16th November 2022
There is a scene in the film Wall Street which almost gets you nodding-along with, if not cheering on, Gordon Gekko.
The scene is very carefully done.
It is a company’s annual stockholders’ meeting, and Gekko is about to speak from the floor.
You will know what he says.
But what you see is a stage full of non-plussed people in suits:
“Teldar Paper has thirty-three different vice presidents each earning over 200 thousand dollars a year. Now, I have spent the last two months analysing what all these guys do, and I still can’t figure it out.
“One thing I do know is that our paper company lost 110 million dollars last year, and I’ll bet that half of that was spent in all the paperwork going back and forth between all these vice presidents.”
*
The point is – or seems – inarguable.
And having got his audience – and us – onside Gekko then subverts us with his “greed is good” exhortation.
(Though even then he has to slip in “for lack of any better word” to make the sentiment expressed palatable.)
And if you find yourself thinking “but actually…”, just think of those thirty-three vice presidents all on that stage.
You cannot help but think he may have a point – doesn’t he?
*
Of course: that scene is a combination of clever writing and clever visual rhetoric.
And it is easy to depict things as, in effect, bloated – and to get claps and cheers.
But sometimes what appears bloated has a less obvious purpose.
Take, for example, the new owner of Twitter.
This is a tweet from him:
Part of today will be turning off the “microservices” bloatware. Less than 20% are actually needed for Twitter to work!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 14, 2022
And this is what then happened:
This afternoon: Elon Musk tweets that Twitter will be turning off “bloatware”.
Now: no one with two-factor authentication based on their phone can log in because one of the microservices turned off was the one that texts you your 2FA code.
Oh dear. pic.twitter.com/oF9cDVJK2D
— Conor Sewell (@CCSewell) November 14, 2022
Whoopsie.
Many who logged out of Twitter could not log back in, and so if you wanted to retain access you could not log out.
Or as Rorschach once put it:
*
The word “bloat” in this context is pejorative – a term used instead of thinking.
Just seeing a lot of something you don’t understand and do not like, and characterising (indeed, caricaturing) that something as “bloatware” is not enough.
There may be all sorts of hidden and semi-hidden things which are important, if not critical.
That is why a slow, methodical case-by-case approach is needed.
Else you can inadvertently turn-off something that matters, like Musk’s new Twitter did with phone-based authentication.
*
And now we come to our old friend, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
The premise of this Bill is that the mass of European Union law that still has effect in the United Kingdom is bloatware.
One can imagine a certain kind of government minister gleefully tweeting:
“Part of today will be turning off the EU retained law bloatware. Less than 20% is actually needed for the United Kingdom to work!”
Or another minister posing in front of thirty-three shelves of regulations, instead of thirty-three corporate vice presidents.
Some would be tempted to nod – perhaps even you.
But.
As this blog has averred before, a lot of retained European Union law is important and beneficial, and we negotiated and implemented it ourselves.
A great deal serves a function – even if it will take time and effort to ascertain what that function is.
Perhaps some of it is statutory bloatware and can be safely discarded.
Yet the moral of Musk and authentication is that gusto is not enough.
Caution – for lack of a better word – is good.
***
Please subscribe to this blog – each post will then be delivered to you by email.
***
Please also contribute to this blog if you can.
Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
When there was a push to cut the library budget at the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences a skeptical board member asked the Dean if a biology professor really needed them to buy thousands of biology books a year. The Dean responded “no, he only needs a hundred, but it will be a decade before he knows which hundred.”
Although two-factor authentication wasn’t on offer so all UK users were logged out of the EU application
Chesterton’s Fence strikes again.
And, in all of this, let’s not forget that a certain Mr Cummings explicitly idolised Mr Musk’s way of doing things… Out last few iterations of PM have been spectacularly useless in their own ways, but we could easily have had a glorified SpAd trying to run the country like Elon is trying to run Twitter.
Ireland broke with the old UK in 1922. Rather than ditch all existing laws they were retained save where they clashed with fudamental laws. Most where repealed or amended when it was appropriate. Some still apply in the Republic even ones that have been repealed in the UK. There was never an attempt to do a ground xero and get rid of all British laws. A common sense approach. I’d suggest that the UK does the same with EU law. Don’t ditch the baby with the bathwater.
Indeed. Any law which is never referenced, or whose existence isn’t even recalled, can be both ‘bloatware’ and totally benign. In coding terms, far from causing legal ‘latency’, it’s already been ‘commented out’. If it’s irksome it’ll show up and get revised in new legislation without any need to go code-scanning for it. Redundant code can be a security risk but redundant law is far less perilous to us all than the intemperate and ill-considered Bills currently in flight.
What concerns me is redundant law that everyone forgets about, and can then be used to persecute some people (via selective application). “Hello participant in the Just Stop Oil demo? Did you do your archery practise this week?” (Yes, I know that’s an urban legend, but it’s an example of the sort of thing that concerns me.)
I believe this can be done by statutory instrument on the decision of a minister (correct me if I’m wrong, it would make me happy to find it’s not so easy).
The present crop of ministers give me no confidence that a common sense approach will prevail.
Many of Britain’s ex-colonies retain oppressive laws which were introduced in defiance of local cultural norms, specifically the criminalisation of homosexuality in British India.
That is true. So the sensible approach is for those countries to weed out those laws which are no longer appropriate. It isn’t to abolish all the inherited laws, because some of them might turn out to be bad. That India, as in your example, hasn’t weeded out the bad law is the responsibility of India.
“I decided that the time had come to be blunt and to tell them what’s what. ‘Frankly,’ I said, ‘this Department has got to cut a great swathe through the whole of the stuffy Whitehall bureaucracy. We need a new broom. We are going to throw open the windows and let in a bit of fresh air. We are going to cut through the red tape and streamline this creaking old bureaucratic machine. We are going to have a clean sweep. There are far too many useless people just sitting behind desks.’
I became aware that I was actually sitting behind a desk, but I’m sure that they realised that I was not referring to myself.”
“… we were saved by the bell as the US Cavalry galloped over the horizon in the shape of Bernard Woolley hurrying into the ante-room.
‘About the press release,’ he began breathlessly. ‘There appears to have been a development which could precipitate a reappraisal of our position.’
At first I didn’t quite grasp what that meant. But he then went on to say that the Department had failed to rescind the interdepartmental clearance procedure, which meant that the supplementary stop-order came into effect, which meant that it was all all right!
In other words, my speech didn’t go out to the press after all. By an amazing stroke of good luck, it had only been sent to the Prime Minister’s Private Office. The Duty Office at the DDA had never received instructions to send it out before it was cleared with the PM and the FCO. Because of the American reference.
This wonderfully fortunate oversight seems to have saved my bacon. Of course, I didn’t let Humphrey see my great sense of relief. In fact, he apologised.
‘The fault is entirely mine, Minister,’ he said. ‘This procedure for holding up press releases dates back to before the era of Open Government. I unaccountably omitted to rescind it. I do hope you will forgive this lapse.’
In the circumstances, I felt that the less said the better. I decided to be magnanimous. ‘That’s quite all right Humphrey,’ I said, ‘after all, we all make mistakes.’
‘Yes Minister,’ said Sir Humphrey.”
This blog reminds me of a competition we had as law students: who could find the most useless/wasteful bit of legislation.
One of us proposed rules specifying the type/quality of paper that had to be used by Land Registries. Unfortunately for him, his wife was a historian who immediately corrected him. Acid-free (or whatever) was absolutely essential for the preservation of archives etc etc
Chesterton’s fence.
It’s interesting that they don’t actually say that they know which 20% are needed. That would be a good start.
The main concern, of course, is that they are just grandstanding – it’s not the action that matters, it’s how it appears.
As far as I can see the bill gives absolute discretion to ministers to allow regulations to lapse (or “sunset” to use the horrible expression in the bill). There are no criteria specified for what might be considered regulations than can be allowed to lapse, or any methodology for making that judgement. There is a great risk that a lot of perfectly healthy regulatory babies (many now adult as they’ve been around since the ’90s) will be thrown out with the bath water.
This is Chesterton’s Fence!
Even fairly small children can appreciate the merits of Chesterton’s Fence:
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
It takes a special kind of arrogance, bordering on delusion, to presume that oneself is immune to such considerations. The great marvel of Twitter is that both Elon Musk and numerous UK politicians have used it in their ways to convincingly demonstrate just how special they are.
Another phenomenon here seems to be “playing to the gallery” – saying bold, dramatic things to a remote audience when the subject matter in front of you is a little bit more complicated than you’re letting on.
It’s the same as Kyrl pointed out here recently.
https://davidallengreen.com/2022/10/why-the-chancellor-of-exchequer-should-read-ghosts-of-empire/#comment-485807
It’s Chesterton’s Fence
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chesterton%27s_fence
writ large, very large.
How Things Work
or Wishing Will Make It So
Your posts on Twitter (I just quit it), the Elon, and your posts on the UK government all have something in common. Making things happen is hard work. Yes, you can get a trade deal if you give the other side what they want i.e. you don’t negotiate or even know what you want. It extends to the Tory government’s inability to distinguish between slogans and policy. And it all goes back to the Brexit Referendum.
‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’ On your mark get set go…
Should everyone get an ice cream cone at 4 pm every day for free or not?
Should everyone be happy or not?
I live in VT. We just had two referenda. They were debated in two legislatures with an election between. They were specific. 1. dealt with slavery. VT is the first place in the world to ban slavery. In 1777, there were exceptions “no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent.” The referendum made the ban on slavery absolute.
“Article 1. All persons born free; their natural rights; slavery and indentured servitude prohibited
That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; therefore no person born in this country, or brought from oversea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years, unless bound by the person’s own consent, after arriving to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited.[”
The second entrenched in the constitution the right to abortion. To see if the voters will amend the Vermont Constitution by adding Article 22 to read:
Article 22. Personal reproductive liberty.
“That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Switzerland makes sure its referenda are specific and require the government to provide detailed information on the pros and cons. Recently, in fact, the Swiss Supreme Court struck down a referendum because the government had not provided enough objective information to voters. And by the way, in a referendum on something like the EU would require not just a majority but a majority in a majority of cantons.
Brexit failed as policy, as a referendum. It is merely aspirational.
I know many will disagree with me, but i think Brexit is not anything real just as those ice cream cones are not real.
I don’t understand why the EU parliament members from NI and Scotland don’t demand to continue to be seated as a/their nation did not agree to Brexit and b/the referendum itself was flawed.
JUNE 14, 1985 from the NY Times “The Supreme Court of Canada declared today that all laws established by the province of Manitoba in English since 1890 were invalid because they had not been enacted in French as well.” All the laws.
They cited not not the entrenched written parts of the constitution, but unwritten principles including the rule of law.
Don’t forget Canada has a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom enshrined it the 1867 Canada (né British North America Act).
Okay. I am bracing.
”
If I can believe Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Manitoba_Language_Rights – the Supreme Court of Canada suspended its declaration of invalidity for several years to allow time for the affected laws to be reenacted with French translations. I wonder when they finished…
One cannot help but imagine that when the “order” came down to purge microservices that a passive-aggressive mole in the ranks gleefully pushed the off button for 2FA.
Nothing like a spot of malicious compliance to really mess things up.
On a point of information, there are only 21 people on the stage at the Teldar Paper meeting, and they are not all VPs. (Hmm – I wonder if its ticker code was “TLDR”?) Some are VPs or Senior VPs, but also several Directors, the General Counsel, an Auditor, an Executive VP, and Mr Cromwell the Chairman and CEO.
There is in fact an English company called Teldar Paper Limited, currently dormant. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07528114
And seemingly unrelated companies called Teldar, Teldar Consulting, Teldar Group, and Teldar Travel (Teldar Tech has been dissolved).
The parallel between Elon Musk’s misguided and autocratic actions at Twitter and the British Government’s reactive responses to events is clear. Neither seem to understand about unintended consequences of what they do.
What is happening with Twitter is amusing (the effect of launching Twitter Blue was foreseen by Twitter staff but they’ve either been sacked or ignored). However if Twitter fails who really cares? The consequences of the poorly thought out actions of our Government will directly impact all of us.
The moral of the Gekko story: if you hand the microphone to someone speaking from the floor, keep your hand over the “OFF” switch.
A new director of British Rail once proposed to remove all the unnecessary bits of rail that, being rusty on top, were obviously not being used. It had to be pointed out to him that these were to prevent derailments on curves.
A similar situation exists with University Regulations, which are often historical and arcane, and only understood by ‘that tedious guy Charlie who keeps banging on about Para 6 Subsection 4(c) whenever we try to do anything creative’.
So a great deal of brilliant intellectualisation goes into producing new regulations which are a model of simplicity and logic. And then these are exposed to the kaleidoscopic chaos of a thousand students all with unique stories and an uncanny knack for occupying every niche circumstance not covered by the Regs. Appeals proliferate, referrals to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator result, costs are awarded, and gradually amendments are introduced to cover the circumstances. Then (usually after those who have been through this fire have retired or died), someone says “These Regulations are far too complicated…”