The idea of a universal basic income is not without merit and Christabel Edwards argues the case well as do others most notably the RSA who have been strongly advocating for the concept over last year.
However, I would argue that three key questions need to be answered before Labour commits to taking such a large gamble with a critical policy area. They are are: is a universal basic income really needed? How would it work in practice? And should John McDonnell, who has said he is looking carefully at the idea, be serious about its inclusion in Labour’s 2020 manifesto?
On the first question, there have long been forerunners of this idea, but most recently it has emerged as a reaction to the fear that jobs are set to become more automated and shrink in number, and that therefore people will need economic protection from that.
Looking back to Harold Wilson’s white heat of the technological revolution speech, the jobs market has changed irrevocably since 1963. And as someone who grew up in a coal mining village I know that first hand. But the United Kingdom with its dominant services sector is well placed to be less impacted by automation. And the reality is that there is much more to do about securing better pay and working conditions which require different policy solutions and persistence to put them into practice. A universal basic income can appear an easy solution to a complex set of issues.
On the second question of how it would work I have real concerns on the practicality of how it could be implemented. At what level should it be set and realistically how would it be funded? These are questions without obvious answers. This would be a huge change and you only have to look at how the Department of Work and Pensions has managed the universal credit roll out to have concerns about how this would land.
As for the third and arguably most important question, I believe that its inclusion in the manifesto would simply be electoral suicide on the scale of 1983.
A report from Oxford University last month – ‘Why did Labour fail to perform better in the 2015 general election?’ – says it clearest: Labour’s perceived fiscal extravagance did matter.
For all his (many) faults as chancellor George Osborne has been a brilliant political strategist and tagging the worldwide economic crash as Labour’s fault rather than the bankers has stuck in the public’s perception of us. And we could have countered that much better in 2010-15. But we didn’t, so we are where we are, and sadly we have an economic credibility problem.
Whatever the academics say about the benefits of universal basic income, whoever is in Downing Street in April 2020 is going to have a field day with too-easy argument of Labour profligacy. A universal payment will also too easily intersect with Labour’s achilles heel on immigration. And political argument aside, the proposal also risks rupturing the implicit social contract. What will citizens feel about a policy which confirms in broad daylight – that people get money for doing nothing – what they already feel happens behind closed doors?
The UK is in desperate need of a Labour government in 2020 to help those suffering under Cameron and Osborne’s ideological assault on them. Ultimately if universal basic Income is in the 2020 Labour manifesto I believe that would lessen our chances of winning and therefore being able to help those that need us. Labour are lacking big ideas, and we should be bold, but I’d say Liz Kendall’s work on early years or Andy Burnham’s on integration of health and social care would be a much better start. We must revisit these ideas, and others, rather than declare UBI and risk a terrible fallout.
———————————
Glen Mitchell is a member of Progress. He tweets @GlenMitchell1
———————————
“Whatever the academics say about the benefits of universal basic income, whoever is in Downing Street in April 2020 is going to have a field day with too-easy argument of Labour profligacy.”
So Labour are screwed any which way, according to this premise, which also implies that Labour will not be in Downing Street – after all, if they were, they certainly wouldn’t attack themselves over economic policy…oh wait, sorry, I forgot, the Blairites are still around – at least until Chilcot.
But essentially, the argument here is that Labour is so politically fragile over the economy and the perception that voters have of its economic credentials, that labour cannot afford, politically, to be doing anything that might, possibly, maybe be regarded as ‘radical’.
What a wooly argument. Basic Income is bad for Labour because the Labour Party is too scared to be seen supporting it, rather than because the idea or principle of it is bad, wrong or incompatible with Labour Party policies or principles.
Your argument is that Labour cannot challenge the Tory rhetoric about Labour’s economic handling, but must pander to it, instead, and place itself close to where The Tories stand, because that’s where voters are, rather than try and win the argument and change their minds.
So much for the courage of your convictions. Wait, what are they again? Oh yeah, position yourself where the voters are, rather than have convictions of your own, because you’re too poor politically to even try to change their mind and bring them around to your way of thinking. Much easier to just adopt theirs.
This is exactly why Labour has stopped winning elections since Blair went into Iraq; not just because it was a puppet Government to the US, did too little to undo the Thatcher years and instead paved the way for Cameron & co to run riot in a win way that Thatcher could only dream of – but – because it is so concerned over existing negative public perception over how it handles the economy, that Labour miserably failed to challenge when it first appeared, and thus allowed it to take hold, that it would rather pander to that perception and end up as Tory-Lite, than actually try and convince voters that Labour have the policies that the public should be voting for.
You’re cowards! You’ve given up!
Yes, the mainstream media makes this an uphill struggle, but that’s still what you politicians are supposed to be good at; making the argument so that it wins the day.
What you are advocating instead, is play safe, make subtle changes that are not too different from what is in place, pander to MSM and don’t dare give the right-wing controlled media the excuse to call you a Trot, Commie or even a leftie, because that would be soooo bad, that the Labour party could not handle it.
This attitude is why Scotland wiped the floor with you and why Labour failed to win the 2015 election. Easy does it, Tory-lite. Don’t rock the boat.
You are so timid, insular and myopic, you don’t even realise that Basic Income has been adopted by the SNP as well as The Greens and the Lib Dems are re-visiting it. You could soon be out in the cold on the subject, alongside The Tories, who will never adopt a policy that redistributes wealth and leads to a trickle-up effect, where money cycles, instead of being stashed away before it has the chance to.
Basic Income is neither left, nor right, but forward, is the oft-used phrase about what Basic Income is, politically speaking, but apparently that is still too radical for you. Oh dear.