If citizens aren't nationalised are we a nation? Didn't every tribe ever feed, house and protect one another? If we "can't afford" to do this for the children of our nation, what are we? Are we just a bunch of strangers vaguely cooperating for personal gain and turning a blind eye to suffering when those self interests are challenged? Any child who doesn't qualify for the benefits of the nation won't feel nationalised, they won't feel that they are a valued part of our nation, they won't feel that they are one of us. Humans are pre-programmed by evolution to need this and meeting these needs is as simple as provision of basic needs.

With resect to food, the farmers are doing their bit and then some - we have enough food globally. So where is the problem? Why are there hungry people? Who's job is it to see that food gets from field to plate? With respect to housing, the builders have done their jobs. We already have a surplus of housing in the UK, yet much is empty. Who's job is it ensure that people get into housing and have stability? The health of the nation relies upon these things. Are we the people nationalised or not?

By Angela Abraham, @daisydescriptionari, October 25, 2020.

Your passport is your national family membership. It comes with a food card and a right to housing. As all successful tribes in history did, so we do too. When you are one of us we feed and house. That is what membership brings and it makes us a nation. Now we have a national health service that works and not simply hospitals to mop up the sickness caused by stress and inequity. The difference is night and day. Our nation really works. Our society really works. Other nations spend their money on police, prisons and bombs... what we do is actually cheaper. So, yeah, we feel pretty smug about it... one could say... exceptionally smug.

By Angela Abraham, @daisydescriptionari, October 26, 2020.