Basic Income UK

What happens when people have time, security, and freedom to think, create, and explore?

From Albert Einstein working as a patent clerk, to artists supported by Ireland’s basic income pilot, to breakthrough creativity like Angine de Poitrine — the pattern is clear:

👉 When basic needs are met, people don’t stop contributing.
👉 They do more of what they’re good at.
👉 And society benefits.

We already see it in the evidence:

Better mental health
More stability
More time for learning, caring, and creating

Basic income isn’t about “not working”.
It’s about unlocking human potential at scale.

Imagine what we’re missing right now — simply because people don’t have the time or security to thrive.

The Angine de Poitrine Argument for UBI Why Angine de Poitrine's viral microtonal math rock KEXP session, Ireland's permanent basic income for artists, and Albert Einstein are three sides of the same human triangle

More than a fifth of UK children have now spent most of their childhood in poverty.

Let that sink in. This isn’t a short-term dip. It’s years of hardship during the most important stage of life — affecting health, education, and future opportunities.

What this new research shows clearly is something we don’t say enough: policy matters.

When support for families was stronger in the late 90s and early 2000s, child poverty fell dramatically.
When benefits were frozen, capped, and cut during austerity, poverty rose — and children stayed in it for longer.

That tells us something important:
Poverty isn’t inevitable. It’s the result of choices.

We’ve also seen that raising wages alone isn’t enough. Even with minimum wage increases, cuts to support outweighed the gains. People need more than just work — they need security.

This is where Universal Basic Income comes in.

A UBI would provide a guaranteed, unconditional income floor — something that can’t be capped, sanctioned, or quietly eroded over time. It would give every family the stability they need to avoid falling into long-term hardship in the first place.

We already know what works. The question is whether we’re willing to build a system that protects children properly — not just patch things up after the damage is done.

More than a fifth of all “austerity generation” British children have been scarred by poverty for at least half their childhood, a direct legacy of the welfare benefit cuts imposed by Conservative governments in recent years, research reveals.

This is a really positive step.

Scottish Labour Party’s proposal to top up artists’ incomes to a living wage is a pilot for direct cash support in a sector where income is often irregular and insecure.

We’ve seen something similar work in Ireland — and the results matter:
✔ more creative output
✔ better wellbeing
✔ less financial stress

That’s what income stability does.

Let’s be clear though — this isn’t Universal Basic Income.

It’s:
– targeted
– conditional
– limited to one sector

But that doesn’t make it unimportant. Quite the opposite.

What it does is test a simple, powerful idea:
👉 what happens when people have a secure income floor?

And artists are a strong test case:
– highly skilled
– socially valuable
– often poorly rewarded by the market

If stability improves outcomes here… it raises a bigger question:

Why stop at one sector?

Care workers, freelancers, retail staff, gig workers — millions of people face the same income insecurity.

This is how change often happens:
pilot → evidence → wider policy

So yes — support this.

Because once we accept that income stability helps people thrive,
the case for broader guarantees — and ultimately something like UBI — becomes much harder to ignore.

Scottish Labour is proposing a basic income-style boost for artists. Anas Sarwar has pledged £30m to top up incomes for artists to a living wage, supporting up to 1,000 creatives in a pilot inspired by Ireland’s model. https://zurl.co/XQ8EJ

Two weeks left to submit your proposal for the Congress in Toronto. Share your research, your practice, or your movement work; all formats welcome.

Deadline is April 15.

Don’t wait https://zurl.co/PqTuf

What happens when income is unconditional?

This short documentary Unconditional explores real-world pilots in India and Bangladesh where entire communities received a basic income.

The results are consistent with what we’ve seen globally:
• improved financial stability
• reduced stress
• better health and wellbeing
• greater agency and participation

It starts from a simple truth: in a money-based society, people need income to survive.

When that’s guaranteed, everything changes.

This isn’t about replacing work — it’s about creating a foundation people can build from.

UBI is income security. And income security strengthens people, communities and economies.

Well worth a watch 👇

Unconditional - Documentary screening and discussion about implications for research, policy and practice Join us for a lunchtime online screening of Unconditional, a 30 minute documentary exploring what becomes possible when income security is treated as a foundation for dignity rather than something people must earn through compliance. The screening will be followed by a short facilitated discussion r...

What happens when you give people a guaranteed income?

This new analysis of Ireland’s Basic Income for the Arts pilot by Alma Economics is pretty clear:

➡️ Artists produced more work
➡️ They invested more time in their craft
➡️ Their wellbeing improved
➡️ Public engagement with arts increased

And crucially — it wasn’t just “nice to have”.

The cost-benefit analysis found that every €1 invested generated €1.39 in social value.

That’s the key point people miss.

An income floor doesn’t make people withdraw — it enables participation.

More creativity. More contribution. More connection.

This is the wider lesson:

UBI → income floor → better life outcomes → stronger participation

Which then feeds into everything else:

• Workers have real fallback power (stronger unions)
• People can reduce hours without crisis (4-day week)
• Services work better with cash flexibility (UBS)
• People are more engaged in society (and democracy)
• Transitions like climate action become more realistic (GND)

This isn’t abstract theory — it’s showing up in real-world data.

Worth a read:

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Basic Income for the Arts Visit the post for more.

This is a really interesting take from Falmouth University on AI and creative work — and it connects directly to something we’ve been discussing around basic income.

The key point they make is that AI has been introduced into the creative sector through an industrial lens: efficiency, optimisation, cutting labour costs. That framing treats creatives as interchangeable workers in a production pipeline, rather than people shaping culture.

But creativity doesn’t work like that.

It comes from experimentation, curiosity, misuse of tools, and human experience. And that takes time, space, and a degree of security.

That’s the bit that often gets missed.

If artists are constantly under financial pressure — juggling insecure work, chasing short-term gigs, or adapting to platform demands — it becomes much harder to take risks or develop new ideas. You end up with more repetition, not more innovation.

Which is why the Irish Basic Income for the Arts pilot is so relevant here.

When artists were given a guaranteed income:

they spent more time on creative work
produced more
engaged more with audiences
and their wellbeing improved

And importantly, it delivered a positive return overall.

So maybe the real question isn’t just how creatives “adapt to AI”, but what conditions we create for them to do meaningful work in the first place.

If we want new cultural forms to emerge, we need to support the people creating them — not just the tools they use.

Worth a read 👇

AI and the creative process: what it means for artists and their cultural value From digital skills to accredited short courses we run a range of courses to up-skill your workforce and keep them at the top of their game.

This is what an income floor looks like in practice.

Salem’s $500/month guaranteed income pilot didn’t just “help a bit” — it improved financial stability, reduced stress, and helped people meet basic needs.

That’s the point.

When people have a secure foundation:
• they make better decisions
• they participate more
• they’re less trapped in crisis mode

UBI isn’t about replacing work — it’s about making work work.

It strengthens workers, complements public services, and gives people real breathing space in an economy that doesn’t.

We already know this works.

The question is: why aren’t we scaling it?

Salem’s $500/month guaranteed income pilot shows strong community impact. The “Uplift Salem” program provided unconditional cash to 100 residents; participants reported improved financial stability, reduced stress, and better ability to meet basic needs. https://zurl.co/ZQONK

A useful, evidence-based explanation of Universal Basic Income from Harvard Kennedy School, drawing on long-term real-world data.

The key takeaway is simple:

When people have a secure income floor, outcomes improve.

More young people finish school
Mental health improves
Participation in society (including voting) increases
And importantly — there’s no major drop in work

This isn’t about “free money” — it’s about what happens when you reduce the pressure of poverty.

UBI → income floor → better life outcomes → stronger participation

And that has wider knock-on effects:

Stronger unions → workers have real bargaining power
4-day week → people can reduce hours without financial crisis
Universal Basic Services → cash + services working together
Proportional representation → more engaged, active citizens
Green transition → people have stability during economic change

It’s not one policy vs another — it’s about how these pieces work together to create a fairer, more resilient economy.

Evidence matters. This is what it looks like.

Harvard professor explains the basics of universal income Through a series of longitudinal studies, Professor Randall Kekoa Akee looked at the impact of a Tribal casino’s universal basic income (UBI) payments to the...

An introduction to Basic Income — from 1991.

This film was produced by the Basic Income Research Group (now known as the Citizen’s Basic Income Trust) and introduced by broadcaster Jenni Murray. It offers a fascinating snapshot of how UBI was being discussed over 30 years ago.

What stands out is how familiar many of the themes still feel today: economic security, changing work, inequality, and the role of the state.

The film features a range of influential UK thinkers and advocates, including Malcolm Torry, Ralf Dahrendorf, Hermione Parker and others, reflecting on what a basic income could mean in practice.

It’s a useful reminder that UBI isn’t a new idea — but one that keeps resurfacing as the economy changes.

Worth watching, especially in the context of today’s debates around AI, work and income security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTOihST608w

An introduction to Basic Income (UBI in 1991) This film was produced by the Basic income Research Group - now known as Citizen's Basic Income Trust. It was introduced by the broadcaster Jenni Murray and ...

A lot of headlines this week are claiming that cash transfers “don’t work” based on one study of infant brain development.

That’s a serious misread of both the study and the wider evidence.

Here’s the reality.

The study in question looked at families receiving around $333 per month during the COVID pandemic and measured very specific early childhood development metrics. It found no statistically significant differences between groups on those metrics, at that point in time.

But that doesn’t mean cash doesn’t work.

It means:

the payment may not have been large enough to change underlying conditions
both groups received major government support during COVID
and the outcomes being measured were extremely narrow

When you zoom out, the evidence base is clear and consistent.

Across multiple programmes and pilots:

Financial stress falls
Food security improves
Mental health improves
Income becomes more stable

In the Oakland guaranteed income study, recipients saw reduced income volatility, increased full-time work, and greater investment in their families.

In the Wales basic income pilot for care leavers, young people reported better mental health, more control over education and work decisions, and the ability to save and plan for the future.

That’s the real mechanism.

Cash reduces scarcity.
Reducing scarcity stabilises lives.
Stable lives lead to better decisions, better health, and stronger participation in work and society.

This isn’t about people “opting out.”

It’s about giving people the security to say no to bad options and yes to better ones.

UBI works best when it strengthens workers alongside unions, public services, and fair labour standards — not instead of them.

So the question isn’t whether cash works.

It’s whether we’re willing to design it at a scale that actually changes people’s lives.

Research from CLASP finds that guaranteed income programs help families meet basic needs and improve economic well-being. Across multiple pilots, regular, unconditional cash has been linked to better financial stability, health outcomes, and security. https://zurl.co/DkDlt

A new UK study shows something basic but important: **when young people leaving care are trusted with cash, outcomes improve.**

Researchers at King's College London gave **99 care leavers a one-off £2,000 payment, no conditions attached**, and compared them with a larger control group across nine English local authorities.

Within a year, those who received the money were:

• more likely to be in stable housing
• less likely to be sofa-surfing
• less likely to be arrested or convicted
• less likely to need overnight hospital care
• more likely to seek help early through GPs and clinics
• more optimistic and better able to cope

They also reported spending **12% less on alcohol, to***co or drugs** than before.

That matters because care leavers are often asked to navigate adulthood with fewer buffers, fewer assets, and less family backing than almost anyone else.

What this study really exposes is how often policy still assumes that low-income people need supervision more than security.

But a no-strings payment did not produce chaos. It produced better decisions, better stability, and fewer crisis outcomes.

One participant used the money to buy a computer for university because her old laptop kept failing. Another used it to create breathing room in daily life. Small sums can change what choices are possible when every decision is shaped by scarcity.

This was **not Universal Basic Income**. It was one payment, once.

But it points in the same direction as wider cash-transfer evidence: **income security gives people room to think, plan, recover and act before problems escalate.**

And because some effects weakened over time, it also raises the obvious question: if £2,000 once helps, what happens when support is regular, reliable and long enough to build real security?

That is why the Welsh Government pilot matters too: not whether cash works at all, but what level of guaranteed income creates lasting change.

A stronger floor does not replace services, housing policy or youth support.
It makes them easier to use — because crisis stops dominating every decision.

The deeper lesson is simple: **poverty is often treated as a behavioural problem when it is frequently an income problem.** 💷📚

One-off £2,000 cash grant gives care leavers head start, study finds Participants were less likely to become homeless or spend time in hospital or prison, researchers say.