Basic Income is an existential question for Labour

Reading Stephen Bush's article Does the Basic Income work? I was struck by his preamble that:

The difficulty with the “what do you think about basic income?” question is that it’s a little bit to being asked “what do I think about tax relief?”

For me, Basic Income challenges how the Labour Party defines itself in the modern world.

What I want to raise here is the function of money, the nature of work and the defining of value. If Labour are to become relevant to the majority of the electorate then these issues need to be wrestled with.

In the real economy, money acts as the lubricant for human interaction and activity. The electorate supports the principle that money should reward activity. Working Tax Credits follows this principle as participation in work is rewarded. This also fits squarely with Labour Party traditions which supports work and activity.

Basic Income challenges this relationship by disconnecting activity from reward. This places it in opposition to where the electorate are. As Nick Clegg's recent memoirs show, welfare could be cut without thought to societal consequences precisely because George Osborne could frame the cuts as fitting a principle.

As for the nature of work, many feminists will argue that work is exponential but reward is limited to what society judges valuable whereas predominantly female areas such as childcare or care professions are devalued. Those with experiences of the charitable and voluntary sectors will also point to large amounts of activity that has societal benefits that are not rewarded financially. As an example, unpaid care is estimated to be valued in excess of £200bn based on the national minimum wage.

To argue that Basic Income is required to compensate for an absence of work is essentially a male perspective which ignores a substantial part of the real economy. Work is always available because it is about human activity and interaction. Basic Income is therefore positioning itself for compensating for a lack of rewarded work.

This poses a challenge for the Labour Party. Basic Income is an acquiescence to the logic of the free market determining value and merely offers compensation to that logic. Isn't this what New Labour was criticised for? And lets be honest, a UK economy underpinned by Basic Income has the potential to expand the amount of unpaid work through devaluing contributions which will fall disproportionately on women.

Can a Labour Party committed to values such as rewarding work, equality and building strong communities really be comfortable with adopting a policy of Basic Income?

I think not.

Instead, a radical Labour Party would work with its traditions and the principles of the British public to expand and reward activity. This is particularly important for those areas of activity that are undervalued or just unpaid. Tackling structural changes in work such as the 'gig economy' does require building additional buffers that support that workforce but such buffers need the support of the electorate.

At its essence, any debate about Basic Income is about the ambitions of the Labour Party as a progressive influence on British life. It can cement itself in the electorate's eyes as the compensation party by adopting Basic Income as a policy or it has to set out a programme that rewards contributions to society whilst protecting those that cannot contribute. Only one of these is acceptable to the British public.