My day in London was one of two halves.
The morning was with some of those attending the House of the People citizens' assembly, and I have to say that I admired the diversity of those present, their curiosity, their diligence, openness, and desire to work in a spirit of curiosity to explore viable solutions to the problems that we face right now.
There were groups addressing the crisis in Gaza, climate change, activism, and the group that Steve Keen and I spoke to on wealth, inequality, and how we might address these issues.
Steve and I had not worked as a double act before, but we fell into a routine pretty quickly, each bringing out different aspects of an issue to answer the questions posed to us.
On occasion, Steve was more technical than I was, but I also think that probably reversed in the case of tax, whilst we very much batted together on issues around universal basic income, job guarantees, the economics of climate change, and some other such issues.
It was, I have to say, a lot of fun, and it would not have been if those who were attending had not been so curious. I will do it again, with or without Steve, because what was clear was that there was a mutual learning process going on, and I always enjoy them.
I genuinely have no idea what the recommendations of this group will be as yet. It was not for Steve or me to influence that. We had done our bit by lunchtime, after which we parted company with the group, which included quite a number of old friends and acquaintances whom I was pleased to meet again.
Steve and I then decided that it was most definitely time for us to swap notes because it had been two years since we last saw each other. We did, as a consequence, adjourn to an attractive and well-located independent coffee shop, where we sat outside to catch up with our own news and to discuss economics in some depth.
Steve had brought along a couple of iPhones with him, plus microphones and tripods, and set them up to record our conversation. If any usable material comes out of that recording process, then we might share it; however, I stress that I don't know this yet.
We covered a wide range of issues connected to economics, political economy, tax, MMT, and more besides, including a lot of our work on social media, which I very much doubt is worth sharing, but which was of advantage to both of us.
I left Steve refreshed by our conversation, as I think he was.
As I said at the beginning, overall this was a lot of fun.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“we very much batted together on issues around universal basic income, job guarantees”.
My daughter and her husband, are or at least were, both very well paid self-employed professional training consultants and are now suffering severely as AI is rapidly replacing them and it really has got me thinking what really are going to be the benefits to society if so many are made redundant and the increased profits acquired by companies continue to flow upwards. I ask myself: will the destruction and impoverishment of the middle class finally be the catalyst for the restructuring of the political economy as we know it
This is an issue we discussed today
I will return to it
Meanwhile this appears in the guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/21/openai-signs-deal-with-uk-to-find-government-uses-for-its-models
I had a discussion with someone senior in the company about AI, he was very optimistic but also wanted to say that no-one knows what it will bring. Unfortunately he’s not entirely correct there, you merely have to look at what the internet is becoming to see what will happen with AI. It is a tool, the best tool we will have for a long time, especially when we start really marrying it up with quantum computing. It will be owned by those who are already rich, large and in the tech space. They will offer it cheap to get you hooked and once humanity is dependant upon it extract their terrible price.
What will that price be? Same thing greed always does, extract as much as possible, enslave and dominate. This however is a trap, when people have nothing, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from turning to violence and it will be directed to those with unparalleled excess. However many will be caught up and die needlessly as with most forms of revolution.
What I am certain of is that AI needs to be managed
When the shades of night are falling
Comes a fellow everyone knows
It’s the old dope peddler
Spreading joy wherever he goes
Every evening you will find him
Around our neighborhood
It’s the old dope peddler
Doing well by doing good
He gives the kids free samples
Because he knows full well
That today’s young innocent faces
Will be tomorrow’s clientele
Here’s a cure for all your troubles
Here’s an end to all distress
It’s the old dope peddler
With his powdered happiness
Tom Lehrer
1953
Though not entirely correct I tend to assume most of the middle classes support our capitalist model and the politics that go with it.
If Al, machine learning, Robotics have the kind of impact on more cognitive/deliberative activities that has been suggested many lucrative middle class roles will be transformed or eliminated and will no longer provide a more comfortable life for them or their children.
Then hopefully our western Capitalism and its neoliberal thinking will be under threat and have to change.
But change to what?
The right will shift to Fascism we see that now but the left needs a completely fresh start as Labour, Greens, etc can not be a suitable vehicles for a transformed view of society. They are too associated with neoliberalism which they broadly accept.
We’ve got a new AI based phone system at work which provides a transcript of the call and a summary which I have started pasting into our notes
Thats very useful and does what it would take me some time to do – ie I would not normally so its a good thing
Some of the other uses however are not so clever
Interesting article here
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mr-backs-legal-aid-for-early-advice/5123929.article
In particular
But he acknowledged that there are nevertheless limits to how much generative chatbots might be able to help people, and he advocated that public funding be available for early intervention.
Vos said: ‘You can have such a chatbot but many people won’t ask the right questions… in many cases it is not actually the answer that is lacking, it’s the question. Although you can train chatbots to get to the right question, sometimes people just are not able to understand how to converse.
‘Those people will need to be transmitted to legal advice, and often I believe in half an hour, talking on a screen to a real human being these problems will be resolved before you even get to a court.
Much to agree with
The problem is in two parts
1) Not knowing not to ask
2) Not knowing what to do with answer, or how to establish that.
That’s a pretty massive issue.
@ John Boxall
Or your customer could take my approach yesterday when faced with a BOT.
Trying to comply with instructions on a web form got me into a web-spiral so I contacted the company customer support. None of the questions I was given matched my experience although I had given that information at the very start, so I typed, “What does the BOT not understand?” or, “Read my earlier replies”.
My best was, “The AI isn’t working as well as you think it is.” *That* got me a human response. And an apology. And I’ll continue that approach until the companies train their BOTs on recorded human conversations, not while the customer is trying to get help.
It took 13 weeks to train an Income Support claim processor in the Jobcentre in 1996 – and even then we didn’t, we couldn’t train on every possible scenario. Every person is different.
AI shouldn’t be let loose unmediated until it can *hear*. Not “listen” but *hear*. I’ve spent 70 years learning to speak English. I will not learn to speak BOTtish in order to destroy jobs. Technology should be our servant, and it isn’t Luddite to expect it to do our bidding. We mocked Windows until Microsoft cleaned up its act. Why are we then accepting the faults of AI without a murmur?
\ rant ends
Rants permitted
Richard, I think you and Steve, who I also follow, should think seriously about a two hander regular (weekly) podcast on political economics. focussing on countering the neoliberal narrative distorting the UK public discourse on the “economy”.
You could have a lot of fun with ‘howler of the week’ (the taxpayer will have to pay for this); critiques of policy annoncements (undiscussed alternatives – how to take Thames Water into public ownership for nothing; why PFI will always cost more) etc. It could be fast moving picking up on the weekly economic news and thoughtfully analytical as to why yhey’vr got it wrong.
I have in mind what the weekly podcast ‘Strong Message Here’ (Armando Ianuicci and Helen Lewis) does for political rhetoric – basically it makes fun of the users of manipulative political rhetoric and analyses their purposes in using it.
I know Steve is already committed to the Debunking Economics podcast but I see that as having a different purpose – explaining how economies work in reality and it can get offputtingly technical (as can Steve on his own).
What I am thinking of is having a laugh at people whose economic narrative is factually wrong and discussing why they keep repeating the error, using topical examples from that week’s news.
But it would have to be fun… snappy, unscripted and lots if laughs. And at the end there could be pointers to both of your more technical and explanatory materials on youtube and wherever that are relevant to that week’s stupidities proclaimed by politicians, thinktank pundits, and economic journalists.
What do you think?
I think it would all come down to time availability.
Scotland urgently needs a People’s Congress to shape a path towards independence and the changes to economy, energy, tax, EU or EFTA etc, interstate relations with England/Rest of UK and so on that go with it. Under Scots Law (and ratified by both Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments) the People of Scotland are sovereign and therefore have more leverage in dealing with the Westminster Gov’t than the SNP has. The SNP has still to produce a detailed plan for secession, so time is of the essence with a Holyrood election due in 2026 and, frankly, I’m not sure they have people with enough knowledge to produce an effective plan in the time available.
I’ve been doing a lot of research and thinking about this of late and I’ve concluded we need a project along the lines of the Scottish Constitutional Convention of the 1990s: a People-led body drawing input from a wide range of national bodies and institutions including politicians, which was highly successful in getting agreement on a referendum for a devolved Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people responded with a thumping majority for a devolved Scottish parliament. We need a similar focus to go further and seccede from the UK. This obviously entails a huge amount of planned restructuring (eg ensuring Neoliberal eceonomics is replaced by a Keynsian/MMT economics) as well as negotiation with Westminster, but UK politics and governance have the smell of decay about them and it’s time to escape before the whole edifice collapses. It also requires a sympathetic, knowledgeable and no-nonsense leader as convenor; someone like Lesley Riddoch for example, who has spent decades analysing how other small European countries manage their affairs and has produced numerous films on these topics.
If something along these lines can be set up, there’ll be plenty of opportunity for specialists (like Murphy, Keen etc) to provide expert input.
Having witnessed events yesterday I feel much more positive about this – but I have also yet to see their proposals.
I’m sorry but what you do not need is a structurally heavy apparatus for the government to listen to people. Feedback loops, citizens assembles – I don’t care what they are called – all of them do not need chairs, vice chairs and all that bollocks. As soon as you turn these feedback loops into committee type structures, you’ll have ordinary people behaving like
politicians I promise you, let alone enabling politicians influencing those ‘higher up’ in the feedback groups, with the honours system to reward them.
Never mind the bureaucracy of actually running these feedback loops themselves, it is how they work at higher levels of policy influence that interests me.
We know where we are: Voters are losing out on political influence every minute of the day to lobbyists and party donors. So how does a citizen’s feedback loop compete with that?
It can only be through a constitutional way enshrined in law, protected and upheld. This must happen to restore voter parity and enable democracy which is still addled by wealth.
As for ‘double devolution’ (DD) – I wish it were to be consigned to the scrapheap asap.
DD enthusiasts are being led by the nose to a big nothing. It’s all about context. Look at what is happening to the money – right? Watch the money. ALWAYS watch the money. Message received yet? If you watched the money, you might think again about DD because all you are going to be left with is exactly what Compulsory Competitive Tendering did – enabling less money to be spent in local areas (which will be decided in a Treasury whose thinking on local government is still dominated by Nicholas Ridley – no matter what anyone says).
Just remember again – the context – the public corporations (Councils) – technically accountable to everyone that provided sewage and water and housing are all being ripped up before your eyes in favour of private corporations like Thames Water and do you need me to tell you about them as well? You are dealing with a government style that is divesting itself of responsibility and letting the market provide but also talking about ’empowerment’. That sounds to me like buck passing.
My question to DD and citizens advice advocates is this – what do you want ownership in and of? The process – aping parliament – looking important, sitting on a committee, status, feeling that you are in charge or the results, or real empowerment, real results? If the latter, it is how the input from assembles leads to outputs having gone through parliament that needs to be focussed on.
Sorry about the rant but I will need to be really convinced about what happens to citizens assemblies and DD going forward. I am not convinced at all and deeply concerned that as they stand DD and assemblies will just add to the theatre that is politics and democracy in this country. I’m sure that a lot of well meaning and decent people will engage with any such apparatus and this in itself is excellent – but we must not let it descend into gesture politics. It’s just too important.
You are making a case towards a written constitution for a federal state
Seems you and Steve Keen got a hearing. First of five priorities for political action voted for by the House of the People: Remove Tax Loopholes and close Tax Havens.
Press Release included some detail on the mechanics used to create these priorities. Democracy done differently.
https://timetoassemble.org/uks-first-independent-grassroots-democracy-calls-for-immediate-and-total-embargo-on-arms-trade-and-support-for-israel/
Thanks
On the blog tomorrow.