What are the UK’s political parties saying about technology?
Mining manifestos and conference tweets for clues
“What we’ve come to understand over the last two years is that, to coin a slogan, the technical is political. When Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, famously exhorted his software engineers to ‘move fast and break things’ he didn’t realise that one of the things that might get broken was democracy.”
John Naughton, who wrote the above a couple of weeks ago, is no stranger to the phrase the technical is political (he is Emeritus Professor of the Public Understanding of Technology at the Open University) but perhaps 2016–17 marked a period in which more people became subscribers to the view.
Based on recent news stories about technology, it’s not hard to see why:
- Machine learning might exacerbate inequality, reducing workers’ earnings while adding to the wealth of those with capital to invest in automation
- Sensitive tasks, traditionally requiring human judgement, (such as care or criminal justice) might be performed by flawed and blunt algorithms
- The social networks and advertising platforms developed by large tech companies make us vulnerable to the power plays of political agents
So if the politics of technology are becoming more tangible — how are our political parties approaching technology, and what positions are they taking?
Do they see it as a force which can (and should) be guided, or best left to the free market (or to whatever technology itself ‘wants’)? Which technological issues do they identify as opportunities or threats? Which groups want to own these opportunities, and which must be protected from the threats?
Or are they lagging public opinion and ignoring the politics of technology?
Technology made manifest
The manifestos for the 2017 election are a fair starting point to understand each party’s recent thinking. Let’s start by counting the number of technology-related words (derived from a list of zeitgeist-y technologies published by PwC: blockchain, AI, robot etc.) occurring in each manifesto:
The Conservatives mentioned the word technology twice as much as the Lib Dems and three times as much as Labour. “Fast-changing technology” is one of “five great challenges” mentioned in the first section, expressed as the need to balance the economic and social benefits of technology — while protecting security, privacy and the welfare of young people.
Labour’s approach differs. Technology isn’t mentioned until page eleven, and then in the context of the economy (“To harness the economic potential of new technologies and science, we will complete the Science Vale transport arc, from Oxford to Cambridge through Milton Keynes”). This more instrumental, threat-free approach is consistent through the manifesto.
Like Labour, technology isn’t front-and-centre in the Lib Dems’ manifesto (first appearance page twenty-seven) but like the Conservatives, they express concern about negative side-effects and plan to intervene: “The government needs to act now to ensure this technological march [of robotics and AI] can benefit everyone and that no areas are left in technology’s wake”.
Four months is a long time in politics
The manifestos reveal something of each party’s approach to technology — but a lot can change over a summer. What can we learn from this year’s party conferences? Tweets from supporters, lobbyists, organisers and policymakers might give a more up-to-date or complementary sense of the volume and tone of political conversations about technology.
The Labour and Conservative conferences attracted about 20,000 tweets each day, peaking at c. 2,000/hour in the middle of each day. Each leader’s speech caused a spike on the last day, with over 9,000 tweets/hour during Theresa May’s speech.
How many of these are about technology — and do they reveal more about the party’s approach or current thinking? Here’s how much technology (and the same related terms as used above) were mentioned in the tweets associated with each party’s conference:
There are a few notable things about the results. For example technology was hardly referred to in Labour’s manifesto, but very visible in tweets about Labour’s conference — at about the same volume as in tweets about the Tory conference. Did Labour develop an opinion on technology over the summer?
Another point is that big differences between the parties in the counts for a specific term reveal something of each party’s particular issues:
Automation— often associated with job insecurity — was used a lot in tweets about the Labour’s conference but much less in those about the Conservative’s, suggesting a Labour-specific concernCrypt(as in ‘encryption’ or ‘cryptocurrency’) andcyberwere used much more in tweets about the Conservative conference, implying security and cybercrime are more of an issue for the Conservatives
Though Labour might have become more interested in technology, the Conservatives still attracted the most mentions of technology-related terms.
The high point for the Tories was the third day, during which 1.6% of tweets about their conference were about technology. Labour peaked at a bit over 1% on their third day.
The Lib Dems seem to have become less interested in technology over the summer — they devoted more of their manifesto to tech than Labour, but didn’t seem to discuss it much at their conference. Tweets about technology were most common on the first and second days of the Lib Dem conference at 0.7% of the total. UKIP hardly mentioned technology at all.
Let’s take Labour and the Conservative party’s tweets in turn.
Labour
Labour’s conference seemed energetic and busy, with technology increasingly an issue as the days passed — peaking in the tweets when Jeremy Corbyn covered automation during his leader’s speech on the last day.
Browsing the tweets reveals several categories:
- The potential economic gains of technology e.g. championing the UK’s expertise and leadership in specific areas of tech
- The utility of technology in public service delivery e.g. care and justice
- Problems created or exacerbated by technology, such as online bullying and abuse, or human biases being embedded in artificial intelligence
- Statements about the purpose of technology, its place within the ethical and legal frameworks of a democratic society — and that it can be guided
- More partisan statements about Labour and the Conservative parties’ past and present relationship with technology
- Automation, jobs and the politics of artificial intelligence
The last few categories are the most revealing of Labour’s political approach to technology. There are three clusters of tweets worth highlighting.
Technology is a human endeavour
‘Technology might be unstoppable, but it can be steered’ might sum up the first cluster. Many of the tweets expressing this were clustered around Chi Onwurah, Shadow Minister for Industrial Strategy, Science & Innovation.
Onwurah spoke at a number of events on digital technology and artificial intelligence, with some of her views captured in listeners’ tweets.
For example, in one event on sexism in AI she expressed concern over the baking-in of biases in algorithm. Either in response to Onwurah or as a summary of her view, one Labour supporter tweeted that technology serves people — and policy can and should be developed to ensure fairness in future industrial revolutions.
The party for the 18th century
John McDonnell and Rebecca Long-Bailey (Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) prompted more partisan discussion.
“The Tories are stuck in the Victorian era” said McDonnell as he addressed conference on automation and jobs, going on to emphasise Labour’s enthusiasm for new technology — but calling for government to manage the transition to more automation in the workforce.
(Replies were quick to remind McDonnell that the Victorians were in fact known for their techno-enthusiasm, while others criticised Labour’s past.)
Long-Bailey also laid into the Conservatives, warning of monopoly profits and exploitation under the Tories and establishing Labour as workers’ only hope: “half of our jobs could be lost to automation in the years to come, it is only Labour that fight for rights for workers”.
The white heat of technology
The most important group of tweets were around Jeremy Corbyn’s speech, which explicitly addressed automation at some length:
We need urgently to face the challenge of automation — robotics that could make so much of contemporary work redundant. That is a threat in the hands of the greedy, but it’s a huge opportunity if it’s managed in the interests of society as a whole. We won’t reap the full rewards of these great technological advances if they’re monopolised to pile up profits for a few.
“The impact of automation must be planned and managed” he continued, announcing a National Education Service to enable free, continuous learning. His comments (and this Telegraph article) prompted many on Twitter to assume a ‘robot tax’ — though Labour denied such a tax to one journalist.
Labour’s approach and the idea of a robot tax seemed to split Labour’s supporters, with some applauding Labour’s embrace of technological change, and especially the link to lifelong learning, and others concerned that the idea of a robot tax was backward-looking.
Several supporters seemed pleased and surprised that automation had made it into the leaders’ speech.
Others noted the electoral reasons for putting automation front-and-centre: “Because so many Tory voters are retired, more Labour voters will be affected by automation” said one pollster.
Earlier in the conference, John McDonnell quoted Harold Wilcon’s White Heat of Technology speech of 1963 when making his own comments about automation, and several people compared Corbyn’s speech and stated enthusiasm for technology as similar to Wilson (who said “there is no room for Luddites in the Socialist Party”).
(Wilson mentioned automation nine times, Corbyn four.)
Overall, Labour’s approach demonstrated a readiness to regulate, particularly when technology promises to affect the wellbeing of vulnerable groups, or might scale up and entrench inequalities already present in society.
The party go to some pains to frame themselves as embracing new technology — but their biggest concern by far is for the effect of automation on working-age voters, seeing education and active government as the primary remedy.
The Conservatives
The Conservative conference was (by most accounts) a more depressed occasion — but the discussions on technology sounded fairly dynamic.
Tweets show that technology was discussed in many meetings during the conference, at a number of busy fringe events as well as main speeches.
The number of tweets about technology peaked on the last day, during Theresa May’s speech — though this was mainly because of ‘Maybot’-type references…
Apart from the plentiful messages about ‘robotic’ delivery or Labour or Conservative ‘drones’, tweets about technology at the conference fell into several categories:
- Specific policy announcements e.g. institutes of technology, or the announcement of a green paper on internet safety
- Talking-up of the British technology industry e.g. batteries, AI, technology of value in mitigating climate change etc.
- Problems enabled by technology e.g. online abuse and cybercrime
- Blue-sky proclamations about the future e.g. fourth industrial revolution, robotic raspberry-pickers or carers, technology in NHS
- Broad statements of sentiment or approach to technology
The last category contains the more interesting tweets: they tended to reveal the most about how technology was discussed at the conference and how conservative values applied to technology. There were three or four moments, described in tweets, worth pulling out.
The opportunities outweigh the risks
Matt Hancock (Minister of State for Digital) took part in several fringe events on technology. Some of his thoughts on AI are captured in tweets.
His contributions often emphasised both opportunities and threats of AI, though coming down firmly on the side of the benefits, and acknowledged a need for ethics and legislation (though not a ‘robot tax’: “a mad idea” ResPublica reported him saying). There was little detail on what such a Conservative-specific ethical framework might look like — but that might be asking too much of 140 characters.
The invisible hand
Three politicians talked about technology in the context of the free market versus state support and regulation.
The first was Philip Hammond, who cast state support for technology as a panel of civil servants charged with determining which innovations will succeed.
Next up was Boris Johnson, who responded to Labour’s plan to tax automation: “Manchester didn’t become successful by taxing the spinning jenny” he said.
The third was Theresa May, who caused a slight Twitter-rumpus when she claimed the internet as a product of the free market during her speech. Swift rebuttals followed.
Encryption and condescension
If Hammond, Johnson and May were advocating for the benefits of the free market, then Amber Rudd joined Matt Hancock among those who thought technology could do with a little bit more regulation.
The Home Secretary’s target was end-to-end encryption, which she charged with enabling terrorists to communicate online; radicalising others and organising themselves.
Her speech at a Spectator event called for more help from technology companies and was responsible for a large proportion of the Conservatives’ technology-related tweets, from supporters and opponents. Listeners (possibly correctly) interpreted her call as a request for a back-door into encrypted messaging services (as she has in the past).
The Home Secretary denied she wanted to ban end-to-end encryption but did complain that to call for regulation of the technology giants was to be sneered at:
We will take advice from other people but I do feel that there is a sea of criticism for any of us who try and legislate in new areas, who will automatically be sneered at and laughed at for not getting it right.
Rudd’s complaint illustrates the difficulties that all policymakers (on the left and right) have in keeping up with fast-moving technology. It also illustrates that political and policy thinking on technology is as important relevant to the Home Secretary as to Ministers at BEIS.
Several tweets related to the re-launch of the moribund Conservative Science & Technology Forum, which can only be a good thing if it provides genuine thought leadership on technology to Conservatives.
To summarise, the Conservatives are bullish about the advantages of new technology, conscious of their reputation as free-marketeers, and reluctant to intervene on the social side effects of tech for fear of inhibiting growth.
However in reality, they are just as willing to consider regulation when technology threatens national security or enables criminal behaviour, and have developed an uneasy relationship with big technology companies.
Conclusion
There’s not a great gulf between the major parties: both see the economic potential of technology as a great prize, and both view technology as essentially a human process which can be guided to serve people’s best interests — though the Tories’ free market rhetoric is important to them.
Both see groups of people among their supporters who are vulnerable to technological change: for Labour it is working voters at risk of job loss, for the Conservatives it is the more immediate concerns of (possibly retired) voters concerned about the role of encryption in national security.
And both seem to have floated vague ideas about technology regulation which appear to have been popular with some supporters but are by no means concrete or even workable proposals: Rudd’s hinting of a back-door into encrypted systems versus Corbyn’s pointers towards a robot tax.
The Labour party seem to have made more a political narrative around technology: invoking Harold Wilson’s speech to connect with their past, reminding voters that the Labour party are not Luddites, and linking automation to a plan for lifelong continuous learning.
But the biggest indicator that technology is now political is that the same Labour leadership — who barely mentioned automation in their manifesto for government — chose it as a major theme of their leader’s speech, and judged it as an issue with enough public feeling to use it to attack the Conservatives.
