I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I read yet another article praising the Green party policy of a citizens’ income, especially when the author of the piece, John Harris, claimed this was ‘at the cutting edge of left politics.’
Nothing the Greens say about the economy can be described as being at the cutting edge of anything. Their policy on the economy last underwent ‘major revision’ in 1990 according to their website.
Anyway, Natalie Bennett, the Green party leader, was on the Andrew Marr Show only last week extolling the virtues of everyone getting £71 a week regardless of income.
People from left and right have been keen on a citizens’ income since the 18th century, before the terms left and right were ever devised. From Thomas Paine to Friedrich Hayek, one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite philosophers, they have professed to be in favour, though to give Tom Paine his due, he advocated a more redistributive land-based model.
On the left it is considered fair because in theory, it guarantees that no one is left destitute. On the right it appeals because it means the state can withdraw from an individual’s life completely. Everyone would get a cheque each month no questions asked.
It is a perfect policy for the Greens. It appeals to Tory, Labour and even Liberal Democrat voters. The other virtue of it – extolled on all sides – is that it is simple. It is a ‘one bound and you are free’ policy. This is the kind of policy a serious political party should always be wary about.
But the Green party is not interested in serious policies. It is essentially a nostalgia party, yearning for a time when the world was not complicated. It wants to recreate a half-remembered glorious pre-industrial pastoral simplicity, where women were valued for household tasks and community was more important than money.
Not so unlike Ukip members who want to go back to a simpler life, admittedly of a more recent era, when everyone was white, men had the upper hand and Britain was not a member of the European Union.
One of the main proponents of a citizens’ income – and he calls it a basic income – is Charles Murray, the libertarian American political scientist best known for The Bell Curve, a book which caused a storm 20 years ago by arguing that African-Americans were disadvantaged because they had lower IQs.
His argument for a basic income in the United States is that everyone would get around $12,000 and have to pay for everything including medicare insurance from it.
He says benefits have denuded civic culture and that a basic income would bring a more neighbourly way of life. This is what he told America’s Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in April:
‘Americans helped each other out in ways that were wonderful, and they created what I like to think of as valued places for people with a wide variety of skills and positions. It was a pretty great system. It is close to disappeared over the last 50 years. A basic guaranteed income has a chance of revitalising that, and if I can convince people of that, if others can convince people of that, there is a possibility of restoring the America that is special. The guaranteed income restores the social glue that made things work in the past.’
Compare this to what the Greens say in their economic policy and why they favour a citizen’s income and it is surprisingly similar:
‘The objective of EC402 [the introduction of a citizen’s income] is to shift the balance of economic power in favour of individuals and households, and away from large scale, remote private companies and central government. It will make full-time paid employment less necessary, and will encourage home-based and part-time employment, and work in the ‘third sector’. People will be able to choose their own working lifestyles. The objective of EC403 is to enable people to meet their needs at the level most personal to them, the household sector being the smallest unit in any community, and to contribute more effectively through the informal economy to the wider community. A strong household sector, both informal and formal, will be resilient to fluctuations in the wider economy.’
If anyone even believed that the Greens were remotely socialist, this should disabuse them.
The citizens’ income is not an argument for a more collective society where we share resources. It is an argument for an individualistic and libertarian one.
The likelihood is that it would act to keep ordinary people’s wages down because it would encourage employers to pay less. It would erode rights for people with disabilities and probably long term with children. It would mark the first stage of asking people to pay for universal services.
And what would become of those who are mentally ill, with learning difficulties or unable to cope? Would we blame gamblers and addicts for their destitution? And what of immigrants coming to the country? How long before they had entitlements? The truth is that some people are rich enough not to need this money, and others are needy enough to require much greater support. Employers are also greedy enough to exploit the system. Life is messier than the Greens want to believe. They are selling a libertarian fantasy.
———————————
Sally Gimson is a journalist and Labour councillor in the London borough of Camden. She tweets @SallyGimson
———————————
*”The likelihood is that it would act to keep ordinary people’s wages down because it would encourage employers to pay less”*
What, you mean like tax credits and workfare? (both Labour policies)
*”It would erode rights for people with disabilities and probably long term with children.”*
What, like ESA, “fit notes”, and capping child benefit? (all Labour policies)
*”It would mark the first stage of asking people to pay for universal services.”*
What, like tuition fees? (A Labour policy)
*”And what would become of those who are mentally ill, with learning
difficulties or unable to cope? Would we blame gamblers and addicts for
their destitution? And what of immigrants coming to the country? How
long before they had entitlements? “*
Such people are already screwed over and blamed for their own misfortune, under Labour as much as the Tories. In fact Labour made it much, much worse, the paternalistic benefits system traps you on a pittance while forbidding claimants from getting out from under with its 90% clawback rates and punitive sanctions.
“If anyone even believed that the Greens were remotely socialist, this should disabuse them.”
Frankly the rantings of socialists of late have put me off. I don’t want to live in a country where I’m told how to live and what to think by do-gooders, any more than by profiteering meanies. Socialists helped invade Iraq, literally laid out the red carpet for an extremist hate preacher, then told us terrorism was our own fault because, er, something to do with cartoons. They have zero credibility and are always out to collaberate with the extreme right, whether it’s Blair collaberating with Bush or Livingstone collaberating with Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Both are reactionary, controlling slime and both share the same Stalinist political DNA. Sod that – the future is left-wing liberatianism, not State control.
I appreciate that the introduction of a citizen’s income, like any major transition, would be fraught with complexity. But it is a serious attempt to deal with the uncomfortable fact that work is becoming ever more precarious – and downright unpleasant – for many more people. And it is consistent with the libertarian element in the socialist tradition, a tradition that goes back at least to Ruskin and Morris – and of course Marx – with their emphasis on the importance of finding satisfaction in one’s labour. For many socialism has always been a libertarian philosophy: the attempt to design a society so as to allow everyone the greatest opportunity to pursue their interests and make use of their capacities. We may indeed find that a citizen’s income isn’t the best way of working towards that end, but socialists have always been concerned with the quality of work, not just its availability.
God, you’re grasping at straws here aren’t you?
Arguing by association – “Nasty people like Charles Murray also think a Basic income is a good idea, therefore the Greens are horrible”
“The likelihood is that it would act to keep ordinary people’s wages down because it would encourage employers to pay less.”
That must be why they advocate a raise in the minimum wage to £10.
“If anyone even believed that the Greens were remotely socialist, this should disabuse them.”
That must be why the Greens want to re-nationalise the railways, want to keep the NHS publicly funded, introduce free care for the elderly.
Why don’t you step outside your Labour fantasy and recognise that its not a socialist party, and hasn’t been for quite some time.
So labour have abandoned the left and are now trying to convince those voters they left there that they are wrong not to have come with them. I look forward to the greens taking seats off you.