Sunday, November 1, 2015

Why the taxes on us, the 88%, are so high. And what the peaceful, sustainable alternative is.

Why the taxes on us, the 88%, are so high.

And what the peaceful, sustainable alternative is.

We, the 88% are taxed, at the instructions of the 2%, to provide the higher-than-average incomes paid to the 10% to oppress us, the 88% and protect the 2% (the uber-theives) and the 10% - their Praetorian Guard.
The solution is the plan for Co-operative Socialism - which does away with personal taxation, the creation of a sustainable, not-for-profit, co-operative economy - including a not-for-profit co-operative community money, banking and finance sector.

Please see the You Tube videos on Co-operative Socialism, , various writings at and the papers at (particularly the Parliamentary programme of model Motions in the CCPA Monitor 'Readings on Co-operative Socialism').
I hope this helps.

ps Some more on that (2 : 10 : 88) % population split:

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The one question to ask any politician (and your self!):

Are you in working for the replacement of capitalism by something better?

If yes, then:

   - the follow-up questions are on the photo above


John Courtneidge

24 May 2015.

Fair World ( = Co-operative Socialism) interest-free money flow chart.

More in the papers' section at




26 May 2015


Saturday, May 23, 2015

Emotions, Personalities, Politics

- and the present (anti!-) social control via media bombardment

John Courtneidge

23 May 2015

These are emotionally-supercharged times.

Made all the worse (probably deliberately-so! by, for example, the 24/7 media 'news' assault! Grrr!*** ).

It may be helpful to mention  "The Kübler-Ross* model, or the five stages of grief, is a series of emotional stages experienced by survivors of an intimate's death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance." (that text is at the appropriate Wikipedia page (where, it should be noted,  critiques of the 'Kübler-Ross, five stages of grief' model of sequences are noted.


   'The stages, popularly known by the acronym DABDA: (again via that Wikipedia page**) are:


    1) Denial — One of the first reactions is Denial, wherein the survivor imagines a false, preferable reality.

    2) Anger — When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"; "Why would God let this happen?".

    3) Bargaining — The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Other times, they will use anything valuable against another human agency to extend or prolong the life. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek compromise.

    4) Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"

    During the fourth stage, the individual becomes saddened by the certainty of death. In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.

    5) Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."

    In this last stage, individuals embrace mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. People dying may precede the survivors in this state, which typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable condition of emotions.

Kübler-Ross later expanded her model to include any form of personal loss, such as the death of a loved one, the loss of a job or income, major rejection, the end of a relationship or divorce, drug addiction, incarceration, the onset of a disease or chronic illness, an infertility diagnosis, and even minor losses.

Both sufferers and therapists have reported the usefulness of the Kübler-Ross Model in a wide variety of situations. The subsections below give a few specific examples of how the model can be applied in different situations.'

I hope this helps.

BTW - in a PDF of a PowerPoint presentation that I put together for the UK Society for Co-operative Studies' meeting consequent upon the 150th anniversary of the death of Robert Owen at New Lanark in Scotland (in 2006), I tried to explore the relationships between Personality typing, Emotions and Politics (eg and particularly the 'Four Color'/'Personality Typing' approach - following on from the work of David Keirsey -

It's called something like Emotions, Personality and Politics - in the papers' section at

***ps - I. presently, call the 'churches' response to this psychological control 'The Gospel of Evasion'.

Formerly I called this 'The Gospel of Denial' but it seems to have got worse (ie evasion is a more mobile, cunning form of denial).
There's a an essay called 'The Psychology of denial' in the papers' section at

I hope that helps 2!

Finally, I have been aware of the process of accommodation that I witnessed in the south-Wales coalfields' areas that were decimated by the the application of the 'neoliberal', capitalist counter-revolution 'Ridley Plan' ( by the Conservative government from 1979 onwards  (led by Margaret Thatcher):

From :

  ' The Ridley Plan (also known as the Ridley Report) was a 1977 report on the nationalised industries in the UK. The report was produced in the aftermath of the Heath government being brought down by the 1974 coal strike.
It was drawn up by the right-wing Conservative MP Nicholas Ridley, a founding member of the Selsdon Group of free market Conservatives. In the report he proposed how the next Conservative government could fight, and defeat, a major strike in a nationalised industry.
Ridley suggested contingency planning to defeat any challenge from trade unions:
  • The government should if possible choose the field of battle.
  • Industries were grouped by the likelihood of winning a strike; the coal industry was in the 'middle' of three groups of industries mentioned.
  • Coal stocks should be built up at power stations.
  • Plans should be made to import coal from non-union foreign ports.
  • Non-union lorry drivers to be recruited by haulage companies.
  • Dual coal-oil firing generators to be installed, at extra cost;
  • 'Cut off the money supply to the strikers and make the union finance them'.
  • Train and equip a large, mobile squad of police, ready to employ riot tactics in order to uphold the law against violent picketing.
These recommendations were leaked to The Economist and published on 27 May 1978.
These tactics were successfully employed during the miners' strike of 1984-85, when the National Union of Mineworkers was defeated by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was strongly influenced by other Selsdon Group members besides Ridley, such as Norman Tebbit and Alan Walters. The report had been leaked six years before by The Economist but the unions, especially the NUM, showed no interest in adapting or altering their own tactics in response.
In Ridley's view, trade union power in the UK was interfering with market forces, causing inflation, and therefore had to be checked to restore the "profitability" of the UK. He and others also saw it necessary to check union power in the aftermath of the fall of the Heath government in the face of the 1974 strikes.'

It has been suggested that a successor neoconservative, capitalist, second counter-revolution  has been sketched out by Oliver Letwin (see although whether that proves to be the originating source for the plan for neoconservatism, I don't yet know.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015



John Courtneidge 


12 May 2015
     = UK Election Day + 5

I'm off to a 'Left Platform' meeting tonight.

If possible, I'll ask the following questions (you might like to answer them, here):

a) Are you in favour of the replacement of capitalism by something better?


b) Do you wish to use violence to achieve that objective?


c) Is that 'better-than-capitalism' objective one that is hierarchical or not? (Ie with, after it's implementation, a world, still, of 'them-up-there' and 'us-down-below'?)

   Yes, hierarchical/No, not hierarchical

d) Do you wish to see that transformation from capitalism to something better (that's not hierarchical) using democratic, parliamentary means ('the parliamentary road to socialism') or by extra-parliamentary means (revolution on the streets or replacement by experiment 'in the woods')

   Yes, mostly through parliamentary means; Or, No revolution on the streets; Or, No, by setting up practical demonstration alternatives 'in the woods'; Or some mixture of these

If you've answered a) = yes, b) = no, c) = not hierarchical and d) by democratic, parliamentary means (or, mostly by democratic, parliamentary means with some elements of nonviolent protest and/or practical demonstration of projects 'in the woods'), then:

e) How does the plan for Co-operative Socialism (as in the papers' section at look to you?

ps Good to be back!


Monday, February 23, 2015

A series of five (well, probably six) weekly essays explaining, I hope, the plan for Co-operative Socialism. Issue set 4) - Income distribution and, thus, security, issues (inequality/inequity/pensions/student debt, etc)

Last week, I offered to write a series of five weekly essays explaining, I hope, the plan for Co-operative Socialism.

John Courtneidge
So, here's the first one

23 February 2015

 The plan for Co-operative Socialism and graphic are 1995-ish - 'The Spirit Level cover is that for the second paperback edition (note the Blue Star - signifying the extra chapter of rebuttal of The Spirit Level Myth' book -  and the wholosophy diagram (below) from the late 1990's/early 2000s

Hope they help!

First an overview:


The reason for five essays is that my experience, over the past twenty years - backed up by my experience of running two businesses (a small farm and a co-owned Garden Centre and Nursery) - is that the life issues that people are (rightly!) concerned over are:

1) Morality/ethics/philosophy/theology/spiritual issues

2) Work-place/health/wealth creation issues, intellectual property, etc

3) Land issues (land generally: 'land, sea and air'/ frozen land (buildings, roads, ports, land-use generally - including housing, agriculture etc - and 'virtual land ('the air wave electromagnetic spectrum', e-space etc)

4) Income distribution and, thus, security, issues (inequality/inequity/pensions/student debt, etc)

- which is the one I'll deal with this week - it's the place that, for many 'the shoe pinches' today

5) International affairs (Third World Debt, Fair Trade, etc)
6) Money/banking/finance issues: essentially two: how money is created, how money is used - and 'should we have money anyway?'

So, that means we need six essays!

And, more-over, they won't come in 1, 2, 3, etc, order - since they are all interlinked - and I've got to start somewhere!

(It's a wholosophy thing! - see right!)


But, before I start, one overarching point.

The evidence in The Spirit Level (see for on-line videos, etc) is summarized in the cover graphic to the paper-back edition (as in the photo attached).

It says (to me) that, you can spend a lifetime grappling with an infinity of problems (the 'many fish' in the left-hand bowl) or you can achieve one - (greater) income equality - and that (from the epidemiological evidence - evidence not assertion!), *as a result*, all the other problems (money worries, war, the ecocide, ill-health generally) get solved.


So, the first: essay,

Issue set 4) - Income distribution and, thus, security, issues (inequality/inequity/pensions/student debt, etc)

 In this world you need a money income.

People rightly say that we all need a minimum income on which to live.

I prefer to call that 'A Living Income' - because minimum is too much like 'Basic', No-frills, Austerity, Meanness.

I prefer people to thrive and be free, as a consequence, to have a decent-enough income so that they are free to be responsible (rather than capitalism's 'freedom' - the 'freedom to be irresponsible' - ughh!)

Now, from the Spirit Level evidence, therefore, we need a maximum income so that there is a much narrower income range than at present.

I consider this to be the most important calculation that a society does: so, I consider that there should be a truly democratic way of doing this, annually.

So, for example:

- suppose that society decides that a maximum income should be, say three times the Living Income,

- then everyone would receive, from the community, a Living Income (a LIFE : A Living Income for Everyone)

- plus, if they choose to do paid work, up to a maximum of two more dollops of money

ie a Living Income of, say, £1000 per fortnight and up to £2000 more from paid work per fortnight

- the sums and multiplier that I'm using here are only for illustration

- I *strongly* think that a randomly-selected, 'Citizens Jury'/''Community Fairness Commission'/what-ever name you like, body should annually do this - something a re-formatted 'House of Lords/Senate of the people/what-ever name you prefer could do this - not *elected* but Selected at random - just as the Jury system has served for justice for several thousand years.

So, enough on Essay 4)
Income and distribution issues (inequality/inequity/pensions/student debt, etc)
for now.

Hope this helps!



Thursday, February 19, 2015

 LIFE = Living Income for Everyone
=  happy family = good food = happy planet!


John Courtneidge

16 February 2015

There seem to be four income matters:

1) Insufficiency of income - which leads to poverty and destitution, illness and death

2) Insecurity of income - the ying-yang of feast and famine - usually too much famine, too little feast

3) Inequity if income - some are paid more for the same work, while a few (the 2% who have stolen the economic resources of the planet*) don't even have to work for their incomes** !

4) Inappropriateness of income - being conscripted into an army, or other forms of forced prostitution (is there such a thing as voluntary prostitution - truly voluntary . . . ?

All these are solved by a far greater level of income equality - with a guaranteed, decent 'Living Income for Everyone' as the base level for all Citizens/those normally resident in a country.

Hence the plan for Co-operative Socialism!

Those * notes:

* Those stolen resources are:

a) Land - leads to rent as unearned income

b) The law - leads to interest (usury/a riba) as unearned income)

c) Knowledge - leads to business profits (often distributed to the 2% and their protectors - the 10% as dividends)

d) Positions of power - paid for by taxing us, the 88% who are not so much 'The Working Classes' as 'The Worked Class' - the hardest job of all being unemployed - as a way of frightening the rest of the 88% in cowed compliance and despair.
** It's this inequity of unearned incomes from rent, interest and profits (the RIP part of the TRIP-Up analysis***) that is so outrageous - and so never talked about on the baby-minding bullies - the TV/Radio/'news'-papers/magazines/Schools/colleges/monoversities/pulpits etc - the places where the 10% are paid Unequal (over-average) pay to bully, misinform, enrage us, the 88% on behalf of the 2%
*** TRIP-Up = Theft (of all sorts, tax evasion, bribes, corruption, etc)
Unequal (ie higher than median) pay for work
Hope this helps!

For all = the best! = equally = co-operatively!

More: in the papers at