Exclusive reporting and opinion by Mathew Carr (CarrZee.org)
March 31-April 2, 2025 — Ideas previously labelled “socialist”, or even notions that seem a little like “communism,” have begun to pop up in some surprising places.
Take Michael Gove, who was a minister in various roles throughout the Conservative party’s domination over British politics during the 14 years through last year.
Resigned as an MP, he’s now beginning to sound a little, well, lefty, even though he edits the right-leaning Spectator magazine.
The working population will increasingly “not be able to find meaningful work” and disincentivising job seekers to some extent via “universal income” programs probably makes some sense in this context, Gove told me after speaking on Friday on a “history and politics” panel at Queen Mary University in east London.
A better welfare system can be created, Gove said in response to my questioning inside the Octagon building, after he suffered some criticism at the event for helping push Britain out of the European Union and into participating in brutal wars we all thought would have been done with at this point in world history.
While he would not normally support a system of universal basic income because it would disincentivize work, the world is changing, he said.
So, with the onset of AI, is it now more likely we’ll get a system of universal income? I asked. “That’s where the argument looms larger,” he said.
I asked Gove whether the world might be in a less precarious position now if politicians in charge the past couple of decades had had a better sense of history? “Ideally. All other things being equal.”
Under the party known as the Tories, UK inequality has widened, especially at the top teir of wealth.
Wicked Ends
Some people can use the political process for “their own wicked ends”, Gove said.
“Most of these things are historically precedented,” he said. The concentration of power with oligarchs happened in 19th century America, for example. “It’s not an exact analogy, but it’s helpful.”
There was greater economic fragility as a result of the Industrial Revolution, he said. When you have periods of rapid technological change, there is danger that wealth accumulates in the power of those “most capable of surfing that type of change”.
People who lose out are those who knew how to navigate a particular way of life and then find they are “the playthings of others rather than having a modicum of control over their own destiny”
Gove says he’s is not generally in favour of universal income, yet he now says he has some sympathy for it.
“You can create a welfare system that disincentivizes work,” which might be necessary as AI takes jobs, he said.
The current Labour government in Britain last year boosted national insurance contributions by employers starting next week, which has resulted a a slate of large corporations announcing headcount reductions.
Further, retailers Next and Sainsbury’s have blamed tax grabs for rising costs and poor economic conditions.
Hundreds of millions of jobs are at risk, according to reports by McKinsey and the World Economic Forum.
Offering a universal income of say £1,600 a month (£19,200/$25,000 per year), could lower the numbers seeking work and prevent wages from plunging. Indeed, some wages would go up if workers don’t strictly need to work because they have a decent safety net.
Employers will need to incentivize people into the workforce and potentially offer a fairer share of wealth via higher hourly wages.
Universal income programs and pilots have so far had mixed results.
Programs and pilots
There have been several programs and pilot systems of “universal income” tried the past couple of decades, across the world.
Programs in Brazil have been widely praised. For example, Bolsa Família, one of the country’s most iconic social welfare programs, helped 3 million recipients climb out of poverty (in 2023 alone), according to a release from the government.
A study was carried out by the Ministry of Social Development, the university Fundação Getulio Vargas, the World Bank, and the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA), a government-backed think tank.
The program pays a monthly minimum of about $119 per family, essentially to cover the purchase of basic food items, covering about 20 million people. A January 2025 study in Nature Medicine underscored the program’s public health benefits, showing it has reduced tuberculosis incidence and mortality among Brazil’s poorest, reinforcing its role beyond mere poverty alleviation (Grok).
In the UK, Manchester, England, is seen as a possible pilot for universal basic income after some testing in Scotland (from where Gove hails). See below. Wales also has toyed with the idea.
“
Preferred model for piloting a CBI pilot in Scotland is based on 5 key principles: universal (paid to all); unconditional (no requirement to search for work); individual (not paid to households, like Universal Credit); periodic (paid at regular intervals); and made as a cash payment. We propose two payment levels for piloting – a lower payment in line with current benefit provision so it would be possible to test the impact of the removal of conditionality, and a higher payment aligned to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Minimum Income Standard. A pilot would run for three years, with a one year preparatory period. We commissioned research exploring potential benefit interaction and also economic modelling of the potential impacts of a Scotland-wide CBI to inform our work.
”
Nordic countries including Finland have also been trail blazers.
In Canada, the early ending of one program prompted a $200 million class action lawsuit that’s still live.
Gove: far left of the picture, but not usually of politics
(More to come)
NOTES
2024
Class Action (from Canadian lawfirm Cavalluzzo):
This Class Action is against the Ontario Government, with respect to its decision to cancel the Basic Income Pilot in July 2018. This program was introduced in 2017 with the goal of studying whether granting Ontarians regular, fixed payments – In other words, giving Ontarians a "basic income" – was something that the Government should consider doing in the future.
Approximately 6,000 Ontarians living in Lindsay, Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and their surrounding areas, enrolled in the Pilot.
4,000 of these participants agreed to receive a monthly basic income in exchange for regularly completing surveys and opening their lives up to the researchers.
Approximately one year after the Pilot's introduction, on July 31, 2018, the Ontario Government announced it would be cancelling the Basic Income Pilot early.
The final payments were made to participants on March 25, 2019.
This Class Action alleges that the cancellation of the Pilot amounts to a breach of contract.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages due to the cancellation of the Pilot, including $200 million in general damages.
CERTIFICATION MOTION
On March 4, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court released its decision certifying the class action. A copy of the Court’s decision can be found HERE.
AI notes (facts not checked below — I checked most facts used above from credible published, linked or multiple sources)
UK - Citizen Basic Income (with AI help)
https://x.com/cbinscot/status/1427287533025591305
In 2017, the Scottish Government announced support for local authorities to explore Citizen's Basic Income schemes, leading to a joint bid from four areas (Fife, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and North Ayrshire) to the Citizen's Basic Income Feasibility Fund.
Research and Exploration:
The four local authorities worked together to research the feasibility of a Basic Income pilot, supported by the Scottish Government and other organizations like NHS Health Scotland.
Final Report:
In June 2020, they launched a final report outlining their research into a Citizen's Basic Income (CBI) pilot, which is considered some of the most detailed research on the topic in the UK.
UBI Concept:
A CBI, or Universal Basic Income, is a regular, unconditional payment provided to every individual, regardless of their existing welfare benefits or earned income.
Potential Benefits:
Advocates for UBI believe it could reduce poverty, simplify the welfare system, and improve overall well-being.
Minimum Income Guarantee:
The Scottish Government also explored a Minimum Income Guarantee, which would ensure no one falls below a set income level, delivered through reforms to services, changes to the world of work, and improvements to social security.
Legislative Constraints:
The Scottish Parliament does not have the necessary social security and tax powers to pilot a UBI scheme within the current devolution settlement, which could limit the design and learnings of such a pilot.
Mental Health:
The potential for UBI to address mental health inequities in Scotland, where there are high rates of poverty and poor mental wellbeing, has also been explored.
Other Pilot Programs:
The Autonomy Institute has run a trial in Wales, with a feasibility study finding that a UBI could decrease overall poverty rates by 50% and child poverty by 64%.
Grok:
The Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project, launched in April 2017 under the Liberal government led by Premier Kathleen Wynne, was canceled in July 2018 by the newly elected Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford. The pilot aimed to provide up to $16,989 annually to single participants and $24,027 to couples across Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay, with the goal of studying its effects on poverty, employment, and well-being over three years. Here’s why it was terminated:
The cancellation stemmed primarily from a shift in political priorities following the June 2018 election. During the campaign, Ford’s team had indicated they would let the pilot run its course to evaluate its results, with a spokesperson stating they were “looking forward to seeing the results.” However, just a month after taking office, the Progressive Conservatives reversed this stance. On July 31, 2018, Lisa MacLeod, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, announced the pilot’s end, stating it was “expensive” and “not the answer for Ontario families.” The government argued it discouraged work, claiming it failed to help participants become “independent contributors to the economy,” despite early data showing two-thirds of enrollees were employed.
The decision lacked detailed justification based on empirical evidence, as the pilot had only been operational for about a year and hadn’t yet produced comprehensive results. Baseline data existed, but no significant outcome data had been analyzed by the cancellation date. Critics, including researchers and participants, pointed out that ending it prematurely—before the planned three-year evaluation by McMaster University and St. Michael’s Hospital—squandered a chance to gather robust evidence on basic income’s impacts. The move was widely seen as ideologically driven, reflecting the Ford government’s broader agenda of reducing social spending and prioritizing employment over income support. MacLeod later admitted in September 2018 that the cancellation broke an election promise, calling the earlier commitment a “mistake” and framing the pilot as unsustainable.
Public and expert backlash was significant. Anti-poverty groups like the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty called it a “reckless disregard” for participants’ lives, while researchers lamented the loss of a valuable dataset. A class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 by four Lindsay recipients alleged breach of contract, claiming the abrupt end caused financial and emotional harm; it was certified in March 2024 and seeks $200 million, though the province has spent heavily defending itself legally.
In short, the Ontario pilot was canceled due to a mix of ideological opposition, cost concerns, and a pivot away from experimental social policy under Ford’s leadership, despite initial promises to see it through. The final payments were made in March 2019, ending the experiment less than halfway through its intended duration.
As of March 30, 2025, the class-action lawsuit against the Ontario government over the cancellation of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project remains ongoing, with no final resolution yet determined. Here’s a summary of its progress based on available information:
The lawsuit was initiated in 2019 by four Lindsay residents—Dana Bowman, Grace Marie Doyle Hillion, Susan Lindsay, and Tracey Mechefske—representing approximately 4,000 participants in the pilot, which was launched in April 2017 under the Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne. The pilot provided up to $16,989 annually to single participants and $24,027 to couples across Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay, aiming to study its effects over three years. However, the Progressive Conservative government, led by Doug Ford, canceled it in July 2018, with final payments issued in March 2019. The plaintiffs allege this early termination breached a contract with participants, causing financial and emotional harm, and are seeking up to $200 million in damages.
A significant milestone occurred on March 4, 2024, when Ontario Superior Court Justice S.T. Bale certified the lawsuit as a class action, allowing it to proceed on behalf of all 4,000 participants. Certification means the court found the case met the legal criteria to be tried as a collective claim, focusing on common issues like whether the cancellation constituted a breach of contract. The province did not appeal this decision, moving the case into the next phase: the common issues trial.
In April 2024, the Ontario government paid $320,000 in legal costs to Cavalluzzo LLP, the Toronto law firm representing the plaintiffs, as compensation for expenses incurred while the province contested the certification. This payment is typical in such cases when a defendant loses a preliminary challenge, but it doesn’t indicate a final outcome. Lead counsel Stephen Moreau has urged the government to settle rather than prolong the fight, arguing it’s a waste of taxpayer money to oppose vulnerable former participants. However, no settlement has been reported as of now.
The case is currently in the discovery phase, where both sides exchange documents and evidence. Moreau has indicated this could take years, as no trial dates have been scheduled. The province has spent significant funds defending itself—over $600,000 by April 2024, including the $320,000 payment—and continues to argue its position, though it refrains from public comment due to the ongoing litigation.
Participant stories, like those of Jessie Golem and Tracey Mechefske, highlight the stakes: many used the income for education, housing, or small businesses, only to face hardship when it ended. A 2019 survey by the Basic Income Canada Network showed widespread benefits—improved housing for 58%, better employment prospects for 34%, and reduced stress for most—fueling the plaintiffs’ claim that the cancellation caused foreseeable harm.
In summary, the class action has been certified and is progressing slowly through the courts, with no resolution as of March 30, 2025. The outcome—whether a trial verdict or settlement—remains pending, and it could still be years before a conclusion is reached.
Claude AI
how many jobs at risk globally from ai?
Based on various studies and reports up to my knowledge cutoff in October 2024, estimates about AI's impact on global employment vary widely:
The World Economic Forum's 2023 report suggested that AI could disrupt around 300 million jobs globally. IBM's Institute for Business Value estimated that approximately 120 million workers worldwide might need to be reskilled due to AI and automation.
Goldman Sachs research indicated that AI could automate tasks equivalent to 300 million full-time jobs, though this doesn't necessarily mean job losses of that magnitude. McKinsey Global Institute suggested that 400-800 million jobs globally could be automated by 2030.
However, these estimates have important nuances:
Many jobs will be transformed rather than eliminated
New jobs will be created by AI technologies
Historical technological shifts suggest net job creation over time
The pace of disruption matters as much as the total number
The actual impact depends on factors including:
How rapidly AI technologies are adopted
Whether workers can be reskilled
Policy responses from governments
How businesses implement AI (augmentation vs. replacement)
Exclusive: Artificial intelligence seen hastening era of universal income as jobs disappear; Tory Michael Gove 'sympathetic'
Exclusive reporting and opinion by Mathew Carr (CarrZee.org)
Share this post