\u2018In a dark time, the eye\nbegins to see.\u2019 Theodore Roethke\u2019s pithy aphorism comes to mind in reflecting\non the government\u2019s spate of ad hoc economic measures since the shambles of the\nfirst Budget of a young politically inexperienced Chancellor on March 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One should not expect\nmuch light from a part-time Prime Minister, who may be taking parental leave\nsoon, and a Chancellor who was a hedge-fund manager for Goldman Sachs, before\noperating out of a tax haven and marrying a billionaire\u2019s daughter. Empathy\nwith the precariat is unlikely. But being in the dark may lead them into some\nlight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the hotch-potch of\nfiscal measures unfolds, one can predict that the anomalies will multiply, as\nthey have been doing. One day it is the so-called \u2018self-employed\u2019, the next day\nit is \u2018the starters\u2019, the next \u2018the fishing community\u2019. When will it be the\nturn of lolly-pop ladies? They are\nhaving a hard time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While having some\nsympathy for a government having to make it up as they go along, surely this is\na time for modesty and quiet experimentation. We do not know how long the\nmedical crisis will last. But what has become clear is that the economic crisis\nwill go on for longer and will be worse the longer the pandemic itself lasts.\nIn those circumstances, now is the time to try out different or complementary\napproaches and policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Labour Party put in\nits manifesto last year a commitment to pilot basic income. The Green Party had\na full commitment to basic income. The Scottish National Party had gone further\nin that Nicola Sturgeon had given \u00a3250,000 to assist in the preparation of\npilots in four areas of Scotland. I have just had a Zoom debate with Sir Vince\nCable, and he conceded that piloting basic income would be a good idea. So, perhaps\nthe Liberal Democrats can be regarded as supporters in prospect. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Over 170 members of the\nHouse of Common and House of Lords have signed a motion of support for basic\nincome. On April 22, 110 MPs signed a letter to the Financial Times demanding\nan emergency basic income. And several weeks ago, a poll found that 84% of the\npublic support having it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Chancellor has\ndismissed the proposal out of hand, and the Treasury has responded to a\npetition of over 100,000 signatories with a dismissive response that any\nknowledgeable economist could counter with ease. Iain Duncan Smith is trying to\nrally Tory MPs by claiming that a basic income would be a disincentive to work,\nwhen anybody should realise that it is his own Universal Credit that does that,\nthrough poverty traps and precarity traps, as shown elsewhere<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n But this is not the time\nto score debating points, let alone for retreating into ideological bunkers. That\napplies to critics from the left as well as those on the right. We are in a\ndark time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last year, Liverpool City\nCouncil voted strongly in favour of being the venue of a basic income pilot.\nSheffield followed soon after, and I recall a meeting with Coventry City\ncouncillors who also wished to be a venue for a pilot. Since then, several\nother local authorities have expressed the desire to be a venue. In my new book,\nemanating from a report done for John McDonnell, I have suggested several\nvariants and thus a few pilots in a variety of types of community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There should be several\nkey points to be kept in mind by all of us. In all likelihood, if there are\ngroups omitted from economic protection, the pandemic itself and social illness\nmore generally will be prolonged. If one group is left vulnerable, we will all\nbe left vulnerable. That principle should guide policy design. No exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, we should do\neverything possible to avoid means-testing. At the best of times, they result\nin huge exclusion errors, and some inclusion errors, and they automatically\nentail poverty traps and what I call precarity traps<\/em>. Even the\nDepartment for Work and Pensions openly admit that over \u00a316 billion of benefits\nfor people eligible for existing benefits are not paid to them, due to lack of\nawareness, ignorance of procedures, fear and pride.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Universal Credit is and\nhas been from its outset a disaster, being both mean-spirited,\nover-complicated, punitive and moralistic. This is the time to put it to sleep,\nin the dark, so that those who have dedicated themselves to its design and\nimplementation can go to sleep with the consoling claim that circumstances\nruined everything. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Leave them with their\npride. But do not fall into the trap of saying that because hundreds of\nmillions of pounds have been spent on it over the past decade, it must go on.\nEvery economist of any worth knows that historical cost is not relevant in\nmaking a decision on future cost and benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To colleagues and friends\nwho are proposing schemes that involve means-testing and lots of application\nprocedures, such as the New Economics Foundation\u2019s proposed \u2018minimum income\nguarantee\u2019, one should plead for their backing for basic income pilots. A rule\nof thumb should be that whatever is done should minimise means tests and\napplication procedures through an over-worked and inherently bureaucratic\nsystem. Simple automatic procedures must have high priority. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us all unite in this\nendeavour. Let the government appoint three senior persons from across the\npolitical spectrum to coordinate a few pilots in a spirit of national unity in\na dark time. Try out variants of a basic income for one year, and then evaluate\nthem. There are places ready to go. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Guy Standing is author of Basic Income: And how we can make it happen <\/em>(Pelican), and Battling Eight Giants: Basic Income Now<\/a> <\/em>(Bloomsbury, March 2020). <\/p>\n\n\n\n