‘In order to produce a healthy race everyone must have access to the primal necessities of life, namely, food, shelter, and liberty.’ Photo: ClaireLucia on iStock
‘It must be ours like the air and the sunshine.’
A universal basic income is not a new idea: E Mabel Milner and Dennis Milner’s ‘Scheme for a State Bonus’ was presented to a Yearly Meeting committee in 1918. Joseph Jones finds some extracts.
Britain Yearly Meeting’s Spring letter to the prime minister called for ‘a liveable income for all’ in the wake of the pandemic. This has been a Quaker concern for some time: Friends have been considering national income schemes since 1918, when a country of slums and industrial unrest was approaching the aftermath of the first world war. Mabel and Dennis Milner’s Scheme for a State Bonus: A rational method of solving the social problem was first presented to the War and Social Order Committee of the Yearly Meeting that year. Although it was never enacted, the scheme was to become very influential in the labour and trades unions movement, and is now recognised as the first modern full-blown proposal for a national basic income.
The proposal begins with a consideration of the social problems of the period, primarily ‘the widespread unhappiness of the poorer classes’. This was causing a ‘prevalence of industrial unrest, leading constantly to strikes and even violence… The shame is that these faults in our system react chiefly upon the children of the poor, next upon all women, and last and least upon men. It is obviously wrong that men who control nearly all material wealth should suffer least from its bad distribution.’
Any solution, said the Milners, must be ‘comprehensive’ and ‘benefit everyone’. ‘The good of all’ took precedence over ‘the interests of any class, however large’ but necessitated ‘fundamental change in our social relationships’. This led them to four key principles:
• ‘Children have the right to life irrespective of the earning capacity of their parents.’
• ‘Industry cannot equalise the burdens between single and married men, spinsters, widows, etc. Therefore the Community must make some provision for everyone.’
• ‘The Community should help all alike, not only those who have failed to help themselves.’
• ‘No one should be driven by the threat of destitution into accepting work which is underpaid, unhealthy, or even dangerous. Therefore destitution must not exist.’
The essay moves from these fundamentals to the basics of a proposal: ‘It is suggested… that every individual, all the time, should receive from a central fund some small allowance in money which would be just sufficient to maintain life and liberty if all else failed.’ Then, ‘as everyone is to get a share from this central fund, so everyone who has any income at all should contribute a share each in proportion to his capacity.’
The specifics are worth rendering in detail: ‘The first essential of this allowance is that it must be just sufficient to maintain life and liberty. It follows, therefore, that it will have to be based on the primal needs of individuals (which are nearly the same for all), namely, food, shelter, and a minimum of recreation.
‘The next essential is that this amount – whatever is decided on as just sufficient – must be absolutely dependable. Every man, every woman, and every child must have it in their own right; it must be theirs irrespective of the faults and errors of the past, making it possible for the fallen to start out on life again with a new hope; it must be clear of all taxes and legal obligations. It must be ours like the air and the sunshine.
‘On the other hand, it must not be too much, since some are lazy, and if luxury were possible without work, they would be glad of the opportunity to rest. Of course, if many were idle the contributions to the central fund would be reduced and the Bonus correspondingly reduced. It must also be noticed that there would be no inducement to be idle, because the idle would only get their Bonus, whereas those who work would get their earnings in addition.’
The proposal was offered in the wake of the Russian Revolution, and the Milners seem keen to draw a distinction between the ‘moderate communism’ of their scheme and any ‘attempt to readjust the Social Order by methods not sanctioned by public opinion. The inevitable sequence following upon such revolutionary methods is: weakening of leadership, mob rule, chaos.’
Rather, the ‘state bonus’ proposed here was ‘really a simple and comprehensive insurance scheme, with continuous benefit, so that this sum… will not be transferred from rich to poor, but will be taken from people with fluctuating incomes (all of us) and given back to everyone as a regular fixed weekly payment. Like all insurance schemes the contributions will be from all, and the benefits will be most felt by people when they are in need.’ It is ‘a simple yet complete profit-and-loss sharing system, giving all a direct interest in the efficiency and productivity of industry… Nor does it involve any disorganisation of existing systems.’
The bonus would have effects beyond the financial, said the authors, arguing that ‘When everyone is secure at least of subsistence pay, we may surely hope to see people less engrossed in their material prosperity, thus the Bonus will release many of the higher and nobler aspirations, which cannot be valued in terms of money. ... This Scheme frankly acknowledges that in order to produce a healthy race everyone must have access to the primal necessities of life, namely, food, shelter, and liberty. Then, in order to encourage work it will be necessary to offer proper inducements, such as just pay, proper conditions of labour, public opinion, patriotism, and the common welfare. Of course, the best work will still be done by those actuated by high motives, among which must be included genius and a man’s love for his family.’
So for the Milners the bonus was not a handout, or a new dole for paupers. It was the monetary equivalent of the right to life and liberty, paid to all alike – rich, poor, ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’.
The scheme found a ready audience in parts of the labour movement. The Labour Party Conference of 1921 produced a memorandum on the proposal in its report, which noted that it had ‘been before the Executive and approved, and… circulated to affiliated Societies for consideration’. But the Party was preparing, it hoped, for government. Ultimately, the memorandum was critical: ‘The State Bonus Scheme is attempting to do the right thing in the wrong way. All that it raises would be better achieved by the bringing into force of the Labour Party’s existing programme.’ The criticism dismayed the campaigners. Soon after, the Milners suffered some personal loss, and divorced. Inside the Society of Friends, the proposal slipped into a gap between new explicitly socialist groups and those who had switched focus to peace campaigning. But as a record of Quaker consideration, the proposal represents an interesting moment in Friends’ history. It is testament to many of the things we still hold dear. As inspiration, perhaps its job is not yet complete.
