digital in Governemnt is the potential to save costs, at least on the government side of the equation.  A bit like online banking, what it actually does is to move an element of cost from the organisation (branches and staff) to the customer - the need to have a computer  or similar, and connectivity to run the account.


There have been a few stories recently of our States involvement in technology.  Interestingly the reporting of them , which may well reflect the thinking behind the development is a little concerning.  They reflect a problem I have encounteed many times working spftware development: un-acknolwedged assumptions.


The first is an item that certainly has some merit.  https://blog.gov.je/2016/02/01/track-my-bus/  I know the original developer, Rob. I used to work with him many years ago, though in those days I did the javascript stuff and he did the presentation bits!  It is well worth reading the reasons the application was developed as a moble web rather than a smart phone app.  Also the rationale for replacing the text system.  They are all related to maintenance and support effort/costs by the provider.  That is typical of a tech driven solution.  So I ask , what about the end users.  Think about  typical bus users and wonder what proportion have smart phones.  Surely smaller than the proportion who have ordinary mobile phones. The result is an improved experience for those who have access, and a  proportion of user  will now have lost service.  Is that progress or not?  Would we be better spending the money on  providing service, actually having more buses on the  routes?  Thats the debate that should be happening in the States chamber, or at least it would be if we had a functioning system.


Second is the parking payment app http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/new-parking-app-could-make-scratchcards-obsolete-september .  I think the headline suggesting that scratch cards could be obsolete by September is wrong.  The developer hasn't been chosen yet, so the timescale for deployment must be at best tentative. But far more important, does the States really think every car driver is going to acquire a smart phone and the app by September?  Clearly that's not going to happen. At best it is going to have to be a parallel system for sometime.  That is probably going to cost more, not less until the new system is ubiquitous.  Perhaps they have in mind some carparks for free or on a disc, and others app only.  Privilege for a digital elite , or possibly soon a majority, while the minority are left waiting  uninformed at a bus stop because they haven't a smart phone to hand to pay for parking or check bus times.

There is much more to this smart phone app  interaction mode with government than meets the eye.  It is terribly convenient for those who have an authoritarian, controlling, top down view of society. You can get a sense of it from this recent piece http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-devices-spying-surveillance-us-government There are frequent calls for moves to a cashless society - there are even governement agencies in other jurisdictions that will not accept cash http://www.therecord.com/sports-story/2565317-passport-office-refuses-to-take-cash-payments/  despite the fact you don't actually have a right to a bank account.  In fact with the ever more draconion KYC and politically exposed person limitiations being impossed,  ever more people will find it impossible to access the financial system.  I have no problem with people knowingly surrending their privacy and allowing governement and finaicial institutions tracking their every move and expenditure, if they want to, but I do object most stongly to being forced to do so.  I don't do loyalty cards, and while I do  have a couple of bank cards, I seldom buy anything with them if I can avoid it (and I usually can), and I certainly don't have a smart phone.

Part of the problem here is a mental mode of those that are doing what they think of as normal.  It happens all the time - the weather forecasters who describe rain as miserable, and sunshine as glorious, and the news broadcasts that claim interests rates going up is bad news, and going down is good.  It is all a matter of perspective relative to how you live your life.  Rain can be good news for growers and gardeners, whilst interest rates going up is a boon to savers.  But of course the overwhelming majority of those  who are in the editorial positions are car driving , smart phone using mortagors.  In their circles those given 'facts' are undisputed.  It is the same in politics - the Westminster bubble syndrome, and technology is not so very different.  It is a sort of attribution error thinking that you are yourself somehow typical or representative of pretty much everyone. That your lifestyle and choices and options are similar to everyone elses.   In reality you are comparing to a small select similar group, not the entire population.

Since we have moved on to politics and policy, I'll get to the last item, as reported here: http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/digital-firms-angry-key-12-million-egov-contract-goes-uk-company/  I am not surprised they are angry.   It is rather problematic for governemnt to claim to be supporting and promoting  the local sector at the same time as effectively saying the local  talent is not good enough for their needs.  It something the States of Jersey is good at - wordy and sometimes worthy statements of intent, but ineffective or inconsistent action in implementing them.  I cite States Reform, the demise of tourism, and the state of our agricultural sector and the absence of a Rural Economy Strategy, and the persistent failure to meet the population policy (when we had one).  

It is harldy surprising then that I could name three or four talented people I know locally who used to be in software development, but are no longer in the field.  Interestingly all had decent careers in other fields beforehand, and all still live locally.  I rather suspect a large part of the problem here is that those who are making the decisions cannot recognise the skills and abilities of those who are local.  It is a common enough problem.

More than a few times when I worked as a contractor consultant I was hired by big consultancy firms like KPMG, PWC  to deliver projects they had won.  I don't know if the customers knew these big names didn't have the expertise they thought they were buying.  Often times it was about risk perception on the buyer side . If you get a big established consultancy to do the job you won't get half as much grief when it goes wrong than if you hired an 'unknown' name.  Backside covereing is an essential art in any civil service from what I hear, and  'nobody ever got fired for buying IBM' still echoes faintly down the corridors. 

Of course it is a self perpetuating  situation - you never get credit for delivering - the consultancy claims that, and the buyer never really gets to know that the delivery was by a tiddling specialist third party.  If the States only throw low risk tidbits to the local developers while reserving tables at the banquet for external suppliers, you just end up with hungry and impoverished locals with no reputation in that aea  and money pouring out of the island's economy. Because if there is one thing those successful large consultancies do know it is how to succesfully live off  the host.

One in thirty four million?

A couple of States deputies have raised questions over why Jersey had not had iodine tablets issued as they had in areas in France near nuclear reactors.  In response CM Gorst is reported to have said he had research  giving the probability of a nuclear accident at Flamanville impacting on Jersey was ‘one in every 34 million years’. 

Without sight of the report or knowing exactly what it was assessing the chances of, I cannot categorically say that is wrong.  Such things are critically dependent on the assumptions  and inputs into the calulation.  I will however state I think that figure is rather unlikely.  My first point would be to call on CM Gorst to release this research.  Of course he won't do that if it is covered by 'commerical confidentiality'  in which case I would imagine it comes from a nuclear industry indsider, possibly even EDF itself.  That would harldy constititute  fair and impartial research.  You might want to ponder why the commerical sensitivity of a business is thought to more important than the safety of the whole Island's population too.

Even without resorting to research I could recall three nuclear incidents that had they happened at Flamanville would have impacted Jersey - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Sheep controls on farms in Wales and Cumbria were only lifted in 2012, 25 years afer Chernobyl spewed the fallout cloud that caused the problem. In fact out of roughly 400 nuclear plants operating worldwide there have been at least 30 meltdown accidents.  Any one of those if it happend in Normandy would affect us. Arguable eachone of them where ever they happen wil affect us eventually. There were other serious incidents too , but I cannot be sure they would have impacted us.  So in the sixty five years or so of commercial plant operations we have had 30 incidents among 400 plant. 


One of the factors that does make a difference is the age and the designof the plant.  Newer plant very pronbabaly are rather safer tha tthe old ones.  As it happens while I was preparing this piece , a new item apperaed raising concerns over some 1950's plant restarted in Belgium recently. Often the stats are done using the newest plant safety and construction criteria.  The existing reactors at Flammanvile are froom the 1980s, but  new facilites are being constructed.  There have been problems at flammanville on a number of occassion, but none so serious  (yet!) to meet the criterion of affecting us badly (who sets those crieria?) .  There is at least one significant concern that has been raise in repsectof  the plant in Normandy - the Blayais incident in 1999.  Rather as in Fukushima, if an event occurs that is beyond the parameters believed at construction,  then the building is outside of it designn parameters.  We know storms and surges are stronger now than they were in the 1980's and still increasing.


The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) usually gives the odds of a nuclear meltdown anywhere worldwide as one in a million years.  That is a similar ballpark to the figure Sen Gorst gives.  On the other hand the same NRC only requires reactors to be build to a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency !  And yet in Japan, where they are rather sensitive to such things they  reckon the probability of a major nuclear accident has reduced from 1 in 40 years post Fukushima to now 1 in 80 years !  That's some discrepancy.  Again it all depends critically on the assumptions you make and what you define as major.


A few other points to bear in mind.  Just because the probability of  some event is low does not mean it won't happen rather soon. A one in a million years may sound safe, but it could still happen tomorrow.  When doing risk assessements, not only should you reckon the probability, but also the impact.  In general I am happier facing a high probability event that isn't fatal, than a low probability of extinction.  The calculation of the probability of nuclear failure  is difficult because there are few incidents.  Estimating and extrapolating from a small data set is fraught with problems.    Attempting to do it by looking at the design and assessing failure modes and risks might be better , but then you have to accept that if you miss a possible black swan event like the size of the earthquake/tsunami that casused the Fukushima situation, you have a problem.

One in 34 million years.  I don't beleive it any more than I believe I will win the UK national lottery.  And just like that lottery my intention is to not buy a ticket at all, and thereby guarantee not losing .

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/01/25/islanders-dont-have-anti-radiation-tablets-because-jersey-is-too-far-away-from-flamanville-says-chief-minister/

 http://www.france24.com/en/20160128-belgium-nuclear-reactors-doel-tihange-security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant_flood


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors/ 

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201504160072 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

You dont have to take no as an answer from bureaucracy

A little over a year ago the Jersey Climate Action Network started a small campaign to push the States into divesting from fossil fuel investments.  The price of oil has halved in that time, and many of the associated exploration and production and integrated major companies have fared just as badly.  As far as I can tell, the States never acted on our recommendation to divest, so I tried to get a bit on information to identify what they were invested in.  Since oil and gas producers make a large part by capitalisation of the FTSE 100 and they are big dividend payers it is a fair guess they make a notable part of the portfolio.

This resulted in a FoI request, whose response in part I challenged, with an interesting outcome.  Since my original questions are repeated in the initial response, I'll skip that.

I cannot say I was overly surprised by the response in most respects.  However it raises some questions.  How can the States make statement of the ethical quality of its investments unless it goes into detail of what those investments are in?  And if it does go into that sort of detail, it ought really to be able to give a recent estimate of the amount in fossil fuels, nuclear etc?  Who is on the TAP, how frequently do investment managers present to them, and who sets the ethical criteria?  Is there any public or elected representation?  When was the last time a States members, or PAC or anybody reviewed the ethical criteria?

The one aspect I felt was unsatisfactory was the response about the report.   So I challenged it.

The proper response to a challenge (other than to plead mea culpa and release the info!) is an internal review.

And yes I did get a copy of the report, though it gave no particularly revealing insights relating to the actual ethics of investment policy.

The response tries to argue that everything was right, but clearly it was not.  The initial response was that reports are only shown to addressees, the review does not elaborate or provide a FOI complaint response for withholding the report, not does it refute my contention the report is covered by FoI.  I didn't think there was anything to be gained by pursuing this further - the information I wanted insofar as it existed was forthcoming.  But it might stand as a useful precedent in future should anyone try to gain access to a report denied on the grounds that we on only show them to addressees.

One other pont worth making here; just because a decision is made on ethical grounds doesn't make it a poor financial decision.  Indeed as in this case had the Island puled its fossil fuels investments a year ago as called for, we might now have who knows how many more millions in the Island's funds.

Gov.je and tax

Since the rains are rather heavy today , I'm getting a pile of paperwork done.  Or I would if I could. Despite the drive to digital everything and  e-gov is the future, I cannot submit a 2015 company tax return, because the States web site still has not been updated from last year!  I jest not.