by Kate McFarland | Oct 11, 2016 | News
The official launch event of Guy Standing’s new book, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay (Biteback Publishing), will be held on October 26. It will be held at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London, where Standing is a Professorial Research Associate.
From the event description:
There is a lie at the heart of global capitalism. While claiming to promote free markets, governments and international agencies have constructed the most unfree market system ever, fostering a plutocracy alongside a growing precariat mired in insecurity. This book shows how rentier capitalism, which Keynes predicted would die, is causing growing inequality. The income distribution system has broken down. A new one is needed, anchored on basic income (social dividends) and democratic wealth funds.
Guy’s talk will be followed by a “drinks reception”.
After the launch event, Guy will continue traveling to promote The Corruption of Capitalism. On November 1, he will head to New York City to speak about the theme of his book at a public lecture at the New School for Social Research. On November 8, back in England, he’ll present the book to an audience at the University of Huddersfield. And he’ll deliver a seminar on the book at Strathclyde University in Scotland on November 24. In addition, Guy will be speaking at the NOW Conference in Moscow (Nov 6), the Trade Union Leaders’ Summit in Nyon, Switzerland (Nov 15), and the Swedish Human Rights Conference in Malmo (Nov 16) — in addition to other talks and conferences. (Details on many of these events are forthcoming in Basic Income News.)
Guy Standing is a co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network, and was responsible for naming the organization (originally the Basic Income European Network). His previous books include The Precariat and The Precariat Charter.
For more information about the London launch event, and to register for free, see EventBrite. The event is sponsored by Biteback Publishing and the Movements & Development Cluster of SOAS Labour.
For a teaser, read Guy’s article in openDemocracyUK based on The Corruption of Capitalism:
Guy Standing (Sep 5, 2016) “The left must combat rentier capitalism” openDemocracyUK.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Guy Standing photo CC BY 2.0 BICN/RCRG Basic Income Canada
by Kate McFarland | Sep 26, 2016 | News
The Trades Union Congress, a federation of trade unions that represents nearly six million workers in the UK, has passed a motion endorsing basic income.
As previously announced in Basic Income News, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) voted on a motion to endorse universal basic income at its 148th annual congress held from September 11 through 14.
The TUC is a federation of trade unions in the UK, currently representing 51 unions and a total of more than 5.8 million workers [1].
The full text of the successful motion on UBI is as follows:
Universal Basic Income
Congress notes the growing popularity of the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ with a variety of models being discussed here and around the world. Congress recognises the need for a rebuilding of a modern social security system for men and women as part of tackling poverty and inequality.
Congress believes that the TUC should argue for a progressive system that incorporates the basis of a Universal Basic Income system paid individually and that is complementary to comprehensive public services and childcare provision.
Congress believes that such a system would be easier to administer and easier for people to navigate than the current system which has been made increasingly punitive and has effectively been used to stigmatise benefit claimants. The operation of sanctions pushes people into destitution for trivial reasons.
Congress recognises that until the housing crisis is resolved there would also be a need for supplementary benefits to support people on low incomes with high housing costs and that there will always be a need for supplementary benefits for disabled people.
The transition from our current system to any new system that incorporates these principles should always leave people with lower incomes better off.
Congress believes that our social security system must work in tandem with our agenda for strong trade unions and employment rights and secure, decently and properly paid work.
The motion was introduced to the TUC by Unite, the UK’s largest individual union, which passed a motion endorsing basic income on July 11.
Becca Kirkpatrick — a UNISON and Unite member whose Regional Sector Committee was responsible for moving the successful motion at Unite’s policy conference — had this to say about the TUC decision:
This important decision is only the beginning of a big conversation to be had across the unions, about our preferred level of UBI, how it should be funded, and what additional policies must go alongside it to ensure that it is progressive. But most importantly, no great social change has ever been won by working people passing a motion in a conference room. We must organise and build a powerful movement in order to see the kind of Basic Income — and the kind of future — that we want [2].
To stay up-to-date with future news and announcements, follow Basic Income UK Trade Unionists on Twitter and join their discussions on Facebook.
[1] According to the TUC’s website (accessed September 15, 2016).
[2] Personal communication.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 xpgomes12.
Special thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 22, 2016 | News
A debate about universal basic income was held in the House of Commons of the British Parliament on Wednesday, September 14.
A video of the debate is viewable on the Parliament website (the debate on UBI begins at 16:37), and TheyWorkForYou has a published the transcript.
Ronnie Cowan (“as in cow, as in ‘moo’”), MP from the Scottish National Party, opened the debate. Cowan has advocated for UBI in the past, such as at the SNP’s spring conference.
In his opening remarks, Cowan emphasized that the UK’s current welfare system is not working:
If we were all given a blank sheet of paper and asked to design a welfare system, nobody—but nobody—would come up with the system we have now. They would need thousands of sheets of paper and would end up with a mishmash of abandoned projects, badly implemented and half-hearted ideas and a system so complicated that it lets down those who need it the most.
Throughout the debate, Cowan advanced additional reasons to favor a UBI–as did other supporters. Notably, the discussion was joined by the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas–a long-standing proponent of UBI who, last June, tabled an Early Day Motion calling on the national government to commission and fund research on basic income. Among other concerns,
Caroline Lucas MP
CC BY 3.0 Tanoshimi
Lucas voiced worries about automation and precarity in the labor market:
Well-paid jobs on permanent contracts have dwindled, while short-term, zero-hours contracts and bogus self-employment are rife. Alongside a genuine national living wage, a basic income would provide a vital buffer against this new age of insecurity and an escape route for those caught in the trap between a complex, punitive and quite simply outdated social security system and low-paid, insecure and all too often exploitative employment.
Lucas also pointed out that basic income recognizes the value of unpaid labor:
There is far more work that needs to be done than that which is simply parcelled up into what we call jobs. We only have to look around our local communities to see railings that need painting, older people who need visiting and allotments that people would love to tend, but we cannot necessarily do many of those things—they are in some ways important economic activities—because right now we are penalised for doing so.
Other debate participants included Paul Monaghan (SNP), Eilidh Whiteford (SNP), Geraint Davies (Labour), Kate Green (Labour), Debbie Abrahams (Labour), Julian Knight (Conservative), and Damian Hinds (Conservative).
Whiteford and Abrahams both evinced some attraction to UBI, and expressed their intent to “keep an open mind”. However, they registered skepticism–or at least caution–with respect to some of the details in implementing the policy. For example, Abrahams notes that “[t]o allow for variations in need, UBI would need to be supplemented with additional top-ups, increasing its expense and complexity”, leading to the worries that a UBI might be either too costly to implement or fail to help those with greatest need.
On the opposing side, Knight and, especially, Hinds challenged Cowan on the cost of UBI and the potential for UBI to disincentivize work. Hinds stressed the virtues of the UK’s current system of universal credit in recognizing the value of work (viz., paid employment):
The Government’s approach to welfare has been about recognising the value and importance of work, making work pay and supporting people into work, while protecting the most vulnerable. A universal basic income goes against every aspect of that approach.
Basic Income UK co-ordinator Barb Jacobson welcomed the debate–the first of its kind by MPs in this generation. About critics like Knight and Hinds, she says, “Even though the Tory response was predictably negative, we know there are some MPs on that side interested in it.”
She complained, however, about what she saw as one serious omission:
[It was] a shame the MPs who supported basic income didn’t bring up the high marginal tax rates on current welfare – and on Universal Credit for that matter (was originally supposed to be around 75%, now with cuts more like 85-90%). This is the key reason any ‘benefit trap’ exists. This is something basic income eliminates because people would be taxed only on what they earn on top of it.
The Citizen’s Income Trust, BIEN’s UK affiliate, calls the debate “fair and well-informed”. However, the CIT goes on to point out that the MPs overlooked some of the CIT’s research on basic income schemes for the UK. Damian Hinds cites the CIT as concluding that a basic income would require “huge amounts of additional tax” and still create “many losers”. However, another scheme studied by the CIT “shows that an increase in Income Tax rates of only 3% would be required for a Citizen’s Income of £60 per week, that such a scheme would generate almost no losses among low income households” (as stated in the CIT’s blog post).
The House of Commons Library has published an accompanying Research Briefing. The Research Briefing contains a thorough overview of recent publications on the prospects of a UBI for Britain, including reports published in the last year by the RSA, Compass, and the Fabian Society. Additionally, it provides information about planned basic income experiments in Finland, the Dutch city of Utrecht, and the Canadian province of Ontario.
The Research Briefing clarifies that–despite the current of interest in UBI among British politicians, labor unions, and think tanks–the UK government “has not undertaken any research on Universal Basic Income proposals, and has no current plans to do so”.
More Information:
Video of the Westminster Hall debate on UBI (begins at 16:37)
Transcript of debate
Parliamentary Research Briefing on UBI
Citizen’s Income Trust blog post on the debate
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Image: “MPs Debate in House of Commons Chamber” CC BY-NC 2.0 UK Parliament
by Kate McFarland | Sep 15, 2016 | News
The Guardian reported on Wednesday, September 14 that UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is planning to research universal basic income.
According to The Guardian, Corbyn will make the announcement during a speech in London on Thursday, September 15.
His remarks will present UBI as a potential strategy to cope with disruptions in employment caused by automation and other economic changes:
Technological changes and the so-called ‘gig economy’ can mean increased insecurity and uncertainty across our society. It is one of the reasons I am looking at policies that can help provide more security for working households. One such possible answer may be the often-discussed suggestion of a universal basic income.
He will also, according to the report, “argue that the existing economic model fails to deliver for many in Britain”.
Last month, Corbyn stated in a HuffPost interview that he is “instinctively looking at” universal basic income. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, who is managing Corbyn’s campaign for continuing leadership of the Labour Party, has been a long-time supporter of UBI, and has urged Labour to investigate the policy.
Meanwhile, Owen Smith–Corbyn’s challenger for Labour leadership–has rejected UBI, saying “I don’t think talking about universal basic income, however attractive an idea it is, is the answer.” A YouGov poll released at the end of August showed Corbyn leading Smith by 24 points among members of the Labour selectorate.
The result of the Labour leadership election will be announced on September 24.
Reference:
Heather Stewart and Jessica Elgot, “Jeremy Corbyn to investigate idea of universal basic income“, The Guardian; September 14, 2016.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Jasn
by Kate McFarland | Sep 7, 2016 | News
In August, UK Prime Minister Theresa May declared that the revenues produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) should be invested in the communities in which the industry is based, possibly as cash payments to households. Many environmental groups oppose this shale gas dividend, which they see as a bribe to allow fracking. Basic Income UK has also released a critical statement, below.
The British government has announced plans to create a Shale Wealth Fund, which would be funded a portion of tax revenues (up to 10%) from shale gas. The funds would then be used for the benefit of communities that host sites where shale gas is obtained by fracking.
According to the consultation report (dated August 8), the Shale Wealth Fund could generate up to £1 billion in funds during its lifetime, which would be paid out to communities during the course of 25 years (which, according to the report, is the approximate lifetime of a fracking site; p. 7).
The report specifies that the communities which are local to shale developments “should be the first to benefit from the Shale Wealth Fund, and they should get to decide how a proportion of the funding is used” (p. 7). The national government suggests multiple possibilities, including infrastructure, local skills-training programs, “investment in the local natural environment”, and “funding for community groups and the development of community assets, such as libraries, or sports facilities” (p. 11).
Notably, the report also raises the suggestion of direct cash payments to residents:
We are also interested to hear whether an appropriate use of the Shale Wealth Fund would be to allow residents of communities to benefit by directly allocating funding to households. There will clearly be a trade-off for communities in either choosing to benefit from SWF funds directly, which may result in a relatively small per-household payment, depending on the revenues and the size of a particular community, or in investing in an asset which benefits the community at large (p. 12).
The latter proposal was added by Prime Minister May in August. She was quoted as explaining, “It’s about making sure people personally benefit from economic decisions that are taken – not just councils – and putting them back in control over their lives.”
Since the announcement, some have accused May of “bribing” individuals to allow fracking.
For example, The Guardian quotes MP Barry Gardiner, the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, as saying, “Appealing to people’s higher nature, Theresa May gives a £10,000-plus bribe if you live near a frack site. If you live near a wind farm, nothing … The asymmetry is amazing.” And Greenpeace scientist Doug Parr:
You can’t put a price on the quality of the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the beauty of our countryside. If Theresa May wants to show the UK is open for business, she should reverse the policies that have harmed our vibrant clean-energy sector and back the technologies that can supply cheap, homegrown energy for decades to come.
Basic Income UK has released the following statement on the proposal:
This proposal to pay local people a small share of the money from fracking operations in their area shows how desperate the UK government is to divide and silence the strong opposition shown by almost all UK communities where fracking has been proposed.
Given that the fall in oil and gas prices has made fracking unprofitable in many areas of the US, it is uncertain whether in the UK, local people will see any money from a tax on fracking profits. The payments (if they materialise at all) will vary from area to area depending on how many households live there, and how much tax is raised on each individual fracking operation. This idea comes as part of a package of local investment proposals about which the government has opened a consultation.
This is not really about ‘sharing the wealth’ from fracking. In Alaska it was recognised that a share of the oil wealth should go to everyone in the state as a common resource whether people live near the wells or not. Here the proposals are area-specific, and could bring complications around the question of who qualifies. Another way this is different is that the proposal here is to pay households, and not individuals. It is unclear from the consultation papers whether there would be regular, ongoing payments or one lump sum, and how transparent the government will be about taxes raised in any given area.
The environmental costs seen where fracking has already happened: earthquakes, degradation of land around fracking operations and most especially contamination of groundwater, will be much higher and longer-lasting than the benefit of any amount of money people might get. This proposal shows the strength of the opposition to fracking, and is not an endorsement of the principle of basic income.
Basic Income should be paid to each individual as a share of the general wealth of the society we all contribute to, whether in a job or not. A basic income for everyone would really ‘put people back in control of their lives’. Here people are asked to chose between a short-term financial windfall and long term environmental security. Many of the areas affected are desperate for income and investment, but fracking could badly affect their environment and wellbeing long after operations have ceased, and any payments have stopped. It would be far better if the government helped people set up renewable energy coops around wind farms and solar energy installations.
References
Shale Wealth Fund: Consultation
Daniel Boffey, “Local People to Get Cash Payments from Fracking”, The Guardian; August 6, 2016.
Chris Mason, “Households could get fracking payments under government plans”, BBC; August 7, 2016.
Rowena Mason, “Trying to bribe public to accept fracking won’t work, say campaigners”, The Guardian; August 7, 2016.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Victoria Buchan-Dyer
Article reviewed by Barb Jacobson
Thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
