… Studies show that more extreme wealth shrinks economies, pushes people into debt and shortens life expectancy. It took governments a while to act on the data on smoking, just like it's taking them a while to act on the data on extreme wealth today with wealth taxes.”

I particularly like the comment from @taxjustice.net: “We often say extreme wealth is a lot like smoking! We used to think it's good for us until the data showed its killing us. Governments thought letting the superrich get even richer would make us all richer - but the opposite happened….

What a a lovely tribute to a fantastic organisation to read on a Saturday morning - thank you Phin. Let’s hope Woodcraft Folk continues to thrive over its next 100 years. 5/5

We need more opportunities for children and young people to engage in spaces where they are able to think critically about the world they live in, engage in campaigns and protests, are empowered to lead, discuss complex issues, and come together in solidarity with others. 4/5

I hear so many stories like Phin’s about how Woodcraft Folk has changed their life. I don’t even know if I’d still be alive without it. And some of my closest friends now are those I met as a teenager (or younger!) on camps in the north east, nationally and overseas. 3/5

Growing up a in small village in North Tyneside, the Folk opened up a whole new world for me. At the centre was political education, a cooperative ethos, and putting independence and decision making in the hands of children and young people. 2/5

And we've seen that what happens when science, tech and innovation fall out of step with public values - we need to anticipate future GM moments. The government needs to do more to involve the public in decision making. It is vital to making better decisions, improving outcomes and building trust

A big thing that has stuck with me was the current government's grand plans are reliant on AI to succeed. If the public don't accept AI, there's low adoption or backlash, then these plans will be impossible

3️⃣ When engaging the public on AI we need to consider inclusivity - literacy, digital exclusion, the methods we use to engage people. We need to start with curiosity and creativity and asking questions that matter to the people we’re speaking to

2️⃣ People want a seat at the table when it comes to AI, in development, regulation and governance - everyone needs a voice, but especially those negatively affected by it most (like those affected by facial recognition in policing)

Their findings:
1️⃣ People understand AI is not just a new programme but a societal shift and potentially disrupting force - people are expecting big changes but are uncertain what this means for them

I especially enjoyed hearing from 5 organisations funded by this project who have been doing invaluable work with less heard groups on public voice in AI - The Workers' Observatory, Migrants' Rights Network, UNJUST, The People Speak and Ada Lovelace Institute

Public trust in AI is not stable and there is a gap in knowledge around minoritised and marginalised groups' perceptions and experience of AI. 'Inclusion washing' is happening, where research targets specific groups to suggest acceptance, while not being inclusive in design or analysis