The tech revolution has barely begun – and politics is already behind, says Anthony Painter
Let’s not beat around the bush: the world is in the foothills of transformational change that we cannot yet quantify or fully understand. What is more, the magnitude of the change will only increase. It is difficult to know what to do if you are standing on the beach as a tidal wave approaches. The rational response is to run but that is largely futile. The better ‘response’ is to avoid being on the beach in the first place, by predicting the wave’s arrival, or at least to secure some extremely robust shelter.
Unlike a tidal wave, the change we are currently experiencing – driven by an array of new connected, sensor-carrying, human-mimicking, energy-generating, and transport technologies – will be both creative and destructive. The strongest voices in the current debate are techno-optimists and techno-pessimists. Each only sees some of the picture.
On the one hand is relentless and accelerating technological innovation. No matter what part of the income scale you are in, if your work can be routinised then watch out. And, remember, artificial intelligence is improving all the time – processing power trumps millennia of evolution at a certain point. Nonetheless, the optimists point to clear benefits from cleaner energy, more and better information, improved healthcare, and greater access to global experiences through cheaper travel. Our urban geography is constructed around existing transport systems. Could driverless transport evolve whole new types of living? Very probably if the canal, railway, road and then air revolutions are anything to go by.
On the other hand, human systems are slow to adapt. This slow adaptation includes politics and public institutions. Stable work and community relations are unpicked. New forms of social interaction in the digital sphere or through digital connectivity emerge. Some of these are positive including the development of mutual learning, information-sharing and asset-sharing. Some of these interactions – cyber-bullying or tech-wired terrorism spring to mind – are far more problematic. This is the fast and slow of the modern world: technology is fast, humans are slow.
It may take time but humans are adaptable. We have been in the midst of two centuries or more of technological change. We have coped and in many ways thrived. We live longer, we are better educated, we have access to a greater array of people and experiences, and we live in more open societies than our ancestors did. What is clear, however, is that we need open, creative and democratic institutions to help enhance our security, prosperity, creativity and opportunity. We will need these institutions if we are to protect what we will still continue to hold dear: some meaningful contribution in life, the sense of belonging, family, safety, and the ability to imagine a better future for our kids.
Left alone, technological change could be a divisive experience. The fate of those who own significant capital and those who rely on wages will continue to be very different. Some workers of similar current incomes will be empowered and others disempowered – think of drivers on the Uber platform versus traditional black cab drivers as a simple example. High-skill, non-routine workers, globally connected physically and digitally, will be advantaged in relation to others. New forms of welfare including a basic income, better networks of support for workers including the self-employed, and smarter labour market regulation will be necessities. Labour is well placed to think through these challenges if it is imaginative – its goal is growth, but a growth that is inclusive.
Global cities will thrive while second- and third-tier cities could find change more precarious. They will need access to greater power and resources and real imagination. This applies even to those cities connected by High Speed Two – it would be an opportunity and platform but depends on local leadership for its promise to be realised.
The international division of labour will change in ways we do not yet fully comprehend. The relative power of the citizen and corporations as well as the state could change as privacy wanes and new ‘algorithmic’ tools of behaviour management become possible.
Where will we be by 2020? Further along this road is the only possible answer. It may not feel very far but over the course of a decade or three the changes will be increasingly apparent. A tidal wave inspires simultaneous terror and awe. Luckily, these changes are not in real time so we are not frozen to the spot; we have time to think about how we may need to adapt to steer away from the divisive technological change scenario.
Political imagination and political leaders who can navigate people through pervasive change will be in demand. There will be an array of ten-a-penny populists ready and waiting to prey on people’s fear. An advantaged elite will revel in techno-optimism. What will be lacking is political navigators and creative institution-builders who can act skilfully in ameliorating new divides and real anxieties. Politics itself will change on account of inevitable fragmentation.
This means that the mainstream parties will no longer be natural monopolies (or, more accurately, a duopoly). The middle way will not be enough. Something more pluralistic and imaginative than that will be needed. And such is the nature of new connectivity and communications technology that, should the current mainstream fail to adapt, then others will. As with the commercial world, the barriers to entry are declining and the pace of change is accelerating. First Past the Post is the dam that protects traditional and well-embedded parties. Dams crack and they are only ever so high. They can be breached. Labour will need to be a radically more porous and pluralistic party – and this is no longer an optional extra.
Mass technological change used to be something on the horizon. That is no longer the case. It is with us and the impacts – positive and negative – are being felt. At some point the politicians will switch on and they will be surprised at what they find. How our democracy responds will influence a great deal. Are we ready? Is Labour?
———————————-
Anthony Painter is a contributing editor to Progress
———————————-
———————————-
Read Neal Lawson and Catherine Stihler’s responses to Anthony Painter. Articles in the Britain 2020 series are all available to read on the Progress website