My Photo

Blog powered by Typepad


« Returning to the Business of Bonuses | Main | Racing Public Transport to the Bottom »

April 13, 2015



I agree completely with the premise of this article; but would argue with this specific suggestion. Isn't this just more workfare? I see two major weak points.

* It seems unlikely that the machinery of state would allow this scheme to be 'completely voluntary'. Even if it was only on the level of a social welfare officer enquiring as to why the applicant did not take a job that was offered.

* The civil society groups will be vetted by local authorities, which will invetiably represent their interests.

Surely it would just be far more efficient to just institute a Basic Income? Is Basic Income going to be one of the articles in this series?


This is great, lots to think about. As part of the challenges of this proposal had you considered the element of childcare and if so any idea how that might impact the figures?

Michael Taft

Ed, thanks for that. It may be easier to reform the machinery of the state if progressives formed the next government. I take the point re: local authorities but is it always the case that their interest is opposed to that of civil society organisations. You have raised important institutional points - I was merely focusing on the economic / fiscal issues.

Regarding, Basic Income - I have post on a such a proposal which can be found here:

Joanne - thanks for that. I have written quite a bit on childcare. Here is the latest post put up last year:

The comments to this entry are closed.