From one point of view, I ‘won’ a debate in the Chartered Institute of Housing’s conference on Tuesday, when I was sounding a sceptical note about the idea of Universal Basic Income. There’s a clip on Youtube where I and others outline the arguments. After hearing the case, people were much more critical of the idea. There’s a short (and not very balanced) report on a CIH blog here. If you read it, you might get the impression I had swayed people with my fiery rhetoric and compelling oratorical powers. But the truth is that the case was largely won for me before I opened my mouth. At the outset the CIH Chair asked people to vote electronically. The first question was whether or not people were generally in favour of the idea; 75%, of an audience of about 200 said they were. Then he asked if they would still support it if they had to pay more in tax, and approval fell to 51%. Laughter in the hall. Job done.
One interpretation of the change in voting is that some people ate basically selfish. I find it very refreshing that there was still a majority in favour even after the realisation
that equality has a price.