From ‘The Great Hack’

poster with blocks of colour and text 'Rogue Data' and 'It’s late: do you know where your data is?'

Netflix showed a documentary about what went on in the campaigns to change people’s viewpoints in the US election and the EU referendum.

Christopher Wylie, the data scientist who worked for Cambridge Analytica said:

Cambridge Analytica are not a data analysis company: They are a data propaganda company.

About an hour into the video, Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica said:

We are a behaviour change agency

Brittany Kaiser, who worked for Cambridge Analytica, said they used the data they got from those who did Facebook quizzes – which also gave them access to the data of those people’s friends.

Armed with that they profiled millions of US voters and then targeted those who were ripe to be persuaded – the ‘persuadables’ as they called them.

They sent them ‘news’ (real and fake) until, as she said:

…they saw the world the way we wanted them to see it.

The parent company of Cambridge Analytica is/was SCL, which started out as a military contractor contracted to use research to influence behaviour of hostile audiences.

SCL was granted provisional “List X” status by the Ministry of Defence until 2013, giving it access to secret documents.

In 2014, MoD officials worked with SCL Group on “Project Duco” to analyse how people would interact with certain government messaging.

Guardian article 28 April 2018:

The UK Foreign Office, in 2008 signed a contract with Strategic Communications Laboratories, the former name of SCL Group, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, for a project to help tackle extremism by providing research and surveys into public opinion as part of an initiative to help Pakistan deal with extremism and radicalisation issues that could affect the UK.

From the UK Government website:

“List X contractors are companies operating in the UK who are working on UK government contracts which require them to hold classified information. This information is at ‘Secret’ or above or international partners information classified ‘Confidential’ or above, and is held their own premises at a specific site.”

Don’t hold me to it, but I think the allegation was that SCL passed their data to Cambridge Analytica, who used it to influence British voters in the EU referendum.

'rogue data' text against rectangles of various colours
poster with blocks of colour and a block exiting the frame with line trails - and text 'Rogue Data' and 'It’s late: do you know where your data is?'

Pleas Before Lords

Click the image for a larger version.

I made this spoof proclamation because it came to mind in the knowledge of Brexit and while reading about the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.

The power or the impotence of Parliament to deal with the coming crisis will be tested while the outcome of the leadership contest within the Conservative Party is fought.

Brexit And The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381

Brexit and the causes and possible consequences of Brexit have been on my mind. Brexit has been on everyone’s mind. There is a great divide between those who want Brexit at any cost and those who want Britain to remain in the EU.

One thing that interests and worries me is how much of a danger this divide represents to the stability of the social order.

It is not an idle question.

Nigel Farage, one of the architects of the desire to leave the European Union, has talked about blood on the streets if Brexit is not delivered to the British people.

He has an axe to grind, of course, but there is a question of what would or will happen if Brexit goes ahead and the economy tanks as badly as some say it will, or if Brexit is reversed.

There is something else. I wonder what those Brexit promoters in the upper reaches of the Conservative Party think? I am talking about those who have read history and who have a grasp of economics.

What on Earth as they thinking?

The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381

That brings me to a book – The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 edited by RB (Barrie) Dobson.

It is edited by him (rather than written by him) because the bulk of it is court records, Council records, trial records, ecclesiastical records, and the commentaries of contemporary commentators.

Most were written in Latin or Norman French and have been translated by Professor Dobson.

I haven’t got very far with it. It is slow going because there is a lot of content on the page. But I have read the introduction to the Second Edition and to the First Edition – and in them Professor Dobson makes some interesting points about the revolt.

The Peasants’ Revolt is not unique. There were revolts going on in continental Europe throughout all this period.

But England was a case apart. English society rode the changes in economics, the changes in society, and sailed on.

It sailed on with just one major rip in the continuum, and that was the Peasants’ Revolt on 1381.

The Poll Tax

The reasons usually given for the rebellion are the poll taxes that were imposed. Another reason was a complaint about the high life that the church and the court hangers-on were living at the peasants’ expense.

That is true, but as I am learning, there was more that brought the situation to a head.

For a start, the population had been reduced – maybe by as much as 40% – by the Black Death that reached Britain in the 1350s.

With gaps in the towns and the countryside, prices rose and a new kind of tenant appeared – men who had the money to step in to take up tenancies from the rural landlords.

They did so as contractual tenants, a simple exchange of occupation of the land in the return for rent paid as money.

Tenants and Villeins

Those rental contracts were completely different to the system of rights and obligations of villeins, who held land from the Lord of the Manor under the feudal system. Those villeins, or peasants, were bound to the land and one step up from slaves.

That status put them at odds with the new breed of contractual tenants. That difference risked a wholesale breach in the social fabric in the countryside.

But the taxes also exposed another threat to stability, namely that rising prices meant things were going well for some, and that the poll tax hit them at a time of rising expectations.

Protecting The Populace

Add to that another factor, the failure by the authorities to protect the population. The need for protection was very real.

Britain was at war with France in what is known as The Hundred Years’ War. The war was a war with gaps – a series of conflicts that lasted from 1337 to 1453.

On the English side was the House of Plantagenet, rulers of the Kingdom of England. They claimed the right to rule the Kingdom of France and were opposed by the French House of Valois.

The conflict is not so surprising. The English kings were originally Norman, and held lands in France. In some ways it was a family quarrel.

The peasants’ complaint was that French and Castilian ships came up the Thames regularly and carried out brutal tip-and-run raids, and seemingly without fear of reprisal.

And then came the poll tax, a tax imposed by the King to finance his wars. Not everyone was liable to pay – but with rising prices after the Black Death, people who had been outside the taxation net in earlier times were now caught in it.

So those were the complaints – rich people and the clergy living high on the hog, and failing to protect the populace. And just when things were getting better economically – along comes the poll tax to send them sliding to the bottom again.

When Adam Delved And Eve Span

During the Peasant’s Revolt, the priest John Ball asked, rhetorically, “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?” He meant, of course, ‘Who made you the boss?’

But of course, anyone who wants to grab the crown is free to do it if they can.

A Marxist would say that in the 1380s the clergy was the mouthpiece for the propaganda of the ‘proper’ order. Which is why the clergy and the local dignitaries were a prime target of the mobs that sprang up, simultaneously in different parts of England.

The revolt was bloody, with many killed by the mobs and many executed by the authorities.

Now when I think of Brexit, it sounds like we have been here before and the situation is ripe for exploitation. I see Jeremy Corbyn waiting in the wings like Lenin arresting the Provisional Government in the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. I see Nigel Farage claiming the crown to the Right and calling for a mass uprising to deliver on the promise of Brexit.

Britain’s Opportunity To Declare Itself

I am no nearer to understanding why those grandees of the Conservative Party are pushing Brexit.

What I do see though, are that the European elections on 23rd May are an opportunity for the people of this country to declare themselves. What will the people of Britain do to declare what world they want and what they will not abide?

Originally published on No More Pencils under the same title.


For How Long – England’s Green and Pleasant Land

If there is one thing above all that dismays and angers my wife Tamara, it is all the time wasted on Brexit that could have been put to environmental matters – cleaning up pollution, reducing the use of one-time plastics, etc.

The People’s Vote and Brexit

The People’s Vote is a movement to revoke article 50 and to stop the Brexit clock running.

It is a movement to give the people of Britain the opportunity vote in an informed way on the question of whether to leave the European Union.

I have come to dislike the word Brexit. It is a contraction of the word British and the word exit, meaning exit from the European Union. The word reminds me of a breakfast cereal. The word is onomatopoeic.

Brexit is hard and brittle and snaps easily.

Serious business at the Peoples Vote march, London, 23 March 2019

Serious business at the Peoples Vote march, London, 23 March 2019

I voted Remain in the referendum in 2016. I did so because I thought that this country needed Continental Europe to continue to widen its cultural attitudes.

I thought that being part of Europe might help to bring an end to the social stratification and class divisions that go right through the heart of Britain.

I still do.

People putting signs on the Houses of Parliament railings asking for a revocation of Article 50 and for there to be a second referendum

People putting signs on the Houses of Parliament railings asking for a revocation of Article 50 and for there to be a second referendum

We have a proud tradition in literature and music of breaking into the fortress that is the English class system.

But the class system is run with a rod of iron, and it has hung on grimly for hundreds of years. Who gets into Parliament; who forms the Government? Which school did they go to? That narrow band of brothers governs everything.

So I voted Remain as a way to continue to chip away at those class divisions and show them for what they are.

I didn’t choose Remain because of the warnings over the economy. I could have, and that would be reason enough, and I truly do not know how Britain could survive or prosper outside Europe.

Yet while the economic predictions are dire, ten years from now the situation could be reversed.

It is possible and maybe even likely, given British history. We have a proud tradition in inventiveness, resourcefulness.

But on present evidence the economic outlook outside Europe is bad. But still, it was because of the breach with culture that I voted as I did.

Since then I have been thinking. I have been wondering what those influential politicians in the Conservative party are thinking when they want us out of Europe.

We have attacked them for being out of touch and out of time – for pushing for a return to Britain as a proud colonial power, something that Britain was but cannot be any more.

Can they be so stupid? Can it be as simple as that they are deluded?

Is there something else? Is it the security issue? Do they know something about the risks of being bound within Europe? Is there a risk of Britain being dragged into something because of a Russian expansion westward?

Do they see the future as westward looking, towards the USA?

Do they want to return Britain to serfdom, with them at the head of the table?

And what of Labour under its present leader? He seems to want to be out of Europe at almost any economic cost, provided he can get his party into power.

I can see that, the plan to dismantle the banks, nationalise essential services, and divide up the windfall to create a fairer society.

But what a risk – a risk that his party will not come to power, and that all he will have done is facilitate misery.

Sign at the Peoples Vote March 23 March 2019 'Corbyn, This isn't something we could forgive'.

Sign at the Peoples Vote March 23 March 2019 ‘Corbyn, This isn’t something we could forgive’.

I don’t know the answer, but a million or more people marching to simply be there and be counted should count for something.

It should count for something and not be simply swept aside by a Prime Minister who keeps repeating that the people have spoken.

It’s like a woman drowning and dragging down the life raft and insisting it will save her.

Crowd gathering in London for the Peoples Vote march on 23rd March 2019

Crowd gathering in London for the Peoples Vote march on 23rd March 2019

Historic Newspapers

I just read an article on Simplenote about writing posts for WordPress.

Simplenote is a note-taking app made by Automattic, which is the company that owns the community version of WordPress.

The article says that if I write in Simplenote using Markdown to format the post, then I can paste the text into WordPress and it will preserve all the formatting and just ‘work’.

So that is what I am doing here.

I am pretty sure I wrote about Simplenote at some time in the past, and I’ll add a note about that below this sentence when I get to it and before I paste into WordPress.

I did write about Simplenote

Yes, I did – in 2013 where I also described how to use Markdown to format text.

But I am also writing about historic newspapers

Today has been an historic day for the British Parliament, according to just about every news outlet you read or listen to.

The Government lost the vote on its key proposal for how the UK is to leave the European Union.

It lost by such a huge margin that commentators are referring back to a vote in 1924 for a comparison.

But what does it mean? What is the next stage?

Is Brexit dead or will there be some wrangling in the corridors that will get it back on course?

We wait with a sense of hope and dread. (In case you don’t know where I stand on this, I want Britain to stay in the EU.)

Today’s newspapers might be historic.

They might be historic in more ways than one. Read on…

Guardian newspaper showing MPs in the voting corridor

Look at the cover of the Guardian. It shows the MPs filing down the corridor to register their NO vote.

No one photographs down there. No press photographers photograph down there.

But MPs themselves broke with tradition last night and photographed themselves in the corridor.

The Speaker Of The House

A couple of days ago the speaker of the House allowed an amendment to a motion. He broke with tradition in doing that. His justification was that the House (the House Of Commons) is paramount, and no executive branch (the Government and the Cabinet) has the power over it or to stop it.

The courts are bound by previous decisions. That is why they go to extraordinary lengths sometimes to distinguish one case from another when they want wiggle room to decide differently than they did before.

It is also why the courts make decisions by inches. They make pronouncements of principle as tightly drawn as possible to give them room to wiggle later on.

Parliament is different.

When the Speaker of the House broke with tradition about amendments, he was reestablishing a basic principle, that the House will not fetter itself.

What that means is that if the House votes for X at a certain point in time, it is always free to vote against X later. It will not be bound by its previous decisions.

That principle might be very important in the days to come.

The English Revolution Of 1640

I have copied this more or less word for word from where I wrote it first on No More Pencils. I have Gutenberg active on No More Pencils, like it is here. I went into the ‘admin’ there and copied the text and plonked it in here. And all the formatting is preserved. Pretty neat. The only thing I have to want to change is the origin of the photo of the bust of Charles II. It is being pulled from No More Pencils and I want to put it here in the media library.

I have just read The English Revolution 1640by Christopher Hill. It is available to read online, and that is how I read most of it before I bought the book secondhand. It’s a slim book that shouldn’t cost you more than £3.00.

My particular interest now today is to understand the reasoning and motivation of those in positions of power who favour a hard Brexit or indeed any Brexit. So I start with English history.

In A Nutshell

In a nutshell, the book argues that the monarchy, the landed gentry, the church, the big capitalists, the little capitalists, the merchants, the peasantry, the urban masses, the army – all had their positions to protect and advance, and their shifting allegiances in a changing world.

Capitalists were making money overseas and as pirates on the high seas. Those who bought land following the destruction of the churches under Henry VIII wanted rack rents from their tenants.

They weren’t interested in the feudal relationships that had kept the feudal landlords living like lords and they denied tenants their feudal copyhold entitlement to remain on the land.

Capitalists wanted workers. Tenants weren’t safe from being evicted from their land or unable to pay rack rents and were moving away to the towns to work in capitalist ventures.

The towns were bound by guilds that prevented the opening up of competition. Acts of Parliament prohibited those less well off from entering guilds – Parliament being the King’s parliament made of the King’s friends.

But things were changing, the makeup of Parliament was changing. And the capitalists had other means to circumvent the King.

They established ventures outside the towns, free of the restrictions.

Prices rose, and the feudal order collapsed because it was too expensive to maintain.

Meanwhile, attitudes changed because the Church was no longer the favoured or only route for disseminating truth and propaganda.

Civil War

The result was civil war, the establishment of a republic, and eventually a change in the relationship of a changed parliament that brought back the monarchy stripped back to do its bidding.

What didn’t happen? The mass of the population were not able to take power. They tried but they failed.

What I learned

What can I take from reading the book?

I learned that every group was bound together by self interest; that groups changed their composition as outside forces changed them; that groups formed allegiances with former enemies; that it was always a struggle for ascendancy and someone else’s expense.

Beyond that, that economic changes and the march of history rarely favour those trying to stop change.

I think the look in the face of Charles II in this c.1678 terracotta bust attributed to John Bushnell says it all. He was brought back on condition that he knew his place and kept out of politics.

bust of Charles II looking worried

At the beginning of this article I said that my particular interest now today is to try to understand the reasoning and motivation of those in positions of power who favour a hard Brexit or indeed any Brexit. What make-up of this country do they want to bring about? 

A Longish Quote

In that context, here is a longish quote from near the end of The English Revolution 1640.

Ever since then orthodox historians have done their utmost to stress the “continuity” of English history, to minimise the revolutionary breaks, to pretend that the “interregnum” (the word itself shows what they are trying to do) was an unfortunate accident, that in 1660 we returned to the old Constitution normally developing, that 1688 merely corrected the aberrations of a deranged King. Whereas, in fact, the period 1640-60 saw the destruction of one kind of state and the introduction of a new political structure within which capitalism could freely develop. For tactical reasons, the ruling class in 1660 pretended that they were merely restoring the old forms of the Constitution. But they intended by that restoration to give sanctity and social stamp to a new social order. The important thing is that the social order was new and would not have been won without revolution.

There is a worry from the hard Left and from the hard Right.