by Kate McFarland | Sep 6, 2016 | News
Owen Smith — the sole challenger to incumbent Jeremy Corbyn in the upcoming election for leadership of the UK Labour Party — has come out in opposition to universal basic income in remarks at a press conference.
Labour Party leadership candidate Owen Smith was asked about his views on UBI at a press conference in London on Monday, September 5. As reported in The Independent and Business Insider, he replied to the question “Could you see yourself fighting a general election advocating UBI?” as follows:
Honestly, no. I’ve looked at the arithmetic and I cannot see that this works. I’ve looked at three or four reports… it’s a lovely sounding policy but it’s another example of John McDonnell, and Jeremy Corbyn I’m afraid, not being credible on economic policies.
Smith later added, “I don’t think talking about universal basic income, however attractive an idea it is, is the answer.”
Smith announced his candidacy for leadership of the Labour Party in July, shortly after resigning from his post as the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (the official Labour critic of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from the Conservative cabinet).
Corbyn, the incumbent, has recently expressed interest in exploring UBI. His campaign manager, shadow chancellor John McDonnell, has been a long-time supporter of UBI. McDonnell has urged the Labour Party to consider endorsing UBI as official party policy–a position that he recently reasserted, following a report on the topic from the Fabian Society.
A YouGov poll published on August 30 shows Corbyn leading Smith 62 percent to 38 percent among those eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election (sample size 1236, weighted selection from party members, registered supporters, and union affiliates).
References:
Ashley Cowburn, “Universal basic income ‘not a credible’ idea, says Labour leadership contender Owen Smith“, The Independent; September 5, 2016.
Adam Payne, “Owen Smith has totally shot down universal basic income“, Business Insider; September 5, 2016.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo: Owen Smith (2013) CC BY-SA 4.0 Wykehamistwikipedian
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s patrons on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Sep 6, 2016 | News
The Fabian Society, a prominent left-wing think tank in the UK, has published a book-length report on recommendations for improving the country’s social insurance, especially for non-pensioners (“For Us All” by Andrew Harrop). Among other topics, the report discusses–but not does not endorse–basic income. As an alternative, its author recommends a universal (but not unconditional) “individual credit” for adults.
In a Fabian Society report published on August 31, general secretary Andrew Harrop advises that the UK not replace existing social insurance benefits with a basic income (which he describes as a “single flat-rate payment for each individual”). His main concerns are that a basic income “would create many losers and would not reduce poverty or improve the incomes of those with least today,” unless there were to be a substantial increase in tax revenue, and that it would not eliminate the need for certain means-tested benefits, especially those related to housing (p. xix).
Harrop does, however, propose a type of universal cash payment that he calls an “individual credit”. All adults would be eligible to receive this payment in addition to Universal Credit payments and child credits for primary guardians. Universal Credit, a centerpiece of Britain’s current system of social insurance, is means-tested — and Harrop believes that retaining and supplementing the policy, rather than replacing it, “would significantly reduce poverty and increase low and middle incomes” (p. xx).
It is worth noting here the fact that the individual credit does not replace all means-tested benefits does not, in itself, imply that it is not a type of “basic income”. In principle, at least, basic income — a universal and unconditional cash payment paid directly to individuals — could be distributed in addition to universal credit or other conditional and means-tested benefits. Indeed, Compass, another British think tank, has recently recommended such a “modified scheme” as a way to introduce a universal basic income in the UK.
However, there are still important differences between Harrop’s individual credits and a basic income. Notably, the scheme that Harrop proposes is not strictly unconditional. He states that “Eligibility for the adult credit should depend on paying direct taxes or on productive participation in society” (p. xx). He elaborates on the “participation requirement” in the section on individual credits:
As a start, it [the credit] should only be available to people who both have a national insurance number and are on the electoral register (or an equivalent register for people without the right to vote). This would promote political participation and reduce the risk of fraud. Except for people with significant disabilities, receipt should also be dependent on either paying a certain amount of income tax or national insurance, or on learning, parenting, caring, job search or work preparation. The policing need not be particularly onerous, but people who refused the offer of a guaranteed job or educational place, after a significant time without working or paying direct taxes, should not continue to receive the credit (pp. 144-5).
Thus, unlike a basic income, the individual credit does carry a work requirement — even if a comparatively lenient and flexible one, which allows exemptions for students, parents, and caregivers.
At the same time, Harrop does not rule out basic income as a potential long-term goal. Indeed, he describes his own proposal as one that might provide a “gradualist, ‘Fabian’ route to creating a full basic income in the distant future”:
It would at least put in place the machinery that would make it possible to make larger universal payments should it be required, becoming an insurance policy in the event of a structural decline in the total hours of work, or of a severe recession which required a fiscal stimulus to support household spending (p. 143).
But paving the way for a basic income is not Harrop’s own goal in proposing individual credits. On the contrary, he goes on to say that “it is better to think of individual credit as ‘child benefit for adults’ not a step towards a basic income – i.e. a universal component in a hybrid system, which also includes contributory and means-tested elements” (pp. 143-4). Elsewhere, he enjoins policymakers to “focus on practical, incremental policy changes which embody something of the spirit of the basic income idea, but make sense as reforms in themselves” (p. 139).
Indeed, Harrop himself seems ambivalent as to whether basic income is a desirable himself endpoint — at one point stating that the case has not yet been settled either way (cf. pp. 137-9). An appendix to the report includes a summary of the reasons for and against a basic income (see Appendix 7, on final page).
In a September 1 interview with The Independent, Labour Party shadow chancellor John McDonnell — a long-time supporter of basic income — referred to the Fabian Society’s report when discussing his intention to continue to push for a universal basic income in the UK:
The Fabian society has just introduced a report today which is looking at reforms to the welfare state and it’s recommending a form of initial basic income for us to explore so we’re going to take that into account. When we look at the experiments that are taking place across Europe at the moment we’ll review those then consider what are options are.
Thus, McDonnell does seem to view Harrop’s proposal as route to basic income — even if Harrop himself deemphasizes this potential facet of the policy. (In the same set of remarks, McDonnell suggests that he also views child benefits, in the form of unconditional cash transfers to primary caretakers, in much the same way — that is, as a type of “initial” basic income.)
The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank, founded in 1884. Today, it has approximately 7000 members and 70 local chapters. The society was one of the founders of the UK Labour Party, although it is not organizationally affiliated with the party today.
It summarizes its political mission as follows:
Our commitment to Fabianism means we believe in the fight against inequality, the power of collective action and an internationalist outlook. We believe in social progress, evidence, expertise, rationality and long-termism. We advocate gradualist, reformist and democratic means in a journey towards radical ends. We are a pluralist movement and create space for open debate.
The Fabian Society’s sister organization in Australia (not formally affiliated) recently sponsored a debate in Sydney on the topic of whether Australia should adopt a universal basic income.
To learn more about current basic income schemes proposed in the UK, see the compiled list at Basic Income UK.
References:
Andrew Harrop, For Us All: Redesigning social security, for the 2020s, Fabian Society, 2016.
Ashley Cowburn, “John McDonnell: I will win the argument to give every citizen in the UK a basic income“, The Independent; September 1, 2016.
See also:
Jon Stone, “Tax free allowances ‘must be axed to pay out modest basic income’, radical welfare blueprint suggests“, The Independent; August 30, 2016.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo of Fabian Society conference attendees CC BY 2.0 Fabian Society
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s patrons on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Aug 28, 2016 | News
The 148th annual UK Trades Union Congress will be held this year in Brighton from September 11 to 14 — and will include a vote on whether to endorse universal basic income.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is, as it were, a “union of unions”. As the TUC itself puts it, “Just as individual workers benefit by joining together in a union, so unions gain strength by acting together through the TUC. The TUC brings unions together to draw up common policies on issues that matter to people at work.”
The TUC represents a total of more than 5.8 million workers from 51 unions. Its member unions range in size from small specialists unions of a few hundred members to the UK’s largest trade union, Unite, with around 1.4 million members. The TUC states that its mission “to be a high profile organisation that campaigns successfully for trade union aims and values; assists trade unions to increase membership and effectiveness; cuts out wasteful rivalry; and promotes trade union solidarity.”
The largest member, Unite, endorsed basic income this past July. It has now introduced a motion supporting basic income for consideration at this year’s Congress.
This is the full text of the motion on which the Congress will be voting (available in the Congress’ Preliminary Agenda, pp. 49-50):
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.
Reviewed by Robert Gordon
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Toban B.
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Aug 22, 2016 | News
A recent episode of the Asia & The Pacific Policy Society’s Policy Forum podcast examined the benefits and costs of basic income.
In the episode, editor Martyn Pearce interviews a series of four experts on the topic: Guy Standing, economist at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies and co-founder of Basic Income Earth Network; Charles Murray, W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Peter Whiteford, Director of the Social Policy Institute at the Australian National University; and Olli Kangas, researcher at KELA, the group planning Finland’s basic income experiment.
Guy Standing speaks about a multitude of issues, including the immediate need of a basic income to prevent the rise of “neo-fascist populists” and the justification of basic income as a type of public inheritance, which is owed to everyone due to the collective contributions of our forebears. Standing also describes possible models to introduce a basic income, such as beginning with a small social dividend alongside current welfare programs. Near the end of the interview, he provides an extended argument against the charge that a basic income “will make people lazy”.
Next, Charles Murray delivers quite different views on why a basic income is necessary and what a model of basic income should look like. Murray stresses that, on his proposal, a basic income “would replace the entire welfare state; it would not be an add-on” — and that the amount would be low enough that no individual could live alone in “splendid isolation”, encouraging employment and cooperation (combining resources).
Peter Whiteford, the third interviewee, briefly overviews the popularity of the idea of basic income in Australia, before turning to address two major arguments against basic income: that it is too expensive and that it would discourage (paid) work.
Finally, Olli Kangas discusses many details related to Finland’s upcoming basic income experiment — including Finland’s decision to test only a partial basic income, the structure of the experiment, and what is being tested (spoiler: primarily the effects on employment).
Listen to the full episode here:
Martyn Pearce and Peter Whiteford, “A basic income, or the end of welfare?” Asia & The Pacific Policy Society, Policy Forum; July 15, 2016.
Photo CC Slilin
by Kate McFarland | Aug 18, 2016 | News
Writer Sonia Sodha conducted a podcast about universal basic income for the BBC’s Radio 4, and published a corresponding article, “Is the left’s big new idea a ‘right to be lazy’?”
Certainly, describing UBI as a policy designed to protect the “right to be lazy” is inaccurate, and likely to offend most UBI supporters. However, the content of Sodha’s podcast and article does not depict UBI as a mere means to enable idleness.
On the contrary, Sodha interviews a broad sample of prominent supporters of the policy, and a couple of opponents, revealing that the debate is in fact much more complex. One of her first interviewees, the Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, explains how a UBI would permit a shift away from the growth model of the economy. Next, former Labour leader Ed Miliband expresses his concern that the welfare state is old-fashioned and inadequately equipped to deal with the changing tides of work. Similarly, the RSA’s Anthony Painter defends basic income as a necessary buffer against insecure employment. Becca Kirkpatrick, another advocate of UBI, relates an anecdote about her own partner, who’s held back from making a transition to a more fulfilling line of work due to the need to pay the bills. Nick Srnicek, who believes that basic income is needed to empower workers, also discusses related policy options, such as shorter work weeks for the same pay. Rounding out the panel of UBI proponents, Sodha interviews Sam Bowman of the Adam Smith Institute, who lays out a free-market justification for giving money to everyone.
Near the end of the podcast, a few of these UBI proponents have the opportunity to reply to counter-arguments from opponents such as the Labour Party’s Jon Cruddas, who sees basic income as giving up on what the Left is about–the workplace.
Listen to the 30-minute podcast below:
Sonia Sodha, “Money for Nothing“, Analysis, BBC Radio 4; July 17, 2016.
Sonia Sodha, “Is the left’s big new idea a ‘right to be lazy’?” Analysis, BBC Radio 4; July 15, 2016.
Photo CC Images Money
