Yesterday saw two announcements. Starmer is to introduce compulsory digital ID cards in the UK, and Tony Blair is put forward by the White House to be the colonial administrator of Gaza for five years.

The political economy of the world appears locked in a vertiginous downward spiral. You don’t have to scratch very hard to find that Tony Blair’s hand is also behind the compulsory ID plan. He has been pushing it for nearly thirty years, and now it comes with added links to Larry Ellison, Palantir and Israel.

The government will be able to garner and centralise knowledge of everything about you. Every detail of your financial transactions, your DNA, your family, your medical records, your education, employment and accommodation. It will be a very short time before the digital ID is linked to your social media accounts and your IP access to monitor your browsing.

There is already the intention to control us through our access to financial services. I have spoken with one of the women charged for protesting outside the Leonardo factory in Edinburgh. She has had her bank accounts cancelled – simply losing the money in them – and cannot open a new account. You may recall they tried to debank Nigel Farage. The campaign to defend Julian Assange suffered multiple banking cancellations.

The desire of the state to control people politically through their ability to carry out ordinary transactions is not in doubt. It is demonstrated. Once you have a compulsory digital ID linked to transactions – which will follow very swiftly, I am quite certain – they will be able to simply switch off your ability to pay for anything. Add this to a digital currency which tracks all of your expenditure – all the key elements of which are already installed – and total control will be in place.

Starmer is trying to dress up a digital ID as an immigration control – whether you support immigration control or not, the notion that it will make a significant difference is nonsense. Landlords, employers, banks and lawyers already have to check the ID and status of their clients. For those bent on evasion, one more piece of bureaucracy will make little difference. It is the law-abiding who will be enmeshed in the system of control.

Increases in state surveillance and restrictions on personal freedom are always falsely framed as protection against a terrible threat – paedophiles or fraudsters or immigrants or Russians. Yet despite an ever-shrinking area of personal freedom, none of these real or invented threats ever actually recedes.

Starmer is the most unpopular PM in history. Attempting to force through this deeply unpopular measure is going to cause him real difficulties in parliament. The calculation is that Reform will oppose the measure on libertarian grounds, and that this will allow Starmer to show himself as tougher on immigration than Reform. The breathtaking cynicism of this is typical of the Starmer government, which believes in nothing except their own power.

As for Blair being made effectively Governor of Gaza, this is so sickening as to be beyond belief. The man who killed a million Iraqis on the basis of lies about WMD, who has made hundreds of millions of pounds through PR services to dictators, whose Tony Blair Institute has drawn up “Gaza Riviera” plans for Trump, and who has been discussing with western oil companies the takeover of Gaza’s gas field, is touted to administer the mass grave which Gaza has become.

In any reasonable world this would be impossible. The degeneration of western society is profound. There are no ethics in play beyond the dominance of power, wealth and greed. Blair manages to embody these in one person.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

The outgoing Head of MI6 Richard Moore has formally admitted in a public speech in Istanbul that MI6 has been cooperating with HTS in Syria – a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act – for years.

The government is arresting little old ladies for holding signs supporting one proscribed organisation, Palestine Action, while it admits it has been actively supporting another proscribed organisation. HTS was proscribed as a division of Al Qaida, as shown on the government website:

As I learnt while in Lebanon, the British support for HTS included intelligence support, training and weapons, based at secret UK bases in the Bekaa valley, including inside the Rayak airbase. It also included support via an NGO named Inter-Mediate, run by current British National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, who is Tony Blair’s old Downing Street Chief of Staff.

In the UK neither the government nor the security services stand above the law. The fact that neither Moore nor Powell nor any of those on the ground directly involved in actively and substantively supporting HTS – a proscribed organisation – has been arrested, while people are arrested for holding a placard supporting Palestine Action because it is a proscribed organisation, is the very definition of arbitrary and oppressive government.

The impartial rule of law in the UK has collapsed completely. All of this was material support to a proscribed organisation.

Powell with al Jolani

Meanwhile we have Starmer’s hollow gesture of recognising Palestine. This is designed to placate those in the Labour Party who are horrified by the Genocide in Gaza.  As it is accompanied by zero intention to limit or even acknowledge the Genocide, it is the very definition of a useless gesture.

Palestine was already recognised by three quarters of the nations of the world.  What Starmer believes he has furthered is a Bantustan state, hopelessly divided between an obliterated Gaza, small and isolated remnants of the West Bank and what remains of East Jerusalem. That these fissiparous remnants could ever constitute a viable state is plainly impossible – which is the idea.

Furthermore Starmer attacks the very definition of a state by insisting that the Palestinians can be told who they must have to rule them. The notion that the traitor Abbas and his Palestinian Authority would ever be chosen by the Palestinian people is utter nonsense. Furthermore Macron and Starmer have both specified that a Palestinian state must be disarmed, have no armed forces, and lie prey to the genocidal state next door at all times. The Saudi/French plan even states that Israel should have vetting control over the appointment of individual Palestinian police officers!

The only virtue to this act of recognition is that it will make it more difficult politically for the UK not to react with the first genuine sanctions against Israel once Israel formally annexes Gaza or the West Bank. It is thus a very minor political improvement. With the British government already having repudiated the UN Commission of Inquiry’s finding of Genocide, the attack on Gaza in full flow, and the Global Sumud Flotilla very likely to be met by Israel with deadly force, Starmer is, as usual, completely out of touch with public opinion if he believes he has reduced political pressure over his complicity in Genocide.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

There are serious threats to “Your Party” from those attempting to exert undemocratic control, and they attack as trying to destroy the party, anyone who tries to improve things.

The Labour Party is now centre-right and the large majority of us to the left of it were delighted when Jeremy took the plunge to launch a new party. It is not that parties of the left did not exist; it is that only Jeremy Corbyn has the stature to break through into mass voter support. That seems to me undeniable.

My own view is that it would be crazy for anybody other than Jeremy Corbyn to be the first leader of Your Party.

Of course, “left” is a broad concept, and like most of my friends I have signed up for the new project in order to take part democratically and endeavour to shape a party whose policies I can broadly support. If that does not materialise, I can leave, but I do not expect to agree with every single policy. Any party whose members all agree with every policy is deeply unhealthy.

I have friends in Scotland who will not join on the assumption it will be a unionist party. That of course can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I do not think it will be.

The rumours circulating about tensions at the top of “Your Party” are broadly true and often remarkably accurate. I could write a great deal about individuals and their positions, but I want now to issue an urgent alert and call to action, without names.

Simply put, I believe most of us had assumed that Your Party would be a one member, one vote democracy with major decisions taken by all members with online voting. That includes major policy decisions and election to all the main positions in the party, both central and local.

In fact, those in charge are actively working to limit, to an extraordinary degree, one person one vote democracy in the party. That is the major reason why “Your Party” is still not actually a political party and still has zero members. It only has 850,000 people who have signed up to express interest, many of whom have paid money, but none of whom have any legal standing, democratic rights or say in how the money is spent – or crucially whom it employs.

This is not an accident and no, it does not take months to set up a structure to convert these people into members. The delay is absolutely deliberate, preventing any locus standi for democratic control of the establishment process.

Incredibly, this is not an issue that divides the different factions at the top of the party. One thing that unites them is a desire to run the party through easily manipulated structures; they just differ over who should control those structures.

There have been a number of formative meetings held around the country. There is no area in the entire UK where all of those who have signed up and joined the list, or even all those who have paid money, have been invited along to a meeting to discuss setting up the local branch. In every case local members of small political parties and groups within trades unions have hand-picked whom to invite.

The only time that all those in an area who signed up have been invited, has been to a small number of leadership rallies with Jeremy Corbyn.

If I may just give Glasgow as an example. Your Party has 42,000 people signed up in Scotland. We can therefore estimate those signed up in Glasgow as over 5,000 people. But the “founding meeting” of the party in Glasgow was of 120 people, invited by “word of mouth”.

The other 5,000 people who had signed up had not the slightest idea the founding meeting was happening.

On a larger scale this control by selective invitation is to play out at what is billed as the party’s “Founding Conference” in November. Ordinary members will not be able to attend the conference. It will consist of delegates selected by tiny political parties and local groups, most of which the large bulk of the members in that locality will never have heard of.

There will be no way for a member simply to put themselves forward for election by all the other members in their region as a conference delegate. It is entirely a self-selecting process among established left wing factions, just like the Glasgow meeting writ large.

Let me try to bring home to you the vast gap between the membership and those who are manipulating the system. The main organising component in Scotland is a small party that initially stayed (rightly!) loyal to Tommy Sheridan after he was traduced by Murdoch, as part of the split between the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity. This group then split again as a smaller splinter off from Solidarity.

I can’t even recall what they call themselves now – the Socialist Party of Scotland or something – and I have no reason to doubt they are great people. But they and a couple of groups of similar size – groups which without the Corbyn name would not combined be able to fill Blairgowrie town hall for a meeting on a wet Tuesday evening – are attempting to lead by the nose 42,000 people who would like to have a say in the matter.

Those 42,000 in Scotland deserve the rights and privileges of members. Now. As do those who signed up throughout the UK.

I cannot stress to you enough that this is not a glitch; it is a feature. Nor is it a teething problem. Those who currently hold the reins are determined to make sure those reins cannot be voted out of their hands. I have had a number of conversations with people actually in charge of instituting all this, and the prevention of direct democracy and the structuring of the party instead through controlled committees and caucuses is for them a given.

Part of this is because, far from being a fresh start, most of those actually running the putative Your Party come from the byzantine world of the Labour Party. Others come from small parties which are avowedly revolutionary vanguardist and entryist. Large putative memberships willing to pay money are a resource to be exploited and turned to the purpose of the group, rather than comrades to be considered as equals.

Which brings me to the second, and to me more worrying, aspect of Your Party, which is conduct of meetings. Aside from the careful selectivity of who gets to be at the meetings, those currently directing Your Party seek to avoid normal democratic rules of debate and – above all – to avoid votes at their meetings. This is how the local meetings are actually being conducted.

The first method to disempower the membership at a meeting is to disassemble them, into “working groups”. Each working group is led – and the word “led” is important here – by a “moderator” who has been chosen in advance and trained. That “moderator” gives an impression of communitarianism by asking the group what they wish to discuss from a list of prepared topics, or to some degree participants can choose the topic group to join.

The conversation is then led by statements introduced by the moderator. In Glasgow this was done on the basis of WhatsApp messages allegedly sent in – though who had selected the people who sent the WhatsApp messages to this unadvertised meeting was not plain. The moderators then distil the collective view of the participants through a process of alchemy, and later the moderators amalgamate the view of the meeting.

This method of “consensual” discussion of policy, avoiding debate and opposition, echoes the strategies employed within groups like Occupy! and Extinction Rebellion. It draws those who arrive full of idealism into a novel and apparently communitarian process, and anybody wishing to express a radically different opinion – or to challenge the methodology – is immediately not a legitimate member putting an opposing view in debate, but a disruptor and an outcast.

When I gave a talk to the Occupy! encampment at St Paul’s many years ago, I wrote afterward that these trendy methods of decision making actually did the opposite of what they said on the tin. They empowered charismatic individuals to lead the group much more effectively than the structured rules of normal debate, and effectively created a cult following. I was unsurprised shortly afterward to discover that encampment had, precisely through the control of charismatic individuals, seen sexual abuse of female members, resulting in convictions.

The notion that normal debate, with speakers for and against and proper votes, is bourgeois or undemocratic is entirely wrong. The great E P Thompson opened The Making of the English Working Class with the insight that the structure of the London Corresponding Society was in itself an act of working class assertion. An equal subscription and one member one vote was a revolutionary notion in an era where public gatherings consisted of listening to the priest, the magnate or his underlings.

The democratic conduct of meetings is actually embedded in common law, and represents the accumulated achievement of popular control. There is nothing outdated about proper debate and one person one vote.

There is now the opportunity to update this, with online debates available to all members, and online voting on all issues available to all members. When Your Party spoke of a new and modern form of popular democracy, I presumed mass online debate and online one person one vote is what they meant. I did not for a second imagine that replacing voting with New Age cult metaphysics was meant.

I want to emphasise this to you. I have spoken to scores of people, including some very directly involved. The avoidance of debate and of votes is a deliberate policy to maintain the control of a small group of people. In what would already be the UK’s biggest political party if they had allowed people actually to become members.

I am not mentioning names because my motivation is to heal this and make Your Party the force it should be.

I signed up immediately, to support Jeremy, and paid a small sum. I have never at any stage been invited to any of the meetings, steering groups or other activities involved in organising the party. I have never received anything from them except one vague email asking me to suggest the party’s name.

This can all be rescued. But those who have signed up need to get active now. Do these things:

a) Write to the party (reply to the email about the name) asking that formal membership be opened up immediately and stating that you wish to become a member.

b) State that you wish to attend the founding conference or at least to have a vote for delegates to attend the founding conference, with a right to put yourself forward for election if you so choose.

c) State that you wish to be invited to any meetings of the party in your area.

d) If meetings happen without you, kick up a fuss.

e) At those meetings, insist on some general discussion and the right to vote upon things. Resist the splitting up into small groups and manipulation of consensus.

f) In writing, make absolutely plain that you expect Your Party within this calendar year to have online one person one vote elections for all major positions, local and national, within the party. That includes the General Secretary or equivalent position.

g) State that going forward you expect Your Party to enact direct democracy, with one member one vote online on all major policy issues.

A popular movement depends on the people and we have the people. We now need to empower them.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

“President” Isaac Herzog last night entered his hotel – the Intercontinental Park Lane – through a service door and kitchens.

He did not transit any of the public areas of the hotel, where I was stationed disguised as an elderly Scottish drunk at the bar. I carried out this role with great dedication.

It also allowed me to wander around the basement areas as a well-spoken elderly Scottish gentleman, slightly befuddled and looking for the toilet. Finding no end of lurking policemen – who were all very helpful – I was able to confirm this was indeed where Herzog was staying and a demonstration was whistled up.

Watch| Activists protested in front of the hotel where Israeli President Isaac Herzog is staying in London, demanding his arrest for his role in crimes against the Palestinian people.#Israel pic.twitter.com/p3dznsgcvm

— Al-Jarmaq News (@Aljarmaqnetnews) September 10, 2025

The demonstration was very loud and effective inside the hotel and definitely well worth doing again. The police attempted to move the demonstration away under the Public Order Act.

Greta Thunberg was acquitted last year in exactly these circumstances when charged for protesting outside this exact same hotel. The magistrate ruled that police instructions to move on were “unlawful”. That is worth remembering for the next couple of nights.

I had dashed down from Edinburgh, literally just dropping everything and heading to the station, on hearing that Herzog’s visit was starting a couple of days earlier than expected. I attended the PSC demonstration outside Downing St. Frankly it was disappointingly small – not much more than one person for every mile I had covered to get there.

The change of date, short notice and a tube strike all contributed, but I do hope protest will grow during Herzog’s three day visit. Be inspired by this precedent:

In 1848-9, Hapsburg General Julius von Haynau crushed uprisings in Hungary and in Brescia with extreme force. In Brescia about 1,000 were killed, both revolutionaries and civilians, including women and children, with widespread rape, floggings and executions.

In Hungary about 2,000 revolutionaries were killed across four “battles” and a slightly larger number of civilians were massacred, again with widespread rape, flogging and looting.

In 1850 Haynau was on a private visit to London and touring the Barclay and Perkins brewery in Southwark. He was recognised by some draymen who pelted him with refuse and chased him from the brewery, where a larger crowd joined in.

Eventually Haynau took refuge in the George Inn on Borough High Street, where he hid either in a waste bin or under a bed (accounts differ). Eventually he was rescued by the police but nobody was arrested.

Generations of schoolchildren – myself included – were taught that the Haynau incident was something to be proud of and an example of how foreign “tyrants” should be treated in London. The government of Prime Minister Lord John Russell – grandfather of Bertrand Russell – refused to prosecute the draymen, to the fury of the Austrian government.

Herzog is of course actively participating in a Genocide far worse than anything Haynau did, and was directly quoted by the ICJ as indicating intent of genocide.

Starmer is meeting Herzog today for the second time since the ICJ cited Herzog as showing intent of Genocide, and since Herzog signed bombs to drop on Gaza.

There is no diplomacy being pursued on this visit. Nor was it initiated by Starmer. It is the Israelis emphasising their control of the British Establishment, and demonstrating that they can do what they wish – commit genocide, bomb Qatar, bomb Tunisia, and much more. It is simply a visit to underline who is the boss, and that we can do nothing about it.

Let us summon the symbol of the draymen of the Barclay and Perkins brewery. It is the people, not Starmer and his corrupt, grasping clowns, who embody moral conscience.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Humans are naturally cooperative creatures. The ability of people to dominate other life forms on the planet, to produce a built environment structured to their needs, to ensure food and water supply, to develop complex civilisations and produce all kinds of structures and objects designed to enhance interest and comfort, and to interact on a social plane that includes communication of abstract thought – all of it is a result of coordinated endeavour.

This cannot be achieved without altruism. Ever since humans have existed, people have contributed to the communal good or to the individual good of other humans through acts of social solidarity.

It is of course possible to construct an argument that selfless acts are performed on the basis of expecting wider advantage to oneself or one’s descendants from the fruits of societal advancement, but it is not necessary to believe that empathy and kindness are a manifestation of subconscious selfishness. In fact it is rather perverse to do so.

The argument was popular in the West in the 1980s when dismantling the intellectual underpinnings of the welfare state was a prime mission of those in power. But it is counter-intuitive, does not survive introspection nor observation, and it is unnecessary.

In fact it is not merely in seeking directly to help others that humans may act without selfish motive. There have always been those, for example, who seek to advance the frontiers of knowledge for its own sake, because they are intellectually fascinated, without seeking to derive any personal advantage or even practical benefit to humanity from their area of research.

The quest for spiritual enlightenment or for artistic expression is often followed with no thought of gain.

Poor people, who can hardly afford to, give to charity. Those hundreds setting sail today on the Sumud flotilla to bring aid to Gaza put their lives in danger, from an opposition to social evil.

None

Personally, when I investigated Israeli crimes in Southern Lebanon under Israeli drones and in the sights of Israeli snipers, or when I went to jail for revealing the truth of the conspiracy to imprison Alex Salmond, I cannot convict myself of any ill motive. I was acutely aware of my own danger and of my own responsibilities. A belief in the need to oppose the wicked actions of those controlling the power of the state, and a belief that knowledge of the truth is an essential public good, drove me in both circumstances.

I sat with Ghassan Abu Sitta in a Beirut cafe discussing the fortune he could be making as a plastic surgeon in London when instead he had chosen to work in circumstances of the most extreme professional stress and personal danger on earth, striving to save lives in Gazan operating theatres.

Ghassan is a Palestinian Scot; and there are dozens of healthcare workers with no cultural or ethnic connection to those they serve who have braved the terrors of Gaza to save lives.

Can you imagine how much more common altruism might be if the entire state were not constructed in order to teach us that it is abnormal?

Yet we live in a neoliberal society of which the carefully structured and regulated social model operates on the assumption that everyone wishes to gain maximum resources to themselves, and that the activities of a tiny percentage – who often do little discernible work in production – are hundreds of thousands of times more worthy of reward than those of ordinary workers.

It is not an accident. It is not the natural order of human society. All kinds of human societies have existed, and all have been constructs. They can be patriarchal or matriarchal, communitarian or hierarchised, religious or secular, aggressive or pacific.

Modern neoliberal society is structured around monetary systems that store wealth, in currencies that largely exist as digits in computers, and which are allocated to institutions and individuals through state-regulated systems that in no sense capture societal value as the basis of reward.

Take the UK’s richest citizen, Jim Ratcliffe. What is the basis of his wealth? Did he invent something? Did he pioneer a new form of management? Did he build vast new industrial plants that employed tens of thousands of people?

No, he did none of those things, and indeed arguably he did the very opposite of those things. All he did was accounting tricks with digitised currency units, and then indulge himself in football clubs and Land Rover nostalgia.

I have still never seen a satisfactory explanation of Epstein’s wealth, yet nobody finds it strange to associate with people whose billions have appeared through mystical financial structuring.

For a period of approximately half a century from about 1930, the primary function of states was seen to be ensuring the welfare, comparative economic well-being and social mobility of the vast bulk of its citizens.

From the Reagan/Thatcher era that changed, and the prime activity of states became the fine-tuning of the systems of finance and resource-holding in order to increase the concentration of capital. In other words the state became the facilitator of the relentless accrual of the assets of the nation into the hands of the already wealthy.

As a result we live in an incredibly unequal society, and one in which the living standards and income security of the majority are highly precarious, with disastrous social consequences of scapegoating and xenophobia.

It is at this moment that the major social disruptor of Artificial Intelligence has arrived.

Those of my generation did not usually foresee the impact of the internet. I remember typing green text on a black screen in Dundee in 1979 and being amazed I was playing Dungeons and Dragons with somebody in Manchester.

A decade later we had home computers that made noises I will never forget as they connected down the phone line; if you were lucky you would get a good enough connection to send a plain email.

There are those who foresaw the decline of city centres, the delivery culture, the fall in in-person business and social activity, the growth of corporate knowledge gatekeepers, state control of personal data, and all the other things that happened since.

I was not one of them. Similarly many people were talking about the effects of AI long before I started to give it serious thought. I remember visiting Julian Assange in Belmarsh and listening to his main views on the subject, realising that despite being isolated in jail he understood the subject far more than I did.

He was particularly worried about the centralised power that would arise from the concentration of resources required to achieve AI, and the potential for further abuse and population control by ever-expanding state power. I have to confess at the time I was hazy about what he was stating.

In short, I am not much of a seer. But I want to look for the moment at the more prosaic question of AI’s capacity to replace people in the workforce.

You can’t sit on an AI, and one isn’t going to convey the children to a camping trip: nor can you eat it. Manufacturing and food production will not be massively affected by AI (though design of course will).

What AI will be able to replace is the kind of financial pimping service for world oligarchs in which the UK specialises. Investment managers, insurance underwriters and several score kinds of banker are no longer going to be needed as humans. Vast swathes of civil service employment and administrative employment in the private sector are under threat.

I want to make, for now, just two very obvious points. The change is going to be much bigger in service-based economies like the UK and the other Western “post-industrial” economies. They have imported their needs from the non-West in return for payment based on their services earnings that will be largely redundant. I see AI as contributing to the shift in economic power from the West.

That is potentially a good thing.

The second point is that any advance that increases productivity with less labour ought to be a boon to all mankind, enabling people to work less and society still to receive as much in goods and services.

But as the AI revolution is starting at a time of maximum inequality, and where states are structured to reinforce that inequality; this of course will not happen. Unemployment will rise and people will be driven into desperate poverty, while all the productivity gain will be harvested by the billionaire class.

That is our immediate future.

The need for a more egalitarian society is urgent. The need to break away from systems that enshrine and glorify selfishness and greed is urgent. Otherwise the future is bleak.

We need a politics of altruism and empathy.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a