Category Archives: basic income

The Urgent Necessity for Basic Income (or its equivalent)

Preamble

I have blogged previously about the need for Basic Income (see Notes, below).

One important point is that the nexus connecting work and pay is loosening in the more developed countries. Already, computers, automation and modern business streamlining have led to the situation whereby, apart from actual unemployment, there is huge underemployment. In the UK, we see, in big picture terms, that the poorer half of the workforce is still being paid less in real terms (the latest statistics suggest about 7% less) than was paid in 2007 for equivalent work.

Now, there is a headlong rush into greater automation and, crucially, to Artificial Intelligence [AI].

Working Tax Credits as Government Subsidy to Poor-Paying Employers

Even before the financial upheaval of 2007-2008, it is clear that the “market”, as “hidden hand” mechanism, delivering adequate pay for required work, was not working properly or as old-thinking economic theory suggested that it should. Employers were unwilling or in some cases unable to offer pay high enough for employees to subsist on, let alone live decently on.

The answer of the Blair-Brown governments was to offer employees “working tax credits”, i.e. a form of “welfare”/”social security” for those in employment, the purpose of which was (and at time of writing still is) to top-up inadequate pay to a determined level. A more limited measure, Family Credit, claimable only by families, was in operation from 1986-1999.

The most obvious drawback of Working Tax Credit [WTC], i.e. that it in effect subsidizes poor and poor-paying employers out of general taxation, was either not foreseen by self-styled financial genius Gordon Brown, or was ignored by him and/or Tony Blair. Adding insult to injury was and is the fact that some of the worst-paying employing companies are also those most adept at avoiding tax liability: transnational enterprises such as Amazon in particular.

In other words, an employee is forced (by circumstances) to work for pay which is not enough for that employee to live on, even at a very basic level. That pay is then topped-up to a minimum subsistence level by Working Tax Credit, which is paid for not directly by the exploitative employer but by government, and so by general taxation. Low-paid employees pay little or no income tax now, but still pay so-called National Insurance, which is today just another or extra income tax in all but name. Put simply, the low-paid worker is paying out for his or her own Working Tax Credit, at least to some extent.

The poor-paying employer has no incentive to pay decently, because the government will stump up enough to keep the employee in place.

Real-terms pay now, for very many people, is inferior to what was paid in the 1980s and 1970s. Conditions of employment are also worse in reality (though that aspect is not part of this blog post).

At present, 5 million people in the UK receive WTC, while another 2 million are entitled to receive it but, for whatever reason, do not apply for it.

Other Government Top-Ups to Pay

In addition to basic Working Tax Credit, people in low-paying jobs and who have children can get extra money via WTC , as can disabled workers.

Persons who are disabled or unwell (including employed persons) can receive Disability Living Allowance, which is not means-tested.

Persons who have children are also entitled to Child Benefit, regardless of capital or income (up to £50,000-£60,000, tapering).

Persons of the age(s) specified can receive State Pension regardless of whether they work or not; moreover, whether or not they have ever worked.

Limited Elements of Basic Income Already Embedded in the Existing System

  • State Pension, paid whatever the individual’s capital or income, and whether or not the individual is working (employed or self-employed) or not and (if you include Pension Guarantee Credit), payable regardless of how much the pensioner has paid in via National Insurance;
  • Child Benefit, paid regardless of income (under £50,000 p.a.);
  • Disability Living Allowance (and its successor, “Personal Independence Payment” or PIP), paid regardless of capital or income to qualifying persons (and this is not the place in which to examine why politicians and Department of Work and Pensions [DWP] civil servants often choose vulgar names for State benefits and programmes: cf. “Jobseeker’s Allowance” etc).

Advantages of Basic Income

  • Simplicity. A Basic Income would mean that most of the existing DWP structure could be dispensed with: the vast edifice of “Jobcentres” (office buildings), filled with DWP staff engaged in adminstration, and the snooping upon, monitoring, “assessing” of claimants etc. The absurdity of it is that many claimants are only getting about £75 a week anyway. The present Kafka-esque set-up really should be and can be junked. Probably 90% of the present 85,000 DWP employees can be made redundant. The financial savings from that, decommissioning of buildings, running costs etc would be in the tens of billions annually; the untold billions paid by the State to useless and dishonest private contractors, such as ATOS and Capita, would also be saved;
  • Security of Citizens. It has been shown in overseas pilot studies (eg recently in Finland) that having a Basic Income, even if small, gives people a sense of security only available until now to those with an inherited private income. Yes, some people will decide to loaf all day, maybe even drink all day, but others will do paid work, start small businesses, improve their cultural level, volunteer locally or far away etc. The idle and/or useless are like that under the present system anyway and are costing the State money even now, both directly and indirectly (eg via the costs of policing, NHS, prisons etc);

Doubts Often Expressed about Basic Income

  • “People will not want to work if they get money for nothing”: well, most wealthy inheritors of capital, most of those living off trust incomes etc do seem to want to work in some way, or to set up businesses, or at least to write, paint, or other similar activity. Don’t disparage writing or other artistic activity. After all, Harry Potter, which snowballed into a huge industry employing, altogether, many thousands and even tens of thousands, came out of the mind of one lady, a single mother on State benefits; J.K. Rowling herself has said that, under the punitive present benefits regime, she would have been messed around so much that it would have been impossible for her to sit in cafes with her baby writing Harry Potter. True, some people will simply loaf. They do that under the present system. Don’t think that there are no costs to the State and society now (even if actual benefits are cut off): police costs, court and legal costs, NHS costs, too;
  • “The cost to the taxpayer”: the cost of Basic Income would be little more than the present “welfare” (social security) system, once you take into account the huge savings on DWP and HMRC bureaucracy, savings by not using useless/dishonest outsourcing organizations, the economic benefit of people spending more, stimulating the economy, setting up new small businesses;
  • “People getting Basic Income money that they do not even need”: firstly, what people “need” is, beyond the basic level, something subjective. Apart from that, there is no problem with clawing back monies paid to those above a certain income. All that need happen is that a maximum level of income (all income) for recipients be set. All persons above that income level to be taxed or super-taxed to the same level as Basic Income received. The level might be a total (including Basic Income) of £30,000, assuming Basic Income of perhaps £15,000 per year. In that case, the person would be taxed the £15,000, leaving £15,000. Yes, there would be apparent unfairness at lower income levels, whereby it might be questioned why work, when you could simply receive the (in the example given) £15,000 and not work. However, even then the recipient does gain, via extra security in case of job loss or illness; alternatively, the threshold could be set higher, say at £50,000 p.a.

Variations on the Basic Income Theme

Instead of money alone, Basic Income could include benefits paid to certain persons, such as free housing for persons receiving less than a certain income. The danger here is in the complexity and cost, as under the existing system, as well as monies wasted going to landlords charging excessive rents. It may be that the way forward is to add to the existing (in the UK) more or less “free” (at point of use) health service, free education at primary and secondary level etc. Examples:

  • free public transport, whether local or regional;
  • free car insurance;
  • free domestic utilities;
  • free NHS or similar;
  • free education.

Basic Income as Necessity

It is clear that, in the UK, relatively few people at present are purely living off what they can earn by work or by investments and/or trust income. 7 million are eligible for Working Tax Credits, millions more are children, retired people, disabled and not working, unemployed etc. For many, working for pay does not cover the basic necessities of life, let alone provide a decent human existence. The State already recognizes these facts.

The explosion in artificial intelligence and robotics will turn the screw. For example, there are at present 356,300 taxi drivers and private hire drivers in the UK. The technology already exists to replace them. It is unlikely that more than a small percentage will still be doing such work in, say, 2030. That’s just one group affected. Groups as diverse as farmers, lawyers, surgeons, pilots, security guards will all be made, as groups, largely redundant.

Basic Income is not just the right thing, but the necessary thing.

Notes

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/what-happened-finland-scrapped-benefits-13950300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Tax_Credit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit#United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Work_and_Pensions

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/what-do-people-need/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/the-revolution-of-the-robots-and-ai-means-that-basic-income-is-inevitable/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/the-general-shape-of-a-future-society/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/basic-income-and-the-welfare-state-some-ideas-and-reminiscences/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/aspects-of-the-new-society/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/priorities-in-state-funding/

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/taxi-and-private-hire-vehicles-statistics-england-2017

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/universal-credit-basic-income-california-2563380

https://basicincome.org/news/2016/09/netherlands-debate-about-unconditional-basic-income-in-parliament/

Update, 11 March 2019

People generally are now waking up to both the desirability and the practical possibility of Basic Income:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/11/scrap-tax-free-personal-allowance-and-pay-everyone-48-a-week

Advertisements

Has Parliamentary “Democracy” (as we have known it until now) Had Its Day in the UK?

Preamble

The Brexit argument in the UK has brought to the fore divisions and truths which, until recently, had been covered up by a “politically correct” or bien-pensant “consensus” in the (largely Jew-Zionist-controlled or strongly influenced) mass media and political milieux.

Anyone who imagines that “Brexit” is just about the UK’s membership of the EU is indulging in hobby-politics and joke-politics and/or exhibiting very poor political judgment. I have blogged about this on previous occasions, eg:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/brexit-is-to-some-extent-only-a-metaphor-what-could-it-mean/

UKIP is the joke party and hobby-politics party of the UK, effectively a one-trick-pony, obsessed with the EU and EU immigration but not hitting hard on non-EU immigration and only peripherally touching on other issues. However, those voters who grasped at the UKIP straw up to 2015 were voting to a large extent not for Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, not for UKIP’s clown MEPs as UK ministers, not even simply to get Britain out of the increasingly sinister EU matrix, but as a protest and shout of anger against a whole host of issues, not all of which are connected directly to the UK membership of the EU.

What Is Democracy Anyway?

“Democracy” is one of those terms which is rather imprecise and commonly misused (another is “holocaust”, usually and deliberately misused and distorted by Jew-Zionists and others as “the Holocaust”, the definite article and the capital letter supposedly differentiating any misfortunes visited on Jews in the Second World War from similar misfortunes visited on non-Jews throughout history).

In ancient Greece (for example Athens, the home of the idea of “democracy”), we see that only the relative few had full political rights.  In the 4thC BC, Attica had about 300,000 inhabitants (in the state as a whole, not just the “urbanized” polis of Athens itself). Out of that population, only about 100,000 were citizens. Out of that 100,000, only 30,000, being adult male citizens who had completed military service or similarly accepted service, were allowed to vote or to participate in political life. Women, slaves, freed slaves, children and metics (foreigners resident in Attica) were not allowed to vote etc. In other words, out of 300,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000, 10% of the whole, played a significant political role.

UK Democracy: the expansion of the electorate

In more modern times and in England/UK, we see that, though a kind of representative Parliament existed from the 13thC AD, the electorate (using the term broadly) widened over the centuries. At the time of the first great Reform Act (1832), the population of England and Wales (excluding Scotland) was about 12 million, out of which only 200,000 in counties and perhaps 20,000 more in boroughs had voting rights (see Notes, below), about 2% of the whole population (nb. population estimates of that era are not very accurate: some estimates say 400,000 in toto, so perhaps 4% of all inhabitants could vote), a far smaller percentage than in Periclean Athens! In France, the percentage with voting rights was even smaller, but was expanded hugely when universal suffrage was introduced in 1848.

The percentage expansion of the electorate in Scotland in the 1830s was far greater than applied in England and Wales. Some historians use the term “revolutionary”. I wonder whether that has perhaps had a lasting effect on Scottish socio-political attitudes down the line, even to the present day. Just a stray thought…

Further expansion of the electorate in the UK (as a whole, not just England and Wales) in the 19thC meant that, by 1912, there were 7.7 million voters, a figure that increased to 21.4 million following the Representation of the People Act 1918, which extended the franchise to most women of 30+ years, as well as to almost all men of 21+. Of course, the actual population had also increased very greatly, from 27 million in 1850 to 42 million in 1918.

In 1928, women 21-29 also gained the vote, increasing the number eligible to vote to about 27 million.

Changes in the Post-1945 era: where are we now?

UK voting qualifications have not changed substantially since 1928, except that, since 1948, university graduates have no longer had two potential votes, and the minimum voting age is now (and since 1970) 18.

There are now about 65 million inhabitants in the UK (some put the figure higher, by reason of undocumented, unregistered “illegals” etc).

Does “democracy” mean that all inhabitants of the state must be enfranchised?

The South African Example

We have seen that, in ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed military service could vote. In “apartheid” South Africa, there was a fully-functioning democracy limited however to those of European (white) origin.

There had, prior to 1910, been non-racial forms of limited democracy in Cape Province, limited by reference to property etc. From 1910-1961, the vote was granted to all white men in South Africa, to mixed-race men in Cape Province, and to black men in Cape Province and Natal. Only white men could become Senators or MPs. White women were allowed the vote in 1930 and could serve as MPs or Senators. Blacks and “coloureds” (mixed-race) were barred from holding those offices. In 1960, the black franchise was terminated; the mixed-race franchise followed in 1968. Later, in 1984, an attempt was made to re-enfranchise the mixed-race population and to enfranchise, on a limited basis, the Indian population.

In 1992, a small majority of (white-only) voters endorsed, by referendum, the end of the apartheid system, after which South Africa adopted a different system, under which all person of 18+ years can vote or be elected. In practice, however, this led to what is effectively a one-party, typically-African state, shambolic and corrupt. The African National Congress (ANC) operates what is effectively an elected dictatorship. In the most recent election (2014), its vote declined, but it still holds 249 out of 400 seats (on 62% of the popular vote).

Under this “new” (post-1994) “democracy”, the white population of the country is under siege from both crime (racially-based) and/or (connected) “political” attack, such as the robbery, rape and murder of whites, particularly in the rural areas. Neither are the (mainly black) poor of South Africa helped by the “elected dictatorship”. Indeed, in some respects they are worse off than they were under apartheid. The “infamous” pass laws may have restricted the blacks, but also restricted crime, which has become epidemic.

The USA

The USA is supposedly a “democracy”, but in practice any Presidential candidate has to be a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or have the support of such, simply to be seen as a credible candidate, or to be able to buy TV ads (this is about the same thing, in practice). If elected, he will find that, to do anything effective requires that he be not opposed by the Congress and the Supreme Court. This rarely happens. In most cases, the separation of powers prevents anything effective, let alone radical, being implemented.

The UK

c64bh5xw0aiwygy

In the UK, there is “democracy” (we think). Almost everyone can vote, almost everyone can be a candidate. Yet there are impediments: the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby (special-interest group), the entrenched First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the need for finance, and the way in which boundaries are deliberately sliced up to provide a semblance of “fairness”, but in fact to favour 2-party or sometimes 3-party “stability” over real reflection of popular opinion. There is also the fact that “main party” (System) candidates are usually carefully selected to exclude anyone with even mild social-national views. The “choice” is then put before the electorate (together with the minor candidates who almost invariably have no chance at all).

Another important aspect is that, since the Tony Blair government passed its restrictive laws, political parties have to be registered, can be fined (eg for refusing membership to certain types of person, or certain racial or national groups), and can even be “de-registered”, thus barring them from standing candidates in elections. Democracy?

Here is an example from the General Election of 2015.

C3l1gk9XAAMHAwF

Brexit

The Brexit vote has exposed the sham or part-sham of British democracy. David Cameron-Levita thought that the 2016 Referendum would be easy to “manage”. He had, after all, “managed” two previous referenda: the Scottish Independence referendum and the AV-voting referendum. Third time, he miscalculated. The people, on the FPTP basis, voted about 52% to 48% for Leave. This was a shock to the System. Immediately, the Remain leaders started to demand “No Brexit”, and for a second Referendum, which would (once the voters had been exposed to enough fear propaganda) come to a different result, and/or for Parliament (most MPs being “Remain”) to just ignore the 2016 Referendum result which (they said) had been procured by fraud, lies, or post-KGB Russian trickery…

The fact is that, leaving aside the “sheeple”, the hard core of anti-Brexit Remain consists of

  • the affluent/wealthy metropolitan self-styled “elite”;
  • the big business people;
  • the Jews (most of them);
  • those who have done well financially in the 2010-2019 period;
  • the brainwashed under-30s, mostly from not-poor backgrounds, who imagine that not being in the EU somehow prevents them from getting (for most of them, non-existent) jobs in the EU, or that they will even not be allowed to travel after Brexit!
  • Those shallow little nobodies (again, mostly young or would-be young urban-dwellers) who think that it is old, unfashionable and “gammon” (white Northern European British) to support Leave or indeed to have any pride in England’s history, race and culture;
  • Almost all of those working in the msm.

These groups have become ever more severe and open in their hatred of Leave supporters. There are now open calls for the rights of, in particular, voters over the age of, perhaps, 60, to be restricted, for older people to be disenfranchised, especially if white, (real) British, or “racist” (i.e. people who see their land and culture being swamped and destroyed).

Here, for example, we see an almost archetypal Remain whiner, the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, 53, who is paid over £700,000 a year by the BBC and maybe as much as £100,000 p.a. from elsewhere (despite having gained a mediocre 2:2 in English at university and then been –again, in my opinion– a markedly mediocre Press/radio/TV journalist).

Here’s another idiotic statement by Vine, though on an unrelated topic:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/carol-vorderman-defends-devon-girl-2429731

We see from examples around the world, eg South Africa, or Zimbabwe (etc) that one-man one-vote “democracy” can lead to elected dictatorship. In the UK, it has become increasingly clear that the Parliamentary democracy in place does not reflect the views of the bulk of the population, and certainly not the bulk of the white real British population, those with whose future I concern myself.

Leave may “only” have won the EU Referendum by 52%-48%, but there are nuances here: the assassination of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox, only a week before the referendum certainly had an effect, and is thought to have changed the outcome by as much as 10 points (at the time of her death, Leave was 10 points ahead of Remain in some polls); particularly as much was made of supposed secondary culpability of Leave propaganda for the attack. The referendum outcome might easily have been 60% or even 65% for Leave.

There is also the point that most “blacks and browns” and other ethnic minority voters (eg Jews) voted Remain if they voted at all. Most Scots voted Remain too (no doubt because they have a faux-nationalist SNP as a comfort blanket). Take away those Remain blocs and it might be that about 60% of white English and Welsh voters voted Leave, which might have been 70% without the Jo Cox matter.

Alternatives to Parliament Deciding Everything

I favour the Rudolf Steiner concept of the “Threefold Social Order”. As I paraphrase it, and in the contemporary UK context,

  • it means that an elected Parliament decides matters properly within the political sphere or “sphere of rights”;
  • it means that Parliament (and government) does not run the economy or economic enterprises (though it can regulate it and them); likewise, economic forces and personalities cannot rule the political sphere and/or “sphere of rights”;
  • it means that the State (or economic forces) cannot rule over the proper ambit of the sphere of spirit, culture, religion, medicine, education.

This obviously moves on from the conventional “Parliament rules supreme” idea, developed in the UK since the time of Cromwell.

We can see that Parliament in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. Those currently elected have only a limited mandate. Greater freedom and a more efficient as well as a more just society depend on proper integration of the three basic spheres: political, economic, spiritual/cultural.

There is no necessity for everyone to vote. Voting should be for citizens who are resident and who are of suitable age (I favour 21 years, at minimum). Foreigners, offspring of foreigners, persons who are mainly of non-European origin etc should not be allowed a vote.

Brexit and the Future

People voted for Brexit for many reasons and fundamentally out of a lack of satisfaction with the existing way of life in the UK. That urge for something better may be the basis for social-national reform or even revolution. The British people will no more allow themselves to be treated as helots.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_constituency#United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_South_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_South_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26th_South_African_Parliament

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Registrations?currentPage=1&rows=30&sort=RegulatedEntityName&order=asc&open=filter&et=pp&et=ppm&register=gb&regStatus=registered&optCols=EntityStatusName

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campaigner/guidance-for-political-parties

http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1

 

 

 

A Brief Word About Owen Jones

Who, politically and intellectually, is Owen Jones?

Owen Jones is one type of creature that I cannot bear. It is not because he claims to be a “socialist” idealist (yet seems very interested in money and careerism); not because he likes to give out the impression that he comes from humble origins (though his mother is a university professor); not because he talks constantly about the (mostly) Northern working class and industrial culture of the past (when he himself is a narcissistic gay who lives in a gentrified part of East London and makes a rather comfortable living by scribbling and being a TV talking head); and so on. It is because, overall, he strikes me as being a £3 note, and I cannot tolerate fakery.

Owen Jones comes from a background of Marxist politics: a grandfather who was apparently a fellow-traveller of the CPGB (the Communist Party) and parents who were Trotskyists and members of Militant, the extreme socialist group founded by, inter alia, a Jew called Isaac Blank, who took on the protective colouration of a British-sounding name (“Ted Grant”) .

Owen Jones graduated from Oxford University in 2005, and was awarded a Master’s degree (M.St: one requiring time in class and a thesis but no exam) in 2007. After that he worked as a researcher for John McDonnell MP and started to write for a number of paper and online publications. He also wrote a book called Chavs: the demonization of the working class.

I am at a disadvantage here, not having read Jones’s book, but it seems to me that he is probably making a cardinal error in confusing the proletariat with the lumpenproletariat (if such terms any longer have meaning).

At any rate, it seems to me strange that Owen Jones did not move on from being a Parliamentary researcher to active politics as a Labour MP. It may be that, at that time (pre-2010), he would not have found favour in what was still very much a Blair-Brown Labour Party.

Jones used his profile as a radical Labourist to try to oppose the Con Coalition of Conservative and LibDems, and their “austerity” policies. He founded, with other high-profile Labour persons (and a few others, such as Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP), The People’s Assembly Against Austerity. That failed, inevitably. Marches rarely achieve anything. About 50,000 (its supporters said 150,000) marched, on a date in 2015, a smaller number having gathered in 2014 outside BBC HQ. Result? Nothing.

Speaking for myself, I can agree with some of what Owen Jones says and writes, such as his words contra the appalling policies of the Con Coalition. However, he really has nothing much to say in a positive way. Jones seems obsessed by the kind of issues which permeated institutions such as Collet’s London Bookshop in the 1970s: the rights of ethnic minorities, gays etc.

As for Jews etc, I was rather surprised, in 2015, to see Jones tell the Blairite MP John Woodcock (now not a Labour MP, following sex pest scandals) to block me on Twitter. Woodcock and Jones were at opposite ends of the Labour Party, so that was unexpected.

@JWoodcockMP That guy is a neo-Nazi. https://t.co/ZbFD4nY9ON Block him.

— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) August 18, 2015

(FYI, “That guy” was me! Oh…and, yes, sex pest mental case and paid Israel tool Woodcock did block me!)

However, I now see the connection: Woodcock is very pro-Israel and has received funding from Israeli sources. Jones, it now turns out, is himself part-Jew! See the tweets and photograph below…

Jones was rather hostile to Corbyn as Labour leader, writing that no-one would vote for him, but changed his tune once he saw that Corbyn was firmly seated as Labour leader and, moreover, that Labour had done better than expected in the 2017 General Election. However, he has at the same time now begun to tweet and write against “anti-Semitism”, though characterizing it as a function of the “hard Right” rather than Corbyn-Labour “Left”. Like most contemporary scribblers, Jones finds it impossible to ditch the outdated “Left/Right” dichotomy.

Conclusion

Owen Jones is a bit of a political butterfly. He speaks and writes eloquently against the trashing of the welfare state and UK society generally, yet seems sanguine about mass immigration by backward peoples, does not like it when people notice that not a few of the worst finance-capitalist exploiters are Jews, and he seems to have poor political judgment generally.

There was a time, about 8 years ago, when Owen Jones was widely tipped to become a Labour MP and even a future Labour Party leader. One does not hear that now (well, I do not, anyway). There was once a cynical saying about Brazil, to the effect that “Brazil is the country of the future…and always will be!”.  There is something like that in Owen Jones: the Boy Wonder or “Wunderkind” of UK socialist politics, always taking on the tired old System. The key word being “always”…Not many can maintain the Peter Pan effect perpetually. The gloss has become a little tarnished.

Owen Jones at 26 seemed to many Labour rank and file supporters or members to have a far greater future than he now appears to have at 34. That at least is my impression. It may be telling that his Wikipedia entry is quite packed in the years up to and including 2014; after that, nothing much. His star has definitely waned. He is on TV far less often now (at least to my mind) and only The Guardian seems to continue to await his words with bated breath. He may have missed the bus in terms of becoming an MP, though I would not rule that out if he applies for a seat fairly soon.

Not that Owen Jones is struggling. His (2015) Guardian salary may only have been around £40,000 a year (and maybe not hugely more now), but his second book, The Establishment, published in 2014, is said to have earned Jones nearly half a million pounds, which even after tax must have been worth about £300,000 or so. Chavs (2011) also sold well.

Politicians can and do write about politics. Writers can and sometimes do become active political players, but only if they chime with the times. I wonder whether Owen Jones still does.

Update, 5 January 2019

In case anyone is in any doubt about my view on Owen Jones, I can add that I view him as a “licensed Bolshie”, completely harmless to the System, which is why he is (or was, until he became a bloody bore) invited so often onto TV politics shows. Having someone like Jones (or Ash Sarkar, or various others) on a TV discussion show makes the point that “we believe in free speech! Look, we even have revolutionaries on sometimes!”, when in fact only the harmless are allowed on, especially if they make fools of themselves. That is also why educated social nationalists are not welcome…

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jones_(writer)

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-my-father-and-the-reality-of-losing-your-job-in-middle-age-7546015.html

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/john-woodcock-barrow-and-furness-and-the-general-election-2017/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Assembly_Against_Austerity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_(Trotskyist_group)

https://order-order.com/2015/07/17/rich-and-famous-owen-jones-joins-the-1/

Update, 13 January 2019

Below, a few tweets about the “People’s Assembly”, which I thought had died off, but seems to be, notionally, still going. Here (see tweets below) we see Owen Jones speaking to what seems to be about 10 people in Trafalgar Square on 12 January 2019. His opponents should have just let him get on with it (but filmed the farcical sight). I have seen more people queuing to get into a cinema matinee on a wet Wednesday!

The online-only “newspaper”, The Independent, claimed that “several thousand anti-fascists marched”. Well, they must have…er…marched on! Jones got a little applause and a few hoots at the end. Maybe, being kind, 50 people rather than 10. I notice that his supporters on Twitter do not dare to show how few people were in the crowd, if crowd is the bon mot… “Knot” of supporters, perhaps.

Objective observers and journalists attending the “People’s Assembly” tweeted that only a few hundred were there— that is, until Jones started to speak! (then there were about 10, ha ha!)

In fact, this 3-4 minute clip shows that the audience listening to the speakers was very small, a “thin Red line” if you like…

https://www.newsflare.com/video/269657/politics-business/yellow-vests-uk-demo-britain-is-broken-general-election-now-speaker-using-strong-language-in-trafalgar-square

As a speaker, self-important Jones reminds me not so much of Lenin, Hitler or Mosley, but more of Sir Roderick Spode, leader of the Black Shorts in the Jeeves and Wooster stories, as filmed by British TV in the early 1990s! The funniest thing is that he takes himself so very seriously.

dfbzlnnwaaal3ei

Perhaps the most hilarious aspect of all is that Owen Jones, and those few or few hundred or (if anyone believes The Independent these days) few thousand “marchers”, seem to believe that a pathetic demo/march of this sort accomplishes something. In fact, in a real civil war, Jones and his motley crew would be defeated in about five minutes.

The Exploding UK

The population of the United Kingdom is considered an example of a population that has undergone demographic transition – that is, the transition from a (typically) pre-industrial population with high birth and mortality rates and slow population growth, through a stage of falling mortality and faster rates of population growth, to a stage of low birth and mortality rates with, again, lower rates of population growth. This population growth through ‘natural change’ has been accompanied in the past two decades by growth through net international migration into the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]

I recently saw a pro-immigration poster put out, I think, by some trade union in the NHS. It said that the group of people shown on the poster (mostly but not all black/brown) were all NHS personnel who had come to the UK from other countries. The poster also said that, in the London Borough of Haringey, where the group had been photographed, there were (in round figures) some 82,000 persons who had come from other countries to the UK. The implication was that only thus is the (in Britain, near-sacred) NHS able to function.

Well, I am, in principle, pro-NHS (though I think, with reason, that quite a lot of the NHS system is barely functioning). I have no problem conceding that some of the foreign personnel in the NHS are excellent (though some others are hopeless). I am aware that the NHS has always been a major recruiter of immigrant labour. However, is that the whole story (as pro-Remain, pro-immigration people always pretend)? I say not.

The London Borough of Haringey has about 282,000 inhabitants, only 60% of whom are “white British” or Irish. If you were to take away the 82,000 immigrants already mentioned (even disregarding their offspring, and those non-English/Irish etc who are also resident in that borough), you would automatically have something like —and at the very least— something like 20,000 dwelling units available! Now multiply that appropriately across the whole of London, the whole of the UK…An end to the absurd property price valuations, an end to overcrowded hospitals, schools, transport —including roads—, an increase in pay across the board.

There is no doubt that the UK would be better off, the people of the UK would be better off, without the immigrant hordes and their offspring. Yes, on paper, the economy would perhaps be less vibrant, but most of the benefit of that at present goes to a tiny percentage of the population, just as a relatively small number of buy-to-let parasites and speculators profit from the overheated UK property market.

As for foreign NHS personnel, one has to bear in mind that the migration-invasion has placed enormous burdens on the NHS. The balance of convenience is by no means in favour of immigration. Without mass immigration, the UK NHS could easily handle the demand, particularly by training British people as doctors, nurses and ancillary personnel. Fewer British medical staff would leave (to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand etc), thus saving the State the cost of their education and training.

The same is true of all areas of society. Mass immigration penalizes the vast bulk of the British people. Big business loves mass immigration because it increases the number of consumers, results in higher prices for goods and real property, and reduces pay per labour unit.

When I was born in 1956, the UK population was estimated to be around (possibly below) 50 million. In 1990, 34 years later, the estimate was 57 million, a still very considerable increase. In 2018, the estimates have become less accurate because of the huge influxes of “migrants” (migrant-invaders) and their birth-rate, but anywhere from 66 million to 70 million. By, say, 2022? No-one knows. 75 million? This is totally unsustainable. Only those who knew England (especially) in the 1960s can appreciate what a difference and (mostly) a negative difference those extra 20 millions have made to the quality of life, environment etc in the UK and, again, particularly in England.

It is all very well saying that, because of Brexit and the stalling economy, ever-lower pay and State benefits, that the net immigration figure now is “only” about 400,000 a year instead of the half million or more per year in the past 15-20 years, but 400,000 is still the size of a very large town. Also, “net” means not 400,000 in but maybe 800,000 non-Brits in, and 400,000 desperate Brits out, fleeing the multiracial/multicultural society, desperately trying to find a basically white “Aryan” society in which to live (though most scarcely admit that even to themselves).

The UK is exploding and something has to be done.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Haringey#Demographics

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2017

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

When Almost Everyone Says to a Government in Office, “Just GO!”

Background

Today I happened to see the Daily Mirror report (link below, at foot of post) about a 9-year-old girl who telephoned a charity begging for help, even offering to work, in order to save her family. This was not in some ragged part of the former Soviet Union, not in Latin America, not (to be rhetorical) in the Britain of the workhouse and Ebenezer Scrooge, but that of Britain in 2018.

The Conservative Party seems to be relying on effluxion of time to disguise what it (and to a lesser extent, Blair-Brown Labour) has done in the past 20 years and especially since 2010 when the Con Coalition took power. However, the fact is that millions of people have been degraded, insulted, even killed or forced to suicide by the hugely expensive and ill-conceived “welfare” “reforms” of Iain Dunce Duncan Smith. He and those guilty with him, have not as yet faced popular justice. Perhaps some form of justice will in the end catch up with him, and Esther McVey and Danny Alexander, and David Gauke, and the Jew “lord” Freud etc.

Then we have Brexit, which I (for social national revolutionary reasons) favour. The present government has proven itself incompetent in respect of that, too.

Armed forces: scarcely functioning, thousands of experienced officers and other ranks made redundant, so that, now that few want to join what was the TA (now, The Reserves), the government is forced to open Army recruitment widely to those from Commonwealth countries who may never even have visited the UK.

NHS: plainly in managed decline.

Immigration: scarcely slowing.

Housing: far too expensive and, in the private rented sector, the hunting ground of buy-to-let parasites.

A future for the young: where is it?

Wherever one looks, the present government has failed miserably, along with its predecessors of the past 8 years. Labour looks scarcely better, true, and has even decided to keep the pathetic Universal Credit scheme if elected, but in a general election, an incompetent government is still at a disadvantage vis a vis an incompetent Opposition.

Labour is no longer unelectable

It was said for years that “Labour is unelectable” under Corbyn, a strange statement in view of the fact that Brown and Miliband also both failed to make it electable. The idea seems to be that Labour has to appeal to the middle of the road floating voters to be electable, and that Corbyn does not appeal to that voter. I do not think that the misnamed “Conservatives” can rely on that. Many of the Corbyn-Labour policies do have Middle England appeal: strict rail regulation or even renationalization, strict controls on utility company bills, making large transnational enterprises pay decent tax. These and other policies speak to those forgotten Middle England voters. Labour has not quite thrown the poor under a bus, but its focus is certainly now on winning over the vital marginal seats. It has recently supported Phillip Hammond’s tax plans on the basis that Labour plans to hit the wealthiest 5% (in income terms) and not, say, the most affluent 10%, 20% or 50%.

The Conservatives have demonized the poor, especially but not only the non-working poor. The Con Party is now more than ever the party only of the wealthy few, the buy to let parasites, the Jews too (95% of whom have deserted Labour since Corbyn took over), the wealthy London foreign cosmopolitans of various types etc.

As to the traditional Conservative Party Middle England vote, that is ebbing away. The reasons are clear: the “middle classes”, at least at the lower end, are sinking, and the Government is letting them drown. A cartoon from a few years ago made the point.

b-cisxdiqaa7qj_-jpg-large

On the above facts, it is more than likely that the Conservatives will not be the largest party after the next General Election. The Conservative vote shrinks with every passing month. There is a sense that, as with the 1990s Conservatives, the present Theresa May government has outstayed its welcome so that almost everyone is saying “GO!”.

The poorest 10% will mostly vote Labour anyway. The wealthiest 5% (and probably 15%) will mostly vote Conservative whatever. The bulk of workers in the middle are the battlefield, and one which Labour looks increasingly likely to win.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/universal-credit-girl-forced-beg-13546259

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/universal-credit-people-are-being-pitchforked-into-poverty_uk_5bdc7c7ae4b01ffb1d01f672?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage&ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001&guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLzM0dkk5OE05aTM&guce_referrer_cs=ffONymDD0om9x8VezJud7A

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086

The Revolution of the Robots and AI Means that Basic Income is Inevitable

I have been interested for several, indeed many, years in the socio-political effects of the AI/robot/computer revolution, which effects started to be felt as long ago as the 1960s, accelerated in the 1980s, but which still mushroom, and may be considered to be still in the youthful stage of development.

I happened to see an online article which was about 25 types of human work likely to be largely replaced by robots. Some were unsurprising, such as Data Entry Clerks and Bookkeepers, others less so (as a former barrister, I noticed “Lawyers” with interest!). I did not expect to see “Farmers” on the list, though in fact much agricultural work has already moved from human and animal labour to robotic or at least automated: sophisticated machines now already sow, harvest and process agricultural produce. Some of the most delicate tasks can still not be effectively automated without loss of quality, but that will probably change. The picking of grapes is done today as it has been since the dawn of recorded history– by hand. The best tea is also still picked by hand, though experiments have been made with automation: the Soviet tea industry tried it back in the 1970s (“on Georgia’s sun-dappled hills”, as Lermontov had it).

Looking ahead, one can see that many more jobs will be automated. Even now, that is leaving many either with no jobs, or with “McJobs”, minimum-wage bottom-of-barrel jobs. Increasingly, there will be discontent as those who have either no job or a job which does not cover even basic necessities become more numerous. At present, in the UK, those who have existed on poor pay have had that pay topped up via “tax credits” etc (and/or, now, the cretinous “Universal Credit” pipedream of Iain Dunce Duncan Smith), administered by a shambolic and punitive bureaucratic regime. That can and will be taken over by a Basic Income, paid without reference to whether the individual is trying to find work or better work.

The essence of the plan in respect of AI etc is that automation creates economic surplus. That surplus, at present, is today then distributed mostly to shareholders and higher executives, by means of dividends, pay and capital gains (eg via share options). That surplus or benefit should be shared out with the employees of the enterprise and with the people in general, via the mediation of the State. Not forgetting the need for an economic enterprise to have reserve funding for R&D etc.

Basic Income will give to all citizens at least a measure of the financial and life security currently enjoyed by only the wealthy, the “trustafarians” etc. It will enable those who want more than the basic minimum to work for that extra money, those who want to volunteer or do charitable work to do so and yet still subsist, those who want to think or write to create. As for those who only want to loaf, they do that under any system (including the present one) and at least Basic Income makes society quiescent.

The cost of Basic Income is high, but the cost of administering and paying out the present “welfare” system is hugely high too! Admin, snooping, interrogating, complex payment structures etc.

Taken to absurdity, one could envisage a society entirely dystopian, where no human workers are needed at all. The machines (etc) then produce goods and services which cannot be bought and paid for, because the humans have no work and therefore no pay and therefore no disposable income.

In such a scenario, either goods and services have to be given away free of charge to the humans unable to pay for them, or the humans need to be given money-value for which they have not directly worked. Basic Income.

The present society is already exhibiting a trend to work which pays little or nothing and a connected trend to an amelioration of the effects of that first trend (via State welfare, pensions, tax credits etc).

In the end, Basic Income is essential, because the robotics/AI revolution is loosening the nexus between work and pay.

Notes

https://vdare.com/posts/automation-farm-robot-picks-peppers

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/12/08/waitrose-first-supermarket-use-robots-farm-food/

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/universal-credit-basic-income-california-2563380

System MPs In The UK Parliament–Mediocrity (At Best)

I was moved to write today because of a TV programme which I did not in fact see but which has been widely reported. On BBC1 Question Time, a “Conservative” MP, one Ross Thomson [Con, Aberdeen South], was put in his place by Kezia Dugdale, the former leader of Scottish Labour. Thomson had been claiming that the simplistic Universal Credit idea thought up by (incredibly thick) Iain Dunce Duncan Smith MP would “get people off benefits and into work”. Kezia Dugdale had to point out that, so far, 37% of people receiving Universal Credit are in fact employed (but underpaid). Thomson just ignored the facts and ploughed on, a characteristic of, especially, “Conservative” MPs of recent years (Priti Patel is another egregious example).

Reading the above, I was impelled to look up this Ross Thomson. I found that the little twerp (now 31) only ever worked outside politics for 2-3 years, which he spent working for Debenhams stores and in a call centre. Once he stepped onto the “politics” gravytrain in 2012 and at age 25 (as Aberdeen local councillor, then MSP, then MP), he gave up trying to (pretending to) make a living in the more usual way.

His Question Time humiliator, Kezia Dugdale, was herself only employed on the political fringe (as a campaign manager etc) for a while before becoming a full-time politico (finishing as disastrous leader of Scottish Labour: the System looks after its own— she is now a columnist for the Scottish Daily Record newspaper). It goes beyond the scope of this blog post to muse overlong as to why so many women in frontline UK politics are lesbians.

The above thoughts led on to my wondering, not for the first time, why mediocrity rules in UK politics. Indeed, to be merely mediocre at Westminster is to be winning! Most MPs and “peers” do not even achieve mediocrity but are disastrously poor in every way.

The main problem stems from the First Past The Post voting system, which was fine in the 19th Century —simple policies and issues, uneducated voters, clear party divisions— but is simply out of date and not fit for purpose today. In 21st Century Britain, someone can be pro-animal welfare, anti-mass immigration, for private enterprise but pro-State control or regulation of utilities and transport. For which party does that voter vote? Conservative? Labour? Green? UKIP? LibDem? The one-size-fits-all politics is not our reality any more.

Furthermore, the FPTP voting system means that, once the MP is in a seat, it is almost impossible to dislodge that person.

Then there is the selection procedure, which varies from party to party, but which (even in a supposedly non-System party such as the now-finished UKIP) excludes anyone thought “racist”, “anti-Semitic” etc. Also, it is to be noted that some of the worst MPs have come out of restricted shortlists such as the Conservative Party “A” List. Even so, the sheer lack of quality of Westminster candidates now is staggering. Take some fairly random examples that have caught my attention over the past few years:

  • Justin Tomlinson [Con, North Swindon]: a comprehensive school, followed by Oxford Brookes University (the old Oxford Poly), where he obtained a bog-standard “business” degree. After that, he managed a small nightclub in Swindon, Wiltshire, bearing the name “Eros”(!) as well as (according to his own CV…) operating “a small marketing business” and serving on the local council; elected MP 2010.
  • Louise Mensch [Con, Corby 2010-2012], a scribbler (in the past) of braindead “chick-lit” “novels”, who was placed on the Con “A” List by David Cameron-Levita. The people of Corby, her new seat, were sold a pup. She was a poor constituency MP and was accused, while on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, of being in the pocket of Rupert Murdoch (who later employed her as a columnist). She had to admit, belatedly, to have been an abuser of hard drugs which “had messed with her head”, one possible reason why she was and is known as someone who frequently gets even basic historical and political facts wrong. Resigned as MP in 2012 after about 18 months in the position and moved to New York (domicile of her Jewish American second husband), where she failed in various internet activities and was employed for a while as “columnist” for the UK Sun “newspaper” before eventually being dismissed or at any rate not retained.

LouiseMenschDrugging

  • Liz Kendall MP [Lab, Leicester West]. On paper well-qualified to be an MP, the reality is that this woman is as thick as two short planks, as her appearances on BBC This Week have made painfully obvious. Pro-Israel to the hilt (possibly part-Jewish), her 4.5% vote in the Labour leadership contest made her a laughing stock.
  • Iain Duncan Smith MP [Con, Chingford]: this part-Japanese serial liar and obvious sociopath has managed to parlay a sub-par secondary education (at “secondary modern” and Merchant Navy schools) and six years as a (surely mis-gazetted?) Guards officer (where he stuck at Lieutenant) into becoming an MP and, in time, Cabinet Minister! His faked CV (claiming degrees from the University of Perugia and the so-called “Dunchurch School of Management”) became notorious only after he had become politically prominent. His cretinous attempts to “reform” the “welfare” system have led to administrative chaos, dishonesty (flowing from the top…) and misery for millions. A stupid, greedy and evil man.
  • Diane Abbott [Lab, Hackney North and Stoke Newington]: Jamaican; somehow got into Cambridge University, where she scraped a degree in History. Less than two years as fast-track trainee at the Home Office (obviously unable to hack it), then a “race relations officer” for the then NCCL; then she did some researcher and press jobs for a few years. A ghastly woman: pro-abortion, a moneygrubber, expenses blodger and freeloader, openly anti-white. Now quite possibly Home Secretary of a Corbyn-Labour government!DKWRQw3WsAIEnNI

I could list dozens, possibly hundreds, of other examples. The fact is that 90% of the House of Commons could be removed with no negative effect on anyone but those purged. The contrary, in fact.

Notes

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-clash-tory-13406586

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Thomson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kezia_Dugdale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberdeen_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/12_december/19/newsnight_ids_cv.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Tomlinson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Mensch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Kendall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Duncan_Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott

Addendum 20 October 2018

…and look at this one, a near (?) mental case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_O%27Mara

Update, 7 December 2018

More about the aforesaid little twerp (Ross Thomson MP)

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/1624720/aberdeen-mp-ross-thomson-tricked-by-underhanded-yet-blindingly-obvious-tv-prank/

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3582471/ross-thomson-tory-mp-instantgrammes-drugs-channel-4/

see also

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/troop-cartload-barrel-or-family/