Jane Dodds and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson. Picture credit to: The Week
Over fifty candidates for the UK’s Liberal Democrat party (Lib Dem) have signed a personal commitment to back basic income pilots in the next parliament, if elected.
The intention to run these basic income pilots, which would be implemented by removing conditionality rules from the standard element of the main Universal Credit benefit system, is already an official part of the party platform, voted for by Lib Dem members this autumn as part of the party’s ‘A Fairer Share For All’ package of anti-poverty proposals. With social security issues low on the agenda in the election overall, however, a number of the party’s candidates signed a separate declaration to bring attention to the policy.
The Liberal Democrats have a comparatively long history with minimum income as an idea, with citizens’ income proposals forming part of the party’s platform in its 1992 manifesto, and in recent years their proposals to abolish the sanctions system for social security, which they adopted in 2016, have seen them move back towards unconditional income policies. This comes alongside the Lib Dems’ wider pledges to spend more money on social security, abolish benefit sanctions, and end many of the other restrictions and claim delays that have caused problems with the Universal Credit system since its introduction. Lib Dems have been recognized by the Resolution Foundation to have progressive policies on welfare issues.
The backers of the minimum income statement, which was organized by a group of party activists, come from across Britain, covering all nations and regions and both urban and rural areas. Notable signatories include Andrew George, James Cox, Jasmine Sakura-Rose and Jane Dodds (Welsh Liberal Democrat), who has publicly spoken out in favor of the idea.
Quotes from signatories:
“I support a minimum income because it gives people the power to say no to exploitative jobs and a base from which to work to better themselves. Only with a minimum income or UBI in place can we begin to support real freedom for all.” – Oliver Craven, candidate for Sleaford and North Hykeham
“We can’t carry on with a system that doesn’t ensure that people have a stable, reliable minimum level of income. The instability people face under the current social security system badly impacts on their health and wellbeing, and we have to find a way out of that.” – Josie Ratcliffe, candidate for South West Norfolk
“As a Lib Dem I believe in empowering people, and one of the most important parts of that is ensuring they can care for themselves and their communities and pursue their own paths and goals without the constantly looming threat of income insecurity that so many people currently face.” – Charley Hasted, candidate for Eltham
On December 2nd, the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery was celebrated. To mark that date, Beyond Trafficking and Slavery, an editorial partnership between openDemocracy and researchers from Africa, Asia, America, Australia and Europe, have commissioned this video, focused on Universal Basic Income (UBI). According to this group, UBI might be an appropriate policy response to contemporary labour unfreedom.
A series of articles concerning the role which basic income (BI) could play in the fight against unfree labour in now on openDemocracy.
The introduction by Neil Howard sets the tone for the debate: even though many thinks that coercion by evildoers is the main cause for modern day slavery and human trafficking, this is not the case. Exploited workers often consent to their situation because is their only option to make ends meet. The question arises: “if we really want to end ‘modern slavery’, and indeed if we’re serious about protecting people from all forms of exploitation, then why not simply ensure that everyone always has a minimum amount of money in their pocket such that they can say no to bad work?” Which is exactly what Universal Basic Income advocates maintain.
The debate starts with an article by Guy Standing, “Basic income and the three varieties of freedom”, libertarian, liberal, and republican freedom. As “freedom costs money”, the impact of the introduction of a Basic Income is greater than its monetary value. Guy Standing explains that the BI works by changing structurally the society in which it is implemented, ant its “emancipatory value is greater… than the money value”.
Simon Binrbaun and Jurgen De Wispeleare, with “The power to walk away: is basic income a bridge too far?”, are concerned with whether basic income really enhances workers’ freedom or not. Their point is that the rationale of BI as an instrument of freedom is clear, as it would endow workers with more contractual power, but when the proposal is faced with reality, some concerns arise. Firstly, the monetary amounts provided with UBI under current proposals seems insufficient to give workers true exit power from their job. Secondly, even if workers were to opt out from a job, the structure of the job market is such that it allows for horizontal but not vertical transfer. And thirdly, it remains to be seen how employers would react to more contractual power from their employees, having them the possibility to use automation as a substitute for human workforce.
Karl Widerquist’s article, “End the threat of economic destitution now”, focuses on how
“UBI is not something for nothing. It is the just compensation for all the one-sided rules of property and property regulations that society imposes on individuals.” Because governments enforce property rights systems that block many from accessing naturals resources, poverty and destitution are not the result of personal choices, but of the lack of freedom implied in this allocation of resources. UBI would thus acts as “… the just compensation for all the one-sided rules of property and property regulations society inherently imposes on individuals”.
Ana Cecilia Dinerstein, with “Basic Income bows to the master”, accuses basic income of just confirming the domination of money over our lives. The elephant in the room, she says, is the lack of a discourse about money per se. Pointing her finger not at the lack of money nor at its unfair distribution, she states that the problem is human dependence on money; one that cannot be solved with UBI. UBI, in her view, “will contribute to the perpetuation and subordination of humans to money”, and it wouldn’t bring dignity to people, as it would only assure material subsistence.
“Feminist politics and a case for basic income”, by Kathi WeeksandCameron Thibos, considers the potential for UBI to fix the severance of work and wages.
“Wages do not compensate workers, and especially women, for most of the work they do. A basic income could change that.” Inspired by the Wages for Housework movement in the 1970s, the authors discuss of how much of the activities people (and especially women) have to perform are not remunerated. UBI can be the right tool to enhance freedom in the household and in society as a whole.
In “Basic income can transform women’s lives”, Renana Jhabvalaexplores the result of basic income pilots in India. Starting from a small study in Delhi to the one of Madhya Pradesh, with eleven thousands taking part, we learn how the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), a women’s trade union, became one of the earliest advocates of basic income in India. This happened because the introduction of UBI brought on positive welfare effects, an increase in equity, and generally economic growth effects.
“Our pilots showed that basic income has the power to transform the lives of whole families, and especially those of women. Now it is time for India to take the next step and make basic income a reality for all.”
For the past 3 years, my primary goal has been to get the Liberal Party of Canada to include Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) on its electoral platform. (Support for this policy is already in the official Party program.) The election was held on Monday, October 21st and UBI was never mentioned. My ultimate goal is to see UBI implemented in my lifetime.
I ended up fighting on two fronts and losing on both.
The first front consisted of my lobbying efforts within the Liberal Party. I was hoping I could convince them to include a promise to implement UBI as a commitment to the electorate should they win re-election. When I got cold feet and neglected to contact the guy who was writing the platform, my project was probably doomed. Plus, several weeks into the 6-week election campaign I changed strategies. On September 19th an independent report by UBIWorks was published. It presented the case that the Canada Child Benefit was a UBI. I stopped presenting Basic Income as an experimental policy to be tested and, instead, argued that it was a fait accompli in Canada, hiding in plain sight. My efforts to get the press to ask questions and to stimulate debate among the Liberal candidates came to nothing.
Despite high-level contacts within the Party, I had the impression that my message was not getting through to the right people. In hindsight, it is equally possible that my suggestion was being heard loud and clear in the right quarters and that appealing to their electoral self-interest rather than their consciences was spot on the best approach. After all, while I was emphasizing the economic impact of the Child Benefit for GDP growth, job creation, corporate profits, and tax revenue, the platform kept droning on about poverty reduction, a subject that people would rather not think about because they find it depressing and it makes them feel guilty. Perhaps Liberal strategists, who were staking their reputations on their message, simply rejected my proposal as not being something that would, at this point in the campaign, help them win reelection. Was this a mistake that partially explains why the Liberals lost their majority in the House of Commons? It would be pretentious of me to suggest this.
However, today’s flop may yet bear fruit in the next electoral cycle in 4 years. This is what cooler heads than mine thought from the outset.
While all this was going on, a second front was opened with my allies in the Basic Income community. To bolster my position that UBI already existed in Canada under another name, I tried to convince famous people in the movement to lend their credibility to this argument. I was flabbergasted by the strong and nearly universal resistance I encountered: no, the Canada Child Benefit could not be called a Basic Income, full stop.
While two or three people got on board immediately, most of the cognoscenti insisted that what I was advancing was inconsistent with the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) definition of UBI for a variety of reasons. Theoreticians and experimentalists alike, as well as activists, flatly refused to go along with my plan to leverage this unique opportunity to change the narrative about UBI. I thought: “I’m caught in a paradigm shift, as it happens!”
Some argued that the Child Benefit was not universal because it was only earmarked for kids. Yang’s Freedom Dividend which excludes minors still qualifies as a UBI, though. Others claimed it violated individuality because it was given to families, as though it makes any sense to hand $500 to a toddler. However, most objected on the grounds that the Child Benefit is means-tested. This was the breaking point where everything I was trying to do simply collapsed. I never saw it coming.
The Canada Child Benefit is not means-tested, it is income-tested. People outside Canada are colour-blind to the distinction. Income-testing is just not part of their paradigm. Means-testing is an evil policy tool that allows bureaucrats to arbitrarily deprive vulnerable people of funds and services that they need and have a right to receive. It grinds them into the ground and makes an example of them to terrorize everybody else. Income-testing is a horse of another colour.
In Canada, we have a progressive tax system just like the one Adam Smith himself proposed: “It is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion.” That is why no one questions the practice of taxing back from the rich funds equivalent to the Child Benefit from which they derive no important advantage and thereby recover some of the cost of a program, which is immensely useful for everybody else. Conscientious objectors to means-testing will insist that even when this claw-back is done specifically for the purpose of recouping UBI, it does not infringe on the principle of universality because it is done in separate operations, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. In Canada, we tend to view this as an elaborate and unnecessary fiction. Covering up the mechanism does little to hide the process which serves no other purpose than to claw back UBI from the rich.
In the FAQ on the BIEN definition of Basic Income, we read under the caption Is Basic Income paid irrespective of income?
“Taxable “means” may need to be taxed at a higher average rate in order to fund the basic income. But the tax-and-benefit system no longer rests on a dichotomy between two notions of “means”: a broad one for the poor, by reference to which benefits are cut, and a narrow one for the better off, by reference to which income tax is levied.”
The second notion is used universally to assess the Canada Child Benefit, which is why we use the term income-tested and not means-tested. My argument failed to convince. How it is possible, on the one hand, to clearly distinguish the two notions and, on the other hand, still insist on using the same term to describe them?
I think we are confronted with two incommensurable competing paradigms in both the political sphere and the academic domain. The old paradigms have accumulated a thick crust of unresolved problems such that business-as-usual can no longer operate smoothly. In politics, poverty reduction continues to dominate social policy discussions even though it no longer provides useful solutions. In the UBI academic community, a rigid definition stifles progress towards implementation by ensuring that the ideal program remains unattainable. I will be fleshing out this argument at a later date.
I have not lost hope that the politicians will eventually learn to frame UBI as a powerful economic stimulant and an entitlement for all Canadians, especially the middle class. The academics too, will at some point loosen their church-like grip on orthodoxy and accept a leading role in promoting social justice, down in the trenches.
However, I would hate to end up like Moses, who never did reach the promised land, and spent 40 years not getting there. I do not have that kind of time. I will be quickly making new friends in the party that holds the balance of power and leveraging these connections to achieve my goal of seeing Unconditional Basic Income implemented for all, in my lifetime.
It seems that it is no longer just Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang who is speaking about basic income (his version of it) at Democratic Party Debates. And although basic income is still a minor issue debated at these events, it is relevant to acknowledge that other candidates are also casting their support for the idea. That has been the case of Tulsi Gabbard, and Julián Castro, both present at the latest forth debate. Gabbard has stated that “I think universal basic income is a good idea (…) Universal basic income is a good idea to help provide that security so people can make choices that they want to see”, and Castro has shown openness to conducting basic income pilots in the United States territory.
Meanwhile, Andrew Yang’s campaign has been rising exponentially, even though being actively ignored by major news outlets. The list of public figure endorsements has been gaining weight, including names such as Elon Musk (Tesla, Space X), Sam Altman (Y Combinator), Scott Santens, Andy Stern (ESP, SEIU ex-president) and even Nicholas Cage. Fundraising has also been rising steeply, from 1,7 million US$ up to 10 million US$ within 2019 alone (almost a 6-fold increase), 99% of which comes from small donors (200 US$ or less, averaging 30 US$). Also, Yang has qualified for all four Democratic Party Presidential debates so far, and is already setup for the fifth one (on November 20th 2019), and has been attributed the responsibility for introducing basic income into the American wider political discussion.
