Category Archives: basic income

Their Last Throw of the Dice

The Jewish lobby (aka Israel lobby, Zionist lobby etc) have been pulling out all the stops to trash Corbyn, to make him resign or to surround him by Labour MPs, officials, NEC members, “advisers” etc who can restrain him, control him and maybe depose him.

The lobby has been gunning for Corbyn since he was first elected as Labour leader. I have previously blogged about that in some detail. “They” failed to prevent Corbyn’s election, then failed again (to prevent his re-election). In between, the lobby has applied maximum pressure on Corbyn himself, in order to try to force a resignation. They have also tried to remove key Corbyn supporters. The latest attempt to topple him even had the head of Labour group Momentum [], Jon Lansman [], a Jew, reduce support for Corbyn in the key area of supposed “anti-Semitism”. Momentum itself is actually controlled by a private company ultimately controlled by Lansman:

In addition, John McDonnell MP, ambiguous if not favourable to Jews, and an ambitious man who (for the first time) is within sight of a ministerial and possibly prime ministerial role, has been prevailed upon to pressure Corbyn in person. He is, arguably, Corbyn’s closest ally in the House of Commons.

The most recent manufactured storm around Corbyn and Labour has been set in motion after Labour refused to adopt the so-called “international definition of anti-Semitism” promoted by a Zionist body called the “IHRA” (which tries to ban all critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative and fakery thereof). In fact, though 30-40 (ZOG-occupied) states have adopted the definition, 155-165 have not (there is dispute about the numbers).

The storm now raging as I write has been a revelation even to me, as I realized anew how deeply the Zionists have burrowed into the structure of the UK, especially in the fields of politics, law and the mass media. Not every journalist-scribbler, editor, msm CEO, lawyer, TV/radio talking head etc is a Jew; it just seems very like it…

At time of writing, it seems that Corbyn is going to tough it out, seem to give in in part, while actually withdrawing from the fray so that the Jew-Zionists have nothing against which to press. Corbyn must have studied Sun-Tzu!

This is surely the last throw of the dice for the Jewish Zionist lobby trying to unseat Corbyn. The assault this time has been frenzied. The reason is clear: Labour recently was ahead of the Conservatives in the polls, though it is at time of writing in second place again by reason of the contrived msm storm. Labour has every chance of at least forming a minority government after the next general election. If that happens, Corbyn will be Prime Minister and the Zionists (for the first time since at least 1989) will not control or very strongly influence the British Government politically. This is their last throw.

Notes etc



What Do People Need?

On rereading Andrei Amalrik’s Involuntary Journey To Siberia of 1970, all sorts of impressions were received, most not at all new: the lack of freedom in the Soviet Union, the Kafka-esque Soviet legal system, the primitive life lived by Russian kolkozhniki (collective farm inhabitants) in Siberia etc.

However, at the end of the book, the author’s sentence for being a “social parasite” (5 years internal exile –2.5 years of which to be hard labour on a collective farm or elsewhere–) is quashed on appeal, Amalrik returns to Moscow with the wife whom he in fact married in Moscow and during his exile (because he was allowed compassionate leave from the collective farm or kolkhoz to visit his unwell father). He applies to the housing people in his district and, after some difficulty when he has to share with others, is given a flat with a decent bathroom and telephone.

Now, we are often told and quite rightly that Soviet people generally lived poorly, had to share, in many cases, their accommodation by living in communal flats or kommunalki (usually large flats expropriated from affluent persons during and after the Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent Civil War, though in fact such shared apartments pre-dated Bolshevism), sharing kitchens and bathrooms etc and given, at best,one room per person (it was usually worked out, in theory, at so many square metres per person or family).

All of the above is true, but when one looks at the situation in 2018 Britain, many are not much better off, and some are worse off. Would a prisoner released from incarceration in the UK be given a flat, even a small one? The most he could expect would be B&B accommodation of a markedly poor sort, and to be put on a local authority waiting list, probably behind a horde of “refugees”, “asylum-seekers” and other riff-raff.

In fact, look at how many British people with full-time jobs live! Many in shared houses and flats, or in bedsit rooms. No better off than Soviet citizens! How many “hardworking” (the label of the past few years) people are living in not very nice shared accommodation in the UK, living off pot noodles and the like?

To go off at a tangent, this “hardworking” thing has become a joke: for example, school students all deserve (increasingly meaningless) “A” “grades” in exams because “they have all worked so hard”. Doesn’t matter if they are thick as two short planks and know only force-fed “facts” (often incorrect, as in the case of “holocaust” “history” etc). They are “hardworking” and so are the “deserving” academic poor. They therefore “deserve” to attend a “uni” where they will also “work hard” to “achieve” an almost meaningless “degree” (an equally-meaningless “First”, in half the cases) before –for many–getting a minimum wage (or not much better) job…

The above thoughts should impel us to think about what people need in a basic way, about what should, arguably, be the State-provided or guaranteed minimum.

Ideally, everyone should live in a decent house or flat, free of worries, with pleasant neighbours if any, while doing work which benefits society. That of course is a counsel of perfection, but that fact should not stop us from aiming at a higher and better form of living for all citizens.

For me, everyone should at least have a home, preferably one where there is reasonable space, reasonable peace, reasonable access to green gardens or wider Nature. Living space should be regarded as a human right, not as a way for buy to let parasites to make profits from the need of others. Everyone should have access to telephone and Internet. Everyone should have access to cheap or free public transport, at least in the local area and arguably within a 20-mile radius of home. Everyone should have (up to a determined cap) free water, electricity, heating. Beyond that, everyone should also have a “basic income”, even if only (in today’s money) £20 a week.

We can move to a society where the basics are provided. When people have the basics, they can work to get more, or to improve aspects of society in other ways.




Leadership, Dictatorship and The Need For Effective Government


A woman journalist or opinion-writer of whom I had not previously heard, one Clare Foges, has suggested in an article in The Times that the leaders of the UK and Western Europe might learn from political “strongmen” (she cites an eclectic mixture: Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Duterte).

About the Writer

Having not previously heard of the writer, I did a quick Internet search. The surname suggests a Jewish origin, and someone of the same name posted this online in 2000:

It seems that Clare Foges wrote speeches for David Cameron-Levita and others prior to the 2010 election and immediately after it. She has also written at least one book for small children.

Having now read a little about her, I should say that she seems to have some intelligence, though perhaps not enough, or not enough knowledge, for the matters she discusses in print. Her understanding of society and politics seems shallow. She gave an interview to the Evening Standard in 2015. In it, she proposes, inter alia, better pay (!) for MPs, who “give up well-paid careers” etc. Ha ha! She really should take a look at the collection of misfits, also-rans and chancers who comprise many (not all, admittedly) of the more recent MPs!

Indeed, in 2017 she herself wanted to become an MP, for the fairly safe Conservative seat of the Isle of Wight, but withdrew after having been shortlisted:

In fact, the then-incumbent MP had hardly “given up a well-paid career”, having been a geography teacher in comprehensive schools for most of his life:

and that MP (also an expenses freeloader…) then “stepped down” after having “become a laughing stock” by reason of his quasi-matrimonial situation:

In short, my provisional view is that the writer of the article is, at 37 or 38, someone who for whatever reason has fallen between the cracks, who might have become something in the political realm, even perhaps an MP (and after all, her background as pr/”comms” “intern”, sometime children’s book writer, “Conservative” speechwriter, amateur poetess and (?) professional scribbler on politico-social issues is no worse than that of many “Conservative” or “Labour” MPs, and better than some) but has not.

The Issues Raised

What are we to make of this article suggesting that the UK needs leadership informed by “strongmen”? Duterte is the Philippines leader who has presided over a campaign of extra-judicial killing of drug gangsters etc. Erdogan is the political-Muslim Turkish dictator (by any other name) who is dismantling the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. Putin and Trump are too well-known to need any introduction even to those who take little interest in politics.

The main issue, surely, is that government must govern. It must be effective. Ideally, there will be checks and balances: law, due process, civil rights, property rights (within reason); however, in the end, a useless government has no right to exist.

Political leaders (including dictators) emerge for reasons. In broad brush terms, Putin emerged because Russia under Yeltsin had become a chaotic mess. Pensioners and other poor people were starving or dying from cold or lack of food, by the million. Public sector workers were being paid almost nothing. Jew carpetbaggers had flocked to Russia like a cloud of locusts (or vultures) and were stealing and cheating everything, pretty much. “Russian” Jew “oligarchs” ruled from “behind the throne” and had tricked their way into “ownership” of vast oilfields, diamond and gold mines, heavy industries. Putin began to claw back some of that. Pensioners who had been getting (USD) $5 a month under Yeltsin, now (2018) get $400. People are at least paid for work. Chechen and other gangsters have been stamped on and many killed or imprisoned. Russia has flourished compared to the 1990s.

Erdogan is someone for whom I myself have little sympathy, not least because I value the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. However, Erdogan has improved the lot of the poor, we read, while the economy has improved under his rule.

Trump likewise seems an egregious person generally, and even more egregious as a leader of a government and as a head of state. However, his rise (fuelled by his own huge fortune, of course) was not based on nothing. Many people in the USA are living in poverty. I read that 40% of Americans now require US governmental foodstamps! Many jobs (as, increasingly, in the UK and elsewhere) are “McJobs”, precarious and badly-paid. The drug epidemic is out of control. Illegal immigration had run wild since the 1980s. Whether Trump can deal with these problems and others,  with the “separation of powers” American system, is doubtful, but the dispossessed and marginalized, among others, voted for him to try.

The Missing Leaders

Clare Foges cited Trump, Putin etc, but not the controversial leaders of the 20th Century: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao etc. They all took harsh measures but also did a huge amount that was positive. Hitler in particular saved Germany from degradation, removed Jew exploiters from the economy, the professions, the mass media; built autobahns (the first in the world); created air and airship travel routes; vastly improved animal welfare; planned new and better cities and national parks; put Germany to work and (for the first time) gave workers rights such as decent breaks at work, Baltic and other holidays in Germany, and also foreign holidays including cruises. Decent homes were built on a huge scale.




Britain could do worse than follow Hitler’s lead, introducing some updated and English/British form of social nationalism.

Stalin was far harsher as a leader and as an individual than Hitler or Mussolini, though Mao might be considered far worse (but of course he was non-European). Stalin however (like Hitler) was put back domestically by war. Stalin did recreate the industrial sector, which was booming before the First World War but which Bolshevism all but wiped out as a thriving economic sector. Stalin’s major mistake (apart from his cruelties and brutalities etc) was to allow the agricultural sector to be ruined via Collectivization, the legacy of which is only now being very slowly erased.

Mussolini did a huge amount for Italy. His posturing on balconies etc is what people now think of when his name is mentioned, but he eliminated the Mafia (until the Americans caused its revival after 1943, releasing the imprisoned leaders and followers), started to get rid of the terrible urban slums (unfortunately more were created as a result of the Anglo-American invasion of 1943); Mussolini also created an advanced scientific and industrial sector, mainly in the North. Famously, he also greatly improved the railways, and “made the trains run on time” (both truth and metaphor). Now, the wartime propaganda of the Western Allies and Stalin is all that most people outside Italy know– Mussolini as clown. Ironic that a real clown (the leader of the Five Star Movement) is now a major political figure in Italy!

Britain 2018

The UK has been pretty much left to rot since 2010. The Blair government, though repressive and in the pocket of the Jewish-Zionist lobby, tried to modernize infrastructure generally. New buildings were constructed: hospitals, libraries, schools. Credit where due.

The David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger government of idiots was not only the most pro-Jewish/Zionist government Britain has ever had, (until Theresa May became Prime Minister), but also the least-effective of modern times (again, until that of Theresa May?). It not only failed to do anything new and decent, but also failed to maintain that which already existed, in every sector, from libraries and schools to the air force and navy.

The lesson surely is that government must be effective. If it is not, the State stands in peril. The people eventually demand action. They are beginning to demand it now.

The article by Clare Foges is, it seems to me, a sign of the times, or a straw in the wind. The political times in Britain are a changin’…

How Can There Be International Large-Scale Politico-Social Change by 2022?

I have been re-reading Involuntary Journey to Siberia, by Andrei Amalrik [], a Soviet dissident better known for his short book Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? (both works were published illegally outside the Soviet Union in 1970, a fact which resulted in a 5-year sentence of hard labour and then internal exile in Kolyma).

Leaving aside the fact that the slowly increasing repression of free speech and free political activity in the UK of 2018 is mirroring (albeit in slightly milder form) that of the Soviet Union of 1970, it occurred to me –not for the first time– how hard it is to predict, accurately, sudden or large-scale socio-political and socio-economic change.

When I read Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?, which was in or about 1980 (the year Amalrik himself died, a result of his own careless driving in Spain), I thought that the thesis was possible but would take far longer, probably 20 years longer. I thought that there would be a gradual collapse. I was wrong; so was Amalrik, but only by 5 years –in reality– or by 7 years (formally). Sovietism and all other forms of old-style socialism across the world died in 1989 in real terms, though in official terms the Soviet Union coughed to a halt only in 1991. This was perhaps appropriate: the Soviet Union was established formally only in 1922, though everyone thinks of it in terms of being established de facto in 1917.

It should now be added that all the “experts”, “Sovietologists”, “Kremlinologists”, Foreign Office bods, SIS bods, journalistic scribblers etc (all the ones I ever heard of, anyway) laughed at Amalrik and his book. The “East-West” Cold War set-up seemed set in stone. The Soviet Union was a granite monolith. They had been brought up in it or on it, most of them, most having been born in the 1930s and 1940s: nothing would happen suddenly. They were wrong. A combination of factors brought about not only the swift collapse of Soviet power, as well as the Soviet “empire” worldwide and particularly in Europe, but that of all forms of ordinary old-style socialism, from the CPSU through to the pre-Kinnock/Blair UK Labour Party.

Lenin thought that the revolution in Russia was upon him in 1905; he discounted the real upheaval in 1917 and very nearly missed the boat. Hitler also thought that his time had come in 1923; when it did arrive, in 1932-33, he was uncertain at times about it.

I happen to believe now that we are in a current of (about, approximately) 33-year history. 1923, 1956, 1989, 2022. If I am right, the year 2022 will bring about another huge change in economics, politics, society, the world order generally. Think of how, say, China has changed since 1989. Russia too. Even the UK has changed hugely since 1989. The finance-capitalist “reforms” under Mrs. Thatcher had not started to affect most people outside the formerly industrialized North of England, South Wales etc. The mercantilism and commercialization that has happened since 1989 has changed the UK profoundly, in most respects in a not-good way, though there have been positive changes as well.

In brief, and without pretending to be comprehensive, one can say that, in the UK since 1989, the professions have largely become businesses, that the State has, at least in part, abandoned many who need help, that the UK (especially England) has largely become a non-white society, that the Jew-Zionist influence over mass media, politics and other areas of life has become pervasive and destructive, that there has been a general coarsening of thought, of cultural life, of behaviour.

UK politics has, since 1989, gone through the changes outlined above with the following results

  • Labour has had a quarter of a century of what amounts to control by New World Order/Zionist Occupation Government NWO/ZOG types: Kinnock, Blair, Brown, before collapsing under Ed Miliband; its MPs are still mostly of that type and Jeremy Corbyn is finding it hard to completely defeat the Jew-Zionist/Israel-First lobby within his own party. The Old Labour members and MPs still exist, but only just. Few now have ever done industrial work; many have never done non-political work at all, unless one includes management consultancy, public relations, “comms”, “organizing” what remains of trade unions, pseudo-academia etc.
  • The Conservative Party is now almost devoid of real members. The average age of members is somewhere around 70 if not 75. The membership figures are now kept secret, but it seems that a party which once had 4 MILLION members (in the 1950s) now has about 20,000. A Potemkin village with no-one living there. A mirage.
  • Other parties are even worse off. The LibDems have surely had their day except as a tactical vote for discontented voters trapped in “safe seats” occupied by parties they do not like. The graphics explain it.C3l1gk9XAAMHAwF


  • UKIP was the populist answer to the gulf between governed and governing. However, the totally unjust voting system defeated it (in any case, UKIP had few answers to Britain’s real problems, was pro-ZOG/NWO, and by the time it deflated after 2014, even had non-white candidates! Some called it “kosher nationalism”). UKIP’s 2015 result said it all: 3.8 MILLION votes, 1 MP (former Conservative Douglas Carswell, an entryist, in my view).
  • Real British nationalism of a more social national type has hit rock bottom. The BNP failed in 2010 and collapsed in 2015. There are now only a handful of parties of general “nationalist” type, all of which are jokes, only one of which (Britain First) has more than 500 members.
  • The people are divided into a minority of wealthy and/or affluent who have doubled or tripled their capital over even the past decade, and the rest, many of whom are paying through the nose for poor rented places in which to live, who make rubbish money from jobs which (like their rented homes) are without security; their votes mean almost nothing, their views mean less, and they are just disposable labour units in an unfair society.

It Could Happen

An opinion poll has just been published saying that 24% of UK voters would vote for an “extremist” “far right”, “anti-Islam” and anti-mass immigration party. 38% want a real Brexit and would vote for any new party promising it (credibly, presumably). Leaving the tendentious wording aside, there we have it! The prize is right in front of us!

It could happen that

  • Brexit either happens on WTO terms, or fails to happen, causing massive discontent;
  • Russia and NATO get into actual conflict in Eastern Europe;
  • Corbyn becomes Prime Minister but with no majority; or
  • Some Conservative Party idiot-MP becomes a weak PM; and
  • The people are pushed beyond endurance on real pay, rents etc.
  • Mass immigration is not stopped or even increases.
  • Zionist exploiters are exposed even more than they have been.

In those circumstances, a credible and very radical social national party can take power and start to clear away the rubbish. 2022 and thereafter. Then we can see across Europe removal of the migration-invaders, removal of finance-capitalist parasites, a better society in Europe (inc. UK) with decent work, pay, Basic Income, animal welfare etc.

The prize is before us! 

Use and Abuse of the UK Welfare State

I am in favour of the Welfare State, in principle, but that just begs the question. Even the Iain Dunce Duncan Smiths and Esther McVeys of this world go that far, at least in public utterances. The devil really is in the detail here.

The famous economist, Milton Friedman, once said that you can have open borders, and you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have both. That it is even necessary to posit that shows how far the more socialist-minded people in the UK (and elsewhere in Northern Europe) have travelled from reality. Many “refugees welcome” dimwits actually believe that an almost endless number of “refugees” or others can enter the UK without affecting State benefits and services (as well as road and rail congestion etc). This seems to be based on the idea that the immigrants will work, pay taxes, in short become normal citizens or quasi-citizens. Angela Merkel thought the same, only to find that most “refugees” were

  • incapable of any but the most basic work (such as fruit-picking) because of their linguistic and/or educational levels;
  • unwilling, in many cases, to work, in a situation where the State provides free accomodation, free utilities, free transport for some, free food for some, as well as pocket money on quite a generous level.


The UK does not provide social security (or, in our new Americanized speech, “welfare”) benefits on the generous scale offered by Germany or Scandinavia etc, but the fundamentals are similar.

A personal story: when I was much much younger, in my early twenties, I became acquainted, via a lady I then knew, with a friend of hers (more accurately a woman who had attached herself to her like a limpet). Now this other woman was not British in any sense except that she had married a New Zealander who had (presumably because taken there from the UK as a child) a British passport. The woman was in fact a Jewess from Moscow, who had somehow got to know the New Zealander while he was on a holiday trip to the Soviet Union. We need not examine motives and reasons, but that couple married and went to live in New Zealand. They had two children. After about four or five years, the woman left her husband, left New Zealand and flew to the UK.

When I met the woman in question, I believe that she had been in the UK for a couple of years. She washed-up in Downham, an obscure suburb in South-East London, where the local council provided her with a council flat. I have no exact idea of what other benefits she was granted, but they would have included child benefit and some form of income support. She never had to work, though at first she did a couple of evenings a week teaching Russian at some place or other which I forget (possibly Morley College in Westminster Bridge Road, or the City Literary Institute in Drury Lane, both of which adult education centres I myself frequented at the time).

Scroll on a few years. This “Russian” Jewish woman, with no real connection to the UK at all had been given a quite decent house with gardens in Grove Park, a better part of the same borough. She had been impelled to move, apparently, by a visit from her father, a nuclear scientist (which sounds impressive, but the Soviet Union had legions of them) who had told her that she would have a better flat were she to return to Moscow! Of course, there she would have had to work…anyway, I visited the new house once (out of duty rather than choice)  and so saw it, despite being not much liked by the woman. The woman had been diagnosed with a kidney complaint (though I never saw her looking unwell) and so no doubt managed to claim some form of incapacity or disability benefit; and had also acquired a car (almost certainly also funded by the State). In addition to all of that, the woman and her children also had all the usual UK benefits of free education and health. I do not think that she bothered to do much work after that, maybe a little part-time teaching or occasional low-level interpreting.

Now it might be said, perhaps especially by people more naturally drawn to socialism than capitalism, that she was entitled to these things because lawfully resident in the UK. Perhaps, but look at it from the wider point of view: she had never contributed anything to the UK, just taken. The small part-time jobs here and there can be discounted as having been de minimis. She leeched off the UK’s people since about 1979 and, the last I heard (a couple of years ago), that situation remained unchanged, probably to this day. In fact, she would now be “entitled” to a State pension and Pension Credit. Call it 40 years of being a millstone round the neck of the British Welfare State.

Now multiply the above by millions, the millions of often completely useless people from the backward hordes imported into the UK for decades. For example, it is reported that only 20% of the huge numbers of Somalis in the UK (how? why?) are employed at all.

I repeat, I do favour a decent Welfare State, but it can only exist if

a. the economy can support it;

b. it is not swamped.

The above two conditions really come down to the same thing now, or very nearly so.

For me, the answer to the work and income challenges of robotics, computerization, Internet shopping, AI etc is the Basic Income concept, but Basic Income, like the existing Welfare State, will decline and may fail unless it is restricted to those who are at the very least, genuine citizens.


The General Shape of a Future Society

We should be aiming at a society which contains the good from the present (and, therefore, past) while being oriented toward the future. Humanity is a work in progress. Society is a work in progress.

The basic template for a future society, even in the short-term, can be found in the Threefold Social Order concept:

This is not some castle in the air. Many of the concepts within the overall concept of the Threefold Social Order are already part of UK society to a greater or lesser extent: religious freedom, freedom of thought, equal treatment under the law, the separation of the economic, political/legal and spiritual spheres or realms. Even since, say, 1989 (when old-style socialism died), there has come about a greater acceptance that, for example, the State should not monopolize education, that the State should not directly run business enterprises etc. There have been retrograde aspects too, though: increasing actual slavery, a huge increase in quasi-slavery or economic serfdom (including “welfare-to work” schemes, as well as diminution of employee rights and workplace conditions), the “National Curriculum” in State-run schools etc.

Necessary Changes and Structure

First of all, the migration invasion must be halted and a plan developed to remove as many non-Europeans as possible from the UK and Europe. There can be no decent future for UK citizens unless at least most are of British/European origin and culture. As Milton Friedman said, also, “You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have both.” The Labour Corbynists have not all, by any means, awoken to this truth.

Special-interest groups, notably the Jewish Zionists, must not be allowed disproportionate influence or power. That applies to politics (eg Westminster seats), the Press and other mainstream media, professions, the ownership of business enterprises.

All citizens should receive a “Basic Income”. Robotics and computerization are advancing to the point where perhaps a third of the jobs in the UK might go. The choice will either be Basic Income or Iain Dunce Duncan Smith-style DWP snooping, bullying and serfdom, i.e. forced “make work” projects run by carpetbagging companies, validating payment of what is now often called “welfare” (social security).

The State will not run business enterprises, in general. However, it may be that the security of the State and of society requires the State to run or at least tightly to regulate some enterprises: railways, water supply, electricity supply. Having said that, technology may lessen those cases, as in individual electrical power generation via solar, wind, hydro.

Private business should not run what are, properly, State functions: prisons, the armed forces, social security provision overall.

There must be freedom of expression on political, social, historical matters.

The State can organize or fund some things without actually owning or, on ground level, running them: a UK-wide wildlife grid (possibly composed of land owned largely by non-State owners) is one example.

There is a necessity for improvement in several everyday areas: housing must be built or rebuilt to give everyone a decent home and garden space. No-one should own several and certainly not dozens or hundreds of dwelling-homes. There must be a minimum per-person amount of space within every new house or flat, a higher level than usually found at present.

Local transport should be free of charge.

Higher education should regain its credibility: standards must be improved. Grants can be given to the best students, but others may have to do without and perhaps not go to university. The corollary is that a university degree should not be necessary for most, perhaps all, occupations. Other means of selection can be worked out.

There should be huge expansion of branch rail lines using light, ultralight, narrow-gauge etc trains, mostly operated by robots.

A grid of new wide canals should be dug, for leisure, environmental and business use (freight and passengers).

The airship or Zeppelin can now come into its own as a UK-wide passenger carrying form of transport. The tops of some high office buildings in cities such as London can become passenger hubs (while commuting exists).

A New Society Needs New People

The aim must be to create a new people for the future. People create society; society creates people. It is symbiotic. This can be a “virtuous circle”: a highly-educated, highly-cultured people, which in turn will result in society being improved over time and so again. This is something worth struggling and fighting for.

Basic Income and the Welfare State– some ideas and reminiscences


At various times in history, there was either no social welfare system at all, or one which depended on spontaneous or systemized charity: individual alms-giving in the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other traditions; more organized supply of food, shelter or money as in the ancient Roman dole, Renaissance attempts at poor relief and the cheerless “workhouses” of 19thC England (which in fact continued in places in some form or another until the Second World War and the emergence of the postwar Welfare State).

It is a matter for historical debate whether organized “welfare” in Europe started with the mediaeval Roman Catholic church or in the 19thC with Bismarck, who set up in Prussia and then in the unified Germany a system not unlike those which emerged later in other European countries (eg in the UK under Lloyd George) and further afield: for example, Uruguay had one of the most generous “welfare” (social security) systems in the world until it collapsed in the 1970s under the weight of its expense.

However, the Roman Catholic and other religious and other non-State providers of “welfare” rarely give out money. They supply, variously, food, shelter, often educational and medical help.

The more modern “welfare” systems, eg in the UK, were based on the idea of social insurance: during a working lifetime, you paid in; in periods of unemployment, disability, sickness, old age, you were paid out. In the UK, this has become largely notional. Some tax is still designated as “National Insurance” payment but of course is just an extra type of income tax, fed straight into central funds and not in any way ringfenced.

Some anecdotal evidence

Like many people of my age (b. 1956) in the UK, I had to request State assistance occasionally in the past. This is or was far more common than generally supposed. The writer J.K. Rowling, now supposedly worth £100 million, has described how only the more generous –compared to today– social security of the 1990s enabled her to sit in cafes (partly to keep warm) with her baby, and to write the stories that not much later became Harry Potter. More egregiously, the vampire of Britain’s social security system, Iain Duncan Smith, has admitted that he claimed social security after having left the Army (ignominiously, having only achieved the rank of lieutenant after six years). In fact, Smith, or as he prefers to be known, Duncan Smith (the Duncan not being part of his original surname), claimed social security under false pretences, making him a hypocrite as well as what Australians apparently call a “dole blodger” and (as seen in the scandal of his fake CV and Parliamentary expenses) a fraud.

Certainly, there are those who abuse the social security system. In the past, that was far more common, because the almost Stasi level of control and surveillance that now exists for claimants in Britain had not then been put into place. The system was itself less punitive, less quick to demand impossible levels of enthusiasm for what is now and vulgarly called “jobseeking”.

I knew one woman, a citizen of the Soviet Union, who, having run away from her husband in New Zealand, came to the UK and claimed social security (including disability benefits). How could this happen? Well, her ex-husband, though resident in New Zealand, had a British passport (was British citizen) and had the right to reside in the UK. That meant that his estranged wife could do likewise, even though she had no other connection with the UK and had never even landed there! In fact, that woman never had a job (beyond odd occasional part-time jobs teaching Russian conversation at evening classes). She was supplied with monies for being slightly disabled (kidneys), monies for not having a job, monies for having two children of school age. She was also supplied with free housing. I encountered that person in 1981. She was, I heard, still collecting from the “British taxpayer” in 1996 and is almost certainly still collecting (now State Pension too!) in 2017…All monies legally-obtained, without fraud of any kind.

Another case. A young man (in the mid-1990s), from a very affluent family, who, nonetheless, was “unemployed” and so received whatever unemployment benefit was called then, as well as Housing Benefit for the large flat he occupied in Marylebone, London. In fact, the flat was owned (under cloak of a private company) by the young man’s mother (who lived in Surrey), while the young man had his own freelance work as both a designer and a male model. In this case, there certainly was some kind of dishonesty, both on the part of the young man and his mother. I doubt that they could do the same today, but I last heard of them over 20 years ago, so do not know.

The above two examples seem to show abuse of a system, but here is another case from the 1990s; less obvious, less easy to judge: a single mother of a school-age child, she about 40-y-o, with no relevant educational qualifications. This lady had a small, indeed micro, informal business, making coffee and selling home-made sandwiches to the ladies having their hair done at a large London hairdressing salon. A “Trotter’s Traders” enterprise (“no income tax, no VAT” etc…). About £200 profit on a good week, but more usually less. Not enough to live on, even then, paying Central London rent. That lady was getting State benefits as a single mother; she was getting Housing Benefit too. Now it could be said that she was “defrauding” the State, but her earned income was not enough to live on without State help. Had she given up her private work, the State would have saved nothing, the economy generally would have suffered from her not earning and spending, she and her son would have suffered considerably.

Basic Income

For me, the answer to the above lies in Basic Income, a certain amount paid to every citizen (nb. not to everyone just off the boat, or those who have walked through the Channel Tunnel). The level at which it is set will be, inevitably, contentious. Some will end up with less than under the existing system of State benefits etc. However, it has the merit of certainty. Everyone knows that x-amount will be paid weekly or monthly; those over a certain (to be decided) income can have the Basic Income payment clawed back via the tax system. It may be that everyone should also get free local transport.

The benefits of Basic Income are several. Every citizen will have the basic wherewithal of life: food, shelter, transport etc, without being forced to jump through hoops, without being bullied or snooped upon. The State will save vast amounts on administration, salaries of penpushers, maintenance of useless and expensive buildings such as those called (another vulgarity) “jobcentres”. There will be little scope for fraud and deception, because everyone under a certain income will get the same amount. If society wants to provide the disabled, sick etc with more than the basic amount, then an assessment programme (decent, honest, not cruel, unlike the existing ones) can be put into place for that.

This is obviously the way to go.