There were two debates on AI, calling for Transparency, Accountability and Job Security. I briefly review the and reference the two motions, point at the TUC proposals, the French SA's fining of Amazon, ORG's critique of the Data Use and Access Act and cross reference other articles I have written on the coming impact of AI/LLMs. The full article is overleaf ....
We were addressed by Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This article, overleaf or below summarises the speech, and offers some comments.
Congress 2025 was required to elect the Union’s president and vice-president. I have only been attending Congress for a few years and Barbara Plant has always chaired them. I am told that her predecessor, held the role for many years and was not required to defend her position in an election. This year, however, the election was contested. The vice-presidential position was also vacant and so Congress had hustings and elections for a new leadership team. For more see overleaf ...
Yesterday, the GMB adopted a motion entitled, “For a fair and humane immigration policy”. This was proposed by my Branch and moved at Congress by me. The motion confirms its policy on fairness and dignity in immigration policy, calling for the repeal of Tory laws, action on ending the hostile environment, and the establishment of safe routes for refugees. It also sets out opposition to some of the proposals in “Restoring control over the immigration system”. The debate on the motion is embeded below.
I have created a document with the full text of the motion. My speech notes are available as a file and also below/overleaf. … …
The CEC presented a special paper on Industrial Strategy and Infrastructure. It argues that the UK needs an industrial policy, that needs to be public sector led, with appropriate [public] ownership models and central planning. The rest of this article, overleaf, explores the themes in more detail. ...
The General secretary, Gary Smith, presented the annual report, which excludes the detailed financial report which has its own agenda item later in the week. The following summary is based on notes I took at the time, which I have not checked on the video record. The aerticle, overleaf, talks about growth of membership, energy, the anti-politics of politics., and my article finishes with Gary's shopping list. ...
M20, from my branch, on making the privacy policy better was moved by and carried, annoyingly I didn’t make the point powerfully enough that the problem is that the GMB will not permit the use of email for contract purposes if members have opted out of email. The requirement for channel opt-outs precede the GDPR and depending on the privacy policy, an artefact required by the GDPR, means that email cannot be used for correspondence required by the membership contract such as dunning letters, or meeting convening notices, or even elections. The default communication mechanism is real mail. The debate is captured on youtube and starts here with my moving speech
This blog article is best read with [some of], the following documents, the final agenda document, GMB’s Congress page which contains all the documents and the video index is available as a playlist or as individual videos at the GMB’s youtube channel. This article has been back dated to about the time of occurrence. …
Congress debated and approved rule changes presented by the CEC, including extended expulsion reasons for union members and handling of disciplinary actions. Notably, rights regarding motion tabling at Congress were altered, and a proposal to increase Congress size was rejected. The implications of these changes affect union representation and governance. This excerpt has been written by wordpress's AI, to see my words use the "Read More" button ...
I have just made a second submission to labour's national policy forum. This one is on behalf of the labour campaign for free movement and covers the policy issue of immigration. Use the "read more" button to see the whole article and the cross references to the text of my submission.
Mike Phipps on his blog site, labour hub, has published a review of “Don’t talk about politics: how to change 21st century minds”. The review is written by the book’s author, Sarah Stein Lubrano. The blog article has a title, “I Canvassed, It Didn’t Work, Now I Know Why “. What fascinates me about the review, is the way in which she communicates her enthusiasm for canvassing for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour and yet her recognition that doorstep canvassing, and in her language, even talking to people, does not persuade anyone.
One of the themes I took away from Political Technology 25 was that motivating voters to vote, is easier than persuading people who are reticent to support you. Politicians, it seems, do not know how to persuade people, which may be one of the reasons why so many of them copy popular policies from other parties and use the bogus concept of the Overton window to justify it.
Since the 2019 election, Lubrano has turned to projects in building social solidarity.
In the labour hub article, she says,
If I could do it over again, I would instead have tried to build a food coop in my neighbourhood (like I later did with my friends). Or I would have rebuilt a weakened social space, the way the people interviewed in the podcast Now Here did when they turned pie shops, laundromats and mining halls into glorious pieces of community infrastructure. I would try to build a world of solidarity at a small scale, and then through that make the case for a government that operated with the same principles. (And in fact, that’s what I’m doing now!)
To me, this may be an important part of the jigsaw puzzle. Lots of effort is going into information technology to fight and win elections, but knowing how to persuade seems to be missing.
Others have framed the learnings from Lubrano’s book, that debate does not change minds which leads us to the need to address the toxic nature of many social media platform conversations, often posed, by their owners, as digital town squares. I reflect on this when considering Beth Goldberg’s contributions to the debate on how to regulate the social media companies as she alleges that the toxicity is deliberate and designed to earn profits.
Lubrano’s article on Phipp’s blog shows us a window into some obvious truths and the social and psychological theories as to why they are so. …