How AI could shape our politics for years to come

The success of ChatGPT has flung AI to the forefront of popular discourse. While many marvel at the feats this new technology is able to accomplish, there are a plethora of reasons to be apprehensive of the future it will help forge. For one, jobs are at risk. A 2021 PWC report on behalf of the UK government estimates that up to 30% of UK jobs could be at risk of automation by 2040. White collar workers in industries like financial services and the legal sector, long hailed as the 'winners' of globalisation, find themselves facing an uncertain future. Their jobs, once seen as insulated from automation, are now in the crosshairs of AI-driven disruption. This disruption will cause demographic shifts that will shape policymaking for years to come.

Historically, the negative consequences of globalisation and automation have disproportionately affected blue-collar workers, contributing to political shifts and the rise of populist movements. The decline of the Rust-Belt gave America Donald Trump. The deprivation of the Red Wall gave the UK Brexit and Boris Johnson. Now, as AI encroaches further into the white-collar realm, a new political coalition of workers could emerge. Professionals in industries like the legal sector and financial services, may find themselves in a similar position to their blue-collar counterparts, facing job displacement and diminished prospects. This disruption will reshape political alignments and mobilise support for policies that address the challenges posed by AI. To an extent it has already begun to do so.

One policy solution that has begun to blossom in recent years is Universal Basic Income. Previously regarded as a radical idea, the notion of providing a guaranteed income to all citizens regardless of employment status has gained renewed relevance. By providing a safety net to individuals whose jobs may be displaced, UBI offers a path to alleviate economic anxiety and ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth, thus alleviating the personal economic pressures created by widespread job losses. Just last week, Deepmind Co-Founder Mustafa Suleyman cited the policy as a potential solution to the huge job losses his creation could help cause. Suleyman argued that governments will need to provide for citizens whose jobs are destroyed or who find their wages depressed. “That needs material compensation . . . This is a political and economic measure we have to start talking about in a serious way.”

The policy isn’t without its problems. The largest barrier is very obvious: how would it be financed? However, with AI set to contribute an extra 10% to the UK economy by 2030, in spite of the likely job losses, and with income inequality having widened since the pandemic, redistribution would not be impossible.

Societal change doesn’t have to be so dystopian, of course. At least in the short term, as AI actually complements rather than replaces these workers, working conditions could improve, accelerating the shift towards hybrid working and the potential for four-day work weeks.

However, with tech figures like Google’s ‘Godfather of AI’ echoing Oppenheimer as they are horrified by the irreparable societal harm their creations could cause, it is essential to think forward about how we will respond to this transformation, for better or worse. AI’s disruption will be as political as it is economic, and Universal Basic Income is just one potential answer to what is likely to become an era defining question: when machines do it better, what becomes of us?

The Rebuttal: Shapps spins Erasure

Issue: What happens when the media notice you erased your former boss - a Prime Minister, no less - from history (and your photo)?

Context

Grant Shapps - he of the occasionally over-eager social media content - was today forced to scramble after it was noticed that a tweeted photo of himself posing in front of a Virgin Orbit rocket to celebrate today’s planned satellite launch in Cornwall used to include a picture of…Boris Johnson. It turns out the photo in question was taken during a June 2022 visit by the former Prime Minister and Shapps, when the latter was Transport Secretary. Adding insult to injury, today’s first ever satellite launch from European soil ‘failed at the final hurdle’, with the rocket failing to reach the required altitude (METAPHOR ALERT).

Shapps’ ‘line to take’

The following was delivered by a ‘source close to Grant Shapps’ (cough Shapps):

"Grant wasn’t aware anyone had edited the picture. He removed it as soon as it was pointed out. Obviously he wouldn’t endorse anyone rewriting history by removing the former PM from a picture. He was proud to serve in Boris' Government"

Line review

The photo misfire is the kind of small-bore issue that grinds the gears of any politician (or spad), especially one as usually sure-footed as Shapps. You’re out trying to capture some of the reflected glory of a significant event you have little to do with and someone goes and cocks it up by deploying the ‘ole departmental Photoshop where it’s not wanted. It is - chef’s kiss - a perfect web story, with guaranteed virality (just wait until everyone starts photoshopping stuff into the gap left by Boris).

Given that a story is going to be written it’s better to be in the story. These things happen, and that’s where the Shapps’ statement tries to go. But the third sentence - beginning with ‘Obviously he wouldn’t’ - commits the cardinal sin of repeating the allegation and should have been trimmed. Other than that, the line does the job: the principal didn’t do it, he took action, he was proud to serve (i.e. don’t hate me BoJo), etc. Indeed, sometimes all you can do is state the obvious and endure the copy.

The only potential problem is if Shapps or one of his spads did ask for the photo to be edited. Hostage to fortune anyone? We suspect not. But this is where a minister’s relationship with his civil servants is essential: if they like you any photoshop legerdemain should stay private. Should, we say.

Line rating

Blinder

Strong

Does the job ✅

Problematic

Piss poor

The Rebuttal - New Year, New Strikes, New Lines

Issue:

How should the Government brief the papers ahead of the worst week of rail strikes in thirty years?

Context:

Millions of workers face difficulties returning to the office with an estimated 80,000 trains being cancelled over five days of industrial action. The strikes centre on long-running pay disputes between the train operating companies and the rail unions. Technically, the Government has no role in the negotiations. But that isn’t stopping the Government being blamed for not breaking the deadlock.

The Government ‘line to take’:

“This is an act of self-harm — a generation of passengers will just write off the railways. We’re talking about permanent scarring. The longer the strikes continue, the greater the risk.”

Line review:

We get it. The Government is trying to say that it’s on the side of rail passengers. And that it’s not technically picking sides in this line. But it also kind of is. Which is why you end up with a headline which reads: “Millions will shun the railways forever, government tells unions”.

It’s not the best look to begin a year of strikes with a line which instantly raises eyebrows. It simply fails the sniff test. Will millions of passengers find a different way to travel forever? No. Why? Because they can’t. Yes, some might drive. But for many more, their only alternative to public transport is moving house (and we’re not building enough of those). It’s a dumb line. Worse, it makes the Government sound out of touch.

So why did they get it wrong? And how should they have made their point?

The Government needs to get across three messages. First, the Government needs to persuade the public that they’re on their side. This is difficult when a lot of the public are members of unions which are (or will be) striking and all of the public would quite like a pay rise. But it’s not impossible.

Express disappointment that the strikes are going ahead, highlight the small businesses that are struggling - particularly in the hospitality sector. Say that commuters deserve better. It’s not rocket science. It is predictable. It still works. And it’s definitely better than telling the public that they will write off the railways when they know they don’t have that option.

Secondly, the Government needs to explain that there is a structural problem with the railways. Passenger numbers have not recovered post-Covid and the network is in constant need of repair and updating. The result is that the railways keep needing to be bailed out by the Government or privatised. And this is particularly awkward for a Conservative government.

Perhaps by saying that strikes will exacerbate low rail usage, the Government is trying to shift some of the blame onto the unions for dwindling passenger numbers. But it’s not clear how persuasive this argument is. Your audience is the (voting) public. They know why they’re getting the train less and it’s probably more to do with their office letting them work from home than strikes. Better to acknowledge that people’s lives have changed, explain the impact of low passenger numbers and talk about how else to promote rail use.

Finally, the Government needs to explain that they can’t give everyone a pay rise. The line doesn’t address this. Yet, with nurses, ambulance workers. Royal Mail workers and (awkwardly) the civil service amongst a long list of striking sectors, intervening in the rail dispute would set an expensive precedent. And it’s one the Government needs to address.

The thing is, the public understands this. They get that inflation is a problem. They also get that not everyone can get a pay rise. There’s even a bit more resentment of striking rail workers than there is of nurses. Yes, they instinctively want the Government to step in and fix the problem. But the better approach would have been to set out why it’s not that simple.

Memo to “Government source” - don’t make up alarmist exaggerated predictions, just set out the facts instead. The public are suffering from the strikes. They’re thinking about why they’re happening. So just be honest and provide some context.

Line rating: Blinder Strong Does the job Problematic ✅ Piss poor