GMB and a humane immigration policy

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. … …

Gary speaks

Gary speaks

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. ...

A better privacy policy

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. …

More and new rules (GMB25)

More and new rules (GMB25)

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 ...

In politics, stop talking, start doing

In politics, stop talking, start doing

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. …

Clause IV 2024

Labour Conference 2019 from the balcony

I have decided to reproduce Labour’s Clause IV, its Aims and Values. I think some need to be reminded.

Clause IV.

Aims and values

  1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist Party. It believes that by the strength of our common
    endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to
    realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and
    opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties
    we owe and where we live together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
  2. To these ends we work for:
    A. A DYNAMIC ECONOMY, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market
    and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and co-operation to
    produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a
    thriving private sector and high-quality public services where those undertakings essential to
    the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them
    B. A JUST SOCIETY, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the
    strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejuidice and the abuse of power. C. AN OPEN DEMOCRACY, in which government is held to account by the people, decisions are
    taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect and where fundamental human
    rights are guaranteed. D. A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, which we protect, enhance and hold in trust for future generations.
  3. Labour is committed to the defence and security of the British people and to co-operating in
    European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies to
    secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all.
  4. Labour shall work in pursuit of these aims with trade unions and co-operative societies and also
    with voluntary organisations, consumer groups and other representative bodies.
  5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.

Or

Labour Rules Clause IV 2024Download
 …

Second thoughts on the Euro-summit

Second thoughts on the Euro-summit

It is my view that Starmer wants a Swiss style deal with the European Union. The reason I consider the summit to be a draw, albeit a score draw, is that neither of the end goals of rejoining nor staying out with a Swiss style agreement are closed off. But also, neither is the end result of the EU saying we’re too busy to spend this time “dot & comma-ing” with you.

There is no inexorability in rejoining from that agreement as I believe is implied by John Palmer’s Chartist piece. Perhaps, John  believes that Trump will drive even Starmer away from NATO but I believe they will try very hard not to make the choice. In fact, I believe the proposal for a defence/security agreement is deliberately made to allow trade-offs against the single market acquis and to try to exclude security which includes border control co-operation from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.  

I also believe much of Labour’s defence positioning is designed for internal party combat and learnt from simplistic board games.

However, ihis article, entitled “EU officially retires its ‘no cherry-picking’ Brexit line” may show that the new Commission (and maybe even the Council), are happier with a deal with opt-outs; even then, I am not sure I’d want to start from the withdrawal agreement.

I believe that those of us who believe that it’s a better world with a democratic EU still need to seek to influence the Labour Party and Government.

Image Credit: from flickr, Keir Starmer’s feed, CC 2024 BY-NC-ND …