The centre-right case for a Citizen's Basic Income

It seems to be accepted wisdom in the UK that the country is in a period of managed decline. That our aim as a country is to stall an inevitable and progressive decline.

I believe passionately that progressive decline is not inevitable. To reverse course, though, we will need to take all citizens with us. We need to focus on increasing macro demand. To this end, I think the most effective long-term strategy would be a Citizen’s Basic Income. A Citizen’s Basic Income is a concept whereby the state would replace the current benefits system with a fixed basic universal income. It has already been trialled in over 160 jurisdictions globally, notably in Alaska, not known for voting for left wing parties, since 1982, Kenya and Finland. More relevant to the UK, in 2023 it was trialled in Jarrow and East Finchley where a selection of residents was provided a monthly income of £1,600. Many, such as Welsh Conservative Joel James MS, Shadow Minister for Social Partnership, contend that such a concept is a part of some socialist agenda pushing drug dependency.

I posit that far from being a socialist construct such a policy would enhance the market- based economic model. A minimum, base income would not hinder wealth creation. The UK experienced a marked period of industrial decline in the 70s and 80s, which has led to major, and now multi-generational, negative impacts – especially in formally industrial areas. If these areas could once again have thriving businesses imagine the positive impact it would have on the country and high streets. On a human and economic level, this means a decline in those able to benefit from, and contribute to, the country economically.

In 2022, relative poverty in the UK was measured at 22% of the population, equating to approximately 15.6 million citizens. This represents 15.6 million people struggling to partake in the UK’s market-based economy. 15.6 million citizens living precariously. In comparison, in 1977 the figure for relative poverty was 12% - or 11.24 million.

The UK currently ranks below France, Germany and the US in terms of productivity. If income insecurity means an individual takes the first available job, rather than a job which would motivate and interest them, productivity will clearly continue to lag behind. A basic income will take away the uncertainty. People will be more inclined to have an entrepreneurial spirit – in the true free market spirit - in the knowledge that they will be able to pay for essential goods and services necessary for their own survival regardless.

Some opposed to a minimum income contend that such a scheme would encourage laziness – why work when the government will pay you anyway. No system is perfect and I would argue that you will always have a certain percentage of people who will avoid work, regardless of the system, or lack thereof, in place. 

 Markets and businesses require customers to buy their products; the more potential consumers, the more potential revenue for businesses. More sales will, invariably, generate more taxes underpinning the expense of such a scheme in the medium to long term. Those who choose to, or can’t work, would still be contributing towards employment within the wider economy with a Citizen’s Basic Income.

The current benefits system is a disincentive to work. The cliff edge effect means that many workers actively reduce their hours, and therefore their potential productivity, in order not to lose in tax what they would have as part of Universal Credit. A Citizen’s Basic Income would reduce the current welfare trap while providing a safety net to drive productivity, demand and entrepreneurship. Of course, some may still decide, or not be

able to through incapacity, work. However, I don’t think a Citizen’s Basic Income will exacerbate this situation further. It would also not limit the aspirations for those for strive for success.

The national feeling of inevitable decline has to change. Rather than a policy to be feared by the right, a citizen’s basic income can be part of a positive platform for growth and economic prosperity.

Wars of choice and wars of necessity - our unstable world

Our world is becoming more and more unstable. We are now bearing witness to 3 major conflicts on 2 continents; the war in Ukraine, the war between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organisation and the war on international trade (despite the declared aiming of supporting Hamas) being waged by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. 

I believe the spread of conflict is in part due to a weak US Presidency. In recent times, many of the wars involving the United States, Iraq and - to a lesser extent Afghanistan - have been wars of choice - a US foreign policy decision without which a state of war wouldn't exist. The current conflicts aren't such wars. Russia and Iran respectively have decided to undertake the current hostilities - the US and the wider west have to respond forcefully, there is no choice.

I posit that the world becomes a more violent place when the relative economic strengths of the world's powers is in a state of flux. World War I was a challenge to the UK-based world order, World War II marked the assendency of the bi-polar world order, with the United States and Soviet Union becoming the two undisputed superpowers. We are currently seeing the relative economic strengths of the Peoples' Republic of China and the United States narrow and thus a more unstable world awaits. 

The botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan, culminating on 30 August 2021, was the trigger for the current round of instability. After nearly 20 years and over US$2 trillion spent, the Taliban were back in power as they were in 2001. Although President Biden did not reverse the US decision to leave Afghanistan, he nevertheless overturned his predecessor's 24 executive orders in his first 100 days in office. 

The effect on global opinion of seeing an insurgency taking on and defeating the world's most powerful superpower cannot be understated and has had global consequences. Undoubtably leaders like Presidents Putin and Khamenei were emboldened by the scenes at Kabul airport leading to Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

It is clear President Biden wants to avoid US entanglement in Europe and the Middle East. The fact that this is so obvious makes the world a more dangerous place. For all President Trump's bombastic comments, they made autocrats more uncertain about his true foreign policy intentions and - ironically - made the world a safer place. The world is now on the brink of wide spread wars. These are wars of necessity and not of choice for the US. Choosing not to confront the world's current conflicts will only lead to greater insecurity.