On 29th April 2021 the prestigious Oxford Union Society hosted a panel of students, activists, politicians and scholars to debate the motion ‘This House Would Introduce a Universal Basic Income’.
The debate began with the majority (68%) voting in favour of introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) and the remaining 32% voting against it. After hearing a total of 8 panelists’ arguments for and against the motion, the majority shifted in the closing poll to a marginal victory for the opposition, with 54% voting against introducing a UBI and 46% voting for it.
The full debate can be watched on the Oxford Union’s YouTube channel here, with a programme of the speakers and summary of their key arguments provided below.
00:33 – Opening up the case for the proposition, Classical Archaeological and Ancient History student Ambika Sehgal drew on anecdotal evidence from victims of flaws in the DWP’s (Department for Work and Pensions) systems, experiences from the Covid-19 pandemic, and accounts of early forms of UBI in Ancient Greek societies to make three arguments for the motion:
To lift people out of poverty and provide a basic standard of living to everybody “without fear or favour”.
To increase the wealth of the entire population by giving everybody the freedom to upskill, reeducate, take on more prosperous jobs, or start their own business.
To prevent the inevitable economic catastrophe that we are approaching as a result of the automation of skilled industries.
10:52 – Rebutting with the opening case for the opposition, Eliza Dean, first year Classics and French student and Member of the Union’s Secretaries Committee, denounced UBI as the solution to our current economic and political struggles, arguing instead for better funding of existing state welfare systems and a return to greater recognition of the value of labour in society.
20:58 – Professor Guy Standing, Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and founding member of BIEN, outlined the fundamental ethical – as opposed to instrumental – rationale for introducing a UBI, arguing that we have an ethical justification to introduce UBI to resolve the unequal distribution of wealth created by rentier capitalism.
Rounding off his argument for the proposition, Professor Standing drew on his extensive experience working on over 50 pilots to outline some of the key findings of research on UBI:
It improves individual mental and physical health.
It reduces people’s stress.
It leads to better school attendance.
It increases work and its productivity, leading people to be more innovative and altruistic in their work because people feel more able to act in such a way.
It helps to reduce debt.
It leads to a greater sense of social solidarity.
36:34Marco Annunziata, former Chief Economist and Head of Business Innovation Strategy at General Electric, invoked suggestions for the necessary rise in taxes, the case to offer the same amount to the rich and poor, and the disincentives to work as evidence that a UBI is both unaffordable, unjust and riddled with unintended consequences.
48:53 Drawing on simulations run by the RSA (Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) Anthony Painter, Chief Research & Impact Officer, made the economic case for UBI, citing its ability to make up for inadequacies in existing social support systems by offering a hardwired economic platform for all in society.
59:50 Regarding UBI a ‘recurring revenant’ throughout his career, Professor Hilmar Schneider, Director of the Institute of Labour Economics in Bonn, cited the experience of the German pension system and his own research conducting funding and behavioral responses simulation models to argue against the motion. Pointing to the fact that most UBI pilots rely on external funding sources, Professor Schneider argued that the strongest argument against a UBI lies in its unaffordability, as it would ultimately result in more people losing money than gaining money.
01:10:34William Greve, first year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student and Sponsorship Officer at the Oxford Union,consolidated the arguments made by the panelists to round off the underlying economic and liberal arguments for a UBI:
That is the most effective way to counter the wealth inequality and unjust returns to capital observed in the modern economy that leave labour so unjustly rewarded.
That it is reasonable to demand that all individuals in a society be entitled to a share of the total wealth of society a basic level of economic security.
That it would fundamentally change our relationship with employment for the better.
Drawing on Professor Schneider’s earlier remarks on the case against higher income taxes (owing to the fact that the majority of wealth that exists in the modern economy is not received as an income in the traditional sense), William also argued that a wealth tax, not an income tax, is the most just and feasible way to fund UBI.
01:21:30 Rt Hon Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham and Former Coordinator for the Labour Party, rounded off the case for the opposition by arguing that those advocating for UBI should remain cautious when their political opponents also support the scheme for radically different outcomes. Noting the many cross-spectrum and cross-ideological arguments for and against the motion, he also pointed to the more ‘mundane and practical’ issues with introducing UBI, such as financial feasibility, its efficacy compared to its alternatives, and what accompanying policies are required to ensure desired outcomes.
Concluding the case against UBI, Rt Hon Cruddas hammered home his argument for the dignity of labour and questioned the role that UBI would play in creating decent work. All but entirely dismissing concerns around automation and the future availability of work, he argued that we should instead be organizing for collective rights, strong unions, income guarantees and above all, dignified labour. He argued that there is a strong case against UBI if you consider that the nature of work thesis is flawed, and that the debate around the future of work is an inherently political one. UBI, he suggested, could transform citizens into ‘passengers of capitalism’, robbing them of meaning and dignity, and leaving them more isolated, vulnerable, angry and humiliated, and society itself less fraternal and solidaristic.
An important report on basic income has been released in the UK, as announced before, and publicly presented at the RSA last Tuesday. In that report, one central idea is to put forward, for the UK social reality: to give every adult citizen a 100 £/week (equivalent to about 460 €/month), unconditionally and without means-testing. According to the Progressive Economic Forum (PEF), this policy can be tested in the UK in five different ways (for an year):
Giving a 100 £/week (116 €/week) to every adult in a randomly selected community, plus 50 £/week (57 €/week) for children and any extra amount to account for disability necessities. The scheme would replace all benefits but the housing benefit.
Giving a 70 £/week (81 €/week) to every adult in a randomly selected community, plus 20 £/week (57 €/week) for children, but keeping child benefits. All other means-tested benefits would remain in place, accounting for the unconditional transfer as income, thus reducing or eliminating the (existing) benefits paid.
A 50 £/week (58 €/week) to every adult in a randomly selected community, plus any existing benefits (not considering the unconditional transfer as income).
A randomly selection of adults (country-wide) on welfare seeing conditionalities removed.
A randomly selection of homeless people given an unconditional cash grant, replacing other (cash or non-cash) benefits.
At the referred presentation, Labour Party’s John McDonnell, the Exchequer Shadow Chancellor, said the Labour Party is not committing to introduce basic income in the UK (if elected), but this report will definitely be instrumental for the party’s next manifesto design.
Not surprisingly, Tories in parliament stand firmly against this policy, branding it as a “handout”, and dismissing it as hugely expensive and unfair to “hardworking taxpayers”. To that, Guy Standing, main author of the referred author, has replied that governments looking forward should “at the very least introduce local pilots to see how effective it could be”. He and RSA Director Anthony Painter have been strong proponents of reducing or eliminating means-testing and conditionality in general, in a welfare system in the UK which has been “expensive to administer and is causing destitution”. Painter summarizes by saying that “basic income-style pilots have been proven to have beneficial effects on health, well-being, and trust, while giving people more freedom to decide for themselves how to manage their lives.”
A series of articles have been produced on this issue, in several news outlets, such as the Guardian, Brave New Europe, the Mirror and BBC News. The presentation video can be watched below, and also heard on an RSA podcast.
The City Council of Glasgow has passed a resolution to proceed with a workshop on the design of a basic income pilot study in the city.
During a November 2016 meeting, the City Council of Glasgow decided to begin research into the design of a basic income pilot study in the city. An important step forward occurred on February 16, 2017, when the council unanimously approved a resolution to convene and fund a workshop dedicated to drafting and examining models for the pilot.
Under the terms of the resolution, the council will commit £5,000 (about 6,200 USD) to the two-day research workshop, which is proposed for spring 2017 and will be overseen by a cross-party working group. During the workshop, basic income experts will meet with councillors, community group members, and other representatives from both the public and private sectors. The objective is to design potential models for the pilot study, as well as to identify key stakeholders in the experiment and potential financial and political barriers to its execution.
The Royal Society of Arts (RSA), which published an award-winning report on a basic income model for the UK (“Creative Citizen, Creative State”), has partnered with the council for the purpose of researching the design of a pilot study for Glasgow. The RSA will prepare an initial document on approaches to basic income pilots, which the selected experts would then analyze in terms of their design, feasibility, and anticipated outcomes.
Jamie Cooke, Head of RSA Scotland, comments:
The decision by Glasgow City Council is an important moment for basic income in Scotland, and marks a significant step forward. The RSA is delighted to be working with the Council and other partners on the study, and welcomes the leadership the Council has shown. We now have the opportunity to move the basic income conversation forward and identify practical ways to run a trial which works locally and has global resonance.
At the end of the spring workshop, the working group will submit its proposals and recommendations to the Executive Committee of the Glasgow City Council. A second feasibility study, building upon these design recommendations, would take place during a second phase of the project, tentatively planned for summer 2017.
The full text of the Glasgow City Council resolution is available here.
Anthony Painter, Director of the Action and Research Center at the RSA, in an editorial article described an experiment in the middle of the 1970s in the small town of Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada. As Painter describes, there were “statistically significant benefits” to the physical and mental health of the participants in the experiment, which was in the British Medical Journal.
The experiment involved the provision of “a basic income—a regular, unconditional payment made to each and every citizen” of Dauphin. A complete statistical analysis was not provided for several decades because of a loss of political interest.
Painter claims inequality and poor health outcomes is a well-established finding with the mechanism is less known.
According to a summary in Prospect, the British magazine that hosts the annual award, the judges described the RSA “a great and well respected institution which nonetheless continues to innovate” and specifically commended its “outstanding” work on basic income, which demonstrates “a rare ability to marry a big and disruptive idea with determined number-crunching”.
Painter, who accepted the award for the RSA, told Basic Income News:
This award was not just for the RSA’s work on Basic Income – honoured as we are to receive it. Our analysis was grounded in decades of work by thinkers, researchers, and activists. It reflects their work too.
But there’s something else. The award marks another moment in the case for Universal Basic Income moving relentlessly from margins to mainstream. And this case will get stronger until it becomes irresistible. We look forward to continuing to work with many others to keep the momentum going.
Established in 2001, Prospect’s Think Tank Awards recognize the contributions of think tanks in several regions (the US, EU, and UK) and areas of specialization (Economic and Financial Affairs, Energy and the Environment, Social Policy, and International Affairs).
The RSA was founded in 1754, and now has a network of 28,000 supporters worldwide. Past members include such notable individuals as Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, and Karl Marx.
Watch a short video introduction to the RSA’s work on basic income (featuring Anthony Painter):
