Universal basic income – effective solution to a challenging future

Universal basic income – effective solution to a challenging future

Jun 8, 2023 | Bylines, News

As a proposed universal basic income pilot takes shape in England, is it an idea whose time has finally come? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

A universal basic income (UBI) trial granting recipients £1,600 a month has been proposed for two areas of England for the first time. The pilot programme will prospectively take place in central Jarrow, in the North East, and in East Finchley in North London. Thirty people will take part in the two-year trial and the effects on their mental and physical health will be monitored.

 

The first trial of its kind in England

The micro-pilot is backed by think tank Autonomy, whose director of research, Will Stronge, described the amount proposed as “substantial”. He added that, with societal changes brought on by climate change, and technological and industrial advances, building an evidence basis now was vital, “so the ground is well prepared for national implementation”.

Participants in the trial will be selected at random from volunteers in both regions. Anyone is invited to apply but only 15 candidates will be selected in each area – with a caveat that 20% overall are people currently living with disabilities. The researchers will also recruit a control group.

Autonomy are seeking financial backing for a two-year programme. The trial already has support from community development charity Big Local and Northumbria University and also aims to secure support from philanthropic sources and local authorities.

The move has been welcomed by the Green Party, is currently Liberal Democrat policy, and has the support of the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, who said, “a universal basic income will put a solid foundation beneath everybody so that they can have a life with security and stop worrying about everything”.

 

If the poll shared on Twitter by the Politics Polls account is anything to go by, the proposal also has considerable public support, with two-thirds of the almost 20,000 participants in favour.

Universal basic income is not a new idea

Many other countries have trialled a similar scheme in the past, such as Iran in 2011 and Finland in 2017. Earlier still, the idea almost made it onto the US statute books under Richard Nixon in 1969. However, despite receiving the support of the House of Representatives, the proposal never made it past the Senate. A ‘retrospectively’ successful basic income guarantee was also tested in Canada in the 1970s and Alaska currently delivers a ‘permanent fund dividend’ to its citizens, operating under similar principles.

Closer to home, at the present time, Wales has its own two-year trial, but with a specific group only – that of young people leaving care. In the EU, Spain is also currently running a trial with 5,000 participants, with adults receiving 800 euros per month unconditionally and minors receiving 300 euros. The Spanish scheme will run until the end of 2024

 

UBI: the cons

A common concern regarding any UBI scheme is the idea that paying people a lump sum, with no strings attached, is a disincentive to work. However, the idea that it would discourage the unemployed from seeking work is not born out by research, and UBI actually encourages entrepreneurship. Also, the aim of UBI is to meet people’s basic needs. But people have other needs too, and just because their basic needs are met, that won’t stop them striving to meet their remaining needs.

Another fear is that UBI would lead to rising prices. Again, this is not supported by the evidence, although it could potentially lead to a rise in wages through increased bargaining power.

A major worry, of course, is how the country would pay for UBI. Well, if the purpose of the exercise is to improve the lives of those worst off at a time of record poverty levels, closing the gap between the rich and the poor, then let’s tax the wealthiest in our society. Whether that be by scrapping non-dom tax status and/or raising the percentage of tax that the UK’s millionaires and billionaires pay, the cost of UBI is manageable.

Of course, there will be those, like Conservative mayoral candidate for London, Shaun Bailey, who are worried that UBI recipients will blow their money on drugs or booze. Presumably they would say the same about the homeless or those on benefits. Funny how there never seems the same concern about the wealthier in society ‘blowing’ their money on such things. Surely the point is that the choice of how one’s income is spent is for the individual to make, not any government.

 

UBI: the pros

The most robust trial – in Finland – came to the conclusion that the monthly payments boosted the recipients’ mental health, cognitive functioning, financial wellbeing and confidence in the future. The study compared the recipients to a control group of 173,000 people on unemployment benefits.

Washington DC based writer and advocate of UBI, Scott Santens, has been researching the idea since 2013. Having compiled the findings of a number of studies, he says “the data speaks for itself”.

A long list of positive observed effects include: a reduction in crime, improved student grades, a decrease in alcohol consumption (likely due to reduced stress), healthier diets and a reduction in obesity, a rise in home ownership, an increase in birth weights, a reduction in debt and an increase in self and part-time employment. Add to this the fact that those with more money in their pockets will be spending more and boosting their local economies.

 

Unanswered questions

Autonomy have set out their proposed approach in a report which seeks to answer many of the concerns that have been raised as how this will affect those who are already relying on state benefits. Questions remain over whether such a stipend may affect personal independence payments and state pensions and, more widely, how UBI payments would take account of current inflationary pressures. There are also legitimate questions over the sample size which is limited to the procurement of private funding.

According to the report the study will seek to evaluate whether UBI can assist in boosting economic activity and aspirations; increasing general mental health and wellbeing; relieving subjective financial strain; and easing the ability to engage in unpaid work such as caring for relatives. Ultimately, the question is how might UBI help people secure more control over their own lives? Careful analysis of the findings will form an essential step toward deciding whether UBI is feasible to roll-out on a national level.

Everyone deserves a basic standard of living, a roof over their head and enough food to eat. The national living wage has been set at just under £1,600 per month, which mirrors what the participants will receive. That leaves one important question. Why is the British state pension – which recipients have contributed to their entire working life – only just over half that amount at £883? No doubt a question the government might find difficult to answer – it is also highly likely that England’s first foray into trialling UBI will raise many similar questions.

Open letter to Nigel Farage

Open letter to Nigel Farage

Jun 6, 2023 | Bylines, News

In response to Nigel Farage’s recent claim that Brexit has failed, Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE writes him an open letter to see if he’s OK!

Dear Nigel,

Hope you don’t mind the informality, but I feel as though we’re old friends, as we share so many hopes and dreams for our great country.

The reason for my letter is that I’m rather confused by your recent suggestion that “Brexit has failed” and wanted to check that you were okay. After all, it’s very unlike you to fall off the optimism wagon, especially when the evidence of Brexit’s success is all around us. I accept that ‘taking back control of our borders’ has not quite gone to plan, but in the hands of those left-wing Tories, something was bound to go wrong.

 

There are numerous Brexit benefits, really!

Thankfully the list of Brexit benefits – border control aside – is a long one, and that is largely thanks to you. Would the government have been so successful at creating a culture war, without you getting the ball rolling? Would the UK have the strong, independent global standing it is now close to achieving, if you hadn’t shown those lily-livered Tories the way? Would we have had so much Russian financial support for our Brextraction from the EU without your well-established connections?

As for the impact on trade and the economy, well anyone with any sense would have worked out that you can’t make an omelette with breaking a few eggs (British, of course). Good things are worth waiting for, and if it takes a decade or three to reap the Brexit dividends, that’s a price worth paying in my book. After all, who needs the old, sick, impoverished types who are nothing but a drain on our society? Send ‘em to Rwanda I say with all the other wasters!

 

Clamping down on human rights

Brexit aside, I’m very glad to hear you speaking up for our darling home secretary, Suella Braverman. Despite her working tirelessly to try to resolve the record levels of ‘illegal’ immigrants trying to take the country for mugs, she’s getting rather a bad press. Our PM, bless him, did try to offer his support, but he’s almost as wet as those woke liberal types. Your backing will mean so much more to her, I’m sure.

I’m pleased, also, to see you backing the government’s long overdue action on public protesting. Time to get these loud, lazy louts off our streets once and for all. Why aren’t they at work, instead of causing trouble for our hard-working police officers?

Not the Brexit we voted for

Anyway, I digress. Back to the reason for my missive. While I’m with you on protestors, illegal immigrants, the EU, climate change, the untrustworthy Tories and Phillip Schofield, I really wish you would withdraw your “Brexit has failed” comment. It just makes it too easy for Remoaners to grasp at non-existent straws.

I admit, the Brexit we ended up with is not exactly the one I voted for (though I’d never admit that to anyone but you), but it’s still pretty bloody amazing in my book. Yes, I’m having to change my eating habits, but who needs fresh fruit and veg anyway? And queueing for holidays in Europe might be a little tiresome for now, but I’ve always rather liked Dorset. I’ll be staying out of the sea, obviously.

So, might I be so bold as to ask, as a special favour, that you stop with the Brexit negativity and concentrate on all the positives? We may not – yet – have stopped the boats, but I’m loving our new-found nationalism and sovereignty, and there’s so much to celebrate. No more being told what to do by Brussels. No more stupid laws stopping us from doing lots of things we can now do freely. (Sorry, can’t name any of them but I bet you can!). No more Johnny Foreigners across the Channel acting like they’re better than us, especially when we have plenty of our own British politicians willing to take on that role.

 

Please don’t leave the country Nigel!

I’m sure, in my heart of hearts, that your comments about Brexit failing were an innocent slip, and one you perhaps now bitterly regret. How do I know? Well, many moons ago you were quite insistent that should Brexit fail, you would leave the country. You haven’t, which proves to me that a man of integrity – like yourself – doesn’t really believe Brexit has failed at all, else you’d be living it up on the Costa del Sol or the Cote d’Azur.

So, I can only assume it was a moment of weakness, likely caused by all those nasty Europhiles giving you a rather hard time. Well, I say, tell them to shove it where the British sun doesn’t shine, and to get over it. They lost after all, and telling them so never gets old.

Keep up the great work and remember to stay positive. I’m sure everything will all work out absolutely fine in the end. I’ll be keeping my English fingers and toes crossed that we both live long enough to see it.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson MBE

Labour on the attack

Labour on the attack

Apr 12, 2023 | Bylines, News

The success or failure of any ad campaign is based on it being seen and being talked about – in that, Labour have certainly succeeded, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On 6 January, the Labour Party published the first of a series of campaign ads attacking the government for its many failures. The controversial ads have caused quite a stir, especially as they have been personally directed at Rishi Sunak.

The party of law and order

In the first of the hard-hitting ads, Labour attacked the prime minister for his failure to imprison 4,500 adults convicted of sexual assault on minors. This was followed a day later by the claim that 937 adults convicted of “possession of a firearm with intent to harm” also served no prison time.

 

Day three saw a continuation of the law-and-order theme – this time Labour’s claim was that out of 4,500 thefts committed daily, only 180 culprits would be charged. The title of ‘party of law and order’ – previously assumed by the Conservatives – is now firmly being claimed by Labour. They promise to “bring back neighbourhood policing” and are outlining specific details of the actions they intend to take to correct these government errors.

The latest ad switches the focus to taxation, with a direct dig at Sunak and his wealthy family. This comes on the back of recent revelations that Sunak only pays 22% tax on his total income, versus Keir Starmer’s 33%. Add to that the government’s refusal to close the non-dom tax loophole, and this is likely to resonate with many voters suffering the worst effects of the cost-of-living crisis.

 

A step too far?

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood described the ad campaign as “belittling”, while John Redwood accused Labour of attacking the prime minister “for things he has not said or done”. Considering the theme of the ads is “Rishi Sunak does” or “Rishi Sunak doesn’t”, he may be rather missing the point, although that would hardly be news. Deputy party chair, Lee Anderson, accused Labour of “dog-whistle politics” – with not a hint of irony – suggesting it was a “step too far” and Starmer should clean up his act.

While it was hardly surprising that some Tory MPs were quick to criticise the campaign, there were plenty keeping silent on the subject. Perhaps the reticence was triggered by the recently published report that 88% of Tory ads were judged to be misleading, compared to 0% of Labour’s. Or it could be the memory of the Conservative Party’s own similar attacks on Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or even Starmer himself. Perhaps, though, it’s a sign of respect, tinged with jealousy, that Labour have stolen their thunder.

Criticism of Labour’s ads did not, however, all come from the political right. Within the Labour Party itself, John McDonnell MP described the ads as “not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in”. The Labour Party, he added, “are better than this”.

Perhaps the worst response to the campaign came, unsurprisingly, from the Daily Mail who hired Maurice Saatchi to design six invented ads attacking Starmer. Copying the style and theme of Labour’s ads, one went as far as to ask, “Do you think that only men have penises?”, with the answer “Keir Starmer doesn’t”.

Labour doubling down

In response to any criticism, several Labour ministers have been quick to defend their campaign. Regarding the attack on Sunak’s record on crime, Starmer said he stood “by every word”. It was important, he said, to attribute the government’s failings personally to the prime minister. It was, after all, the PM that was “the chief architect of choices prioritising the wealthiest”, and “the voters must know that Rishi Sunak’s fingerprints are all over their struggling household budgets”.

Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting said that rather than be upset by the ads, “we should be more offended by the Tories’ shocking 13 years of failure to tackle crime than by Labour’s attempts to expose it and end it”. (Replace the word ‘crime’ with any Conservative failure of your choice)

Labour MP and chair of standards and privileges committee, Chris Bryant, voiced his own defence of the campaign on LBC Radio. He said attack ads were “valid” and described the campaign as “blunt” and “rude”, adding that it had “done the trick”.

Bryant also pointed out that any criticism of the ads was about the style, and the personal targeting of the PM, not about the “statistics”. We can only assume that the government have checked the veracity of the comments in the memes and been unable to disprove them, else they’d be screaming blue murder about Labour lies.

 

The gloves are off

Whether you are offended by Labour’s new approach, or applauding it, they are challenging the government in ways they will understand all too well. The campaign also makes it difficult for the government to complain too loudly without exposing their own gross hypocrisy. The Tories may be old hands at this type of attack but Labour have taken the gloves off and are beating them at their own game.

You may feel that Labour have sunk to the government’s level and that they should be setting a better example. Or you may think that anything goes in the battle to ensure Labour’s success at the next general election. Either way, you can be sure the Conservatives will use their usual dirty tricks, misdirection outright mistruths if they think it will work. And let’s face it, it’s worked in the past.

As with all ad campaigns though – whether you love them or hate them – their success or failure is based on being seen and being talked about. According to Labour insiders, the attack ads are a “triumph” – the original ad having already received over 22 million views. That’s more than any Twitter post in Labour’s history. Whatever the thinking was behind Labour’s campaign, they must surely consider the level of discussion generated to be a sure sign of a successful campaign. And they’ve barely got started. 

Give me back my vote!

Give me back my vote!

Feb 27, 2023 | Bylines, News

Millions of disenfranchised Brits living abroad care deeply about British politics and would like to have their vote back now, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

The Conservatives are in trouble. They are running scared and hoping we won’t notice. Millions of potential voters across the country, and further afield, are desperate to oust them democratically at the next election. The question is, will they let us?

 

Elections Act not all bad news

When the Elections Act became law in April 2022, it caused justifiable outrage, especially regarding new voter ID requirements. Supposedly designed to prevent voter fraud at the ballot box, it was a solution in search of a non-existent problem. As a result, millions of people are likely to be disenfranchised from voting, most especially the young. The fact that young people are less likely to vote Conservative may just be a coincidence. Or not.

But what the Elections Act took away with one hand, it gave back with another. Hidden behind the bad news was some good news for British citizens living abroad. For years the government pledged in multiple manifestos to return democratic voting rights to Brits overseas. The rule that excluded emigrants from voting in UK elections after 15 years abroad was finally being rescinded. British citizens living abroad would finally be able have their say at the polling booths. Well, almost.

More hoops to jump through for disenfranchised British emigrants

Before disenfranchised British emigrants are able to vote in forthcoming elections, secondary legislation is required. Until recently that legislation was promised this summer, with a view to restoring expatriate voting rights ahead of the next general election. However, the most recent correspondence from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) confirmed that the timing of that legislation has already slipped.

In recent correspondence, the DLUHC stated an intention “that legislation will be implemented to facilitate registration of eligible British citizens from Autumn 2023”. Many Brits abroad, anxious to take advantage of restored voting rights as soon as possible, will be questioning whether further delays are likely. That’s without their considerable concerns that necessary changes won’t be implemented in time for the next general election.

In order to vote, it will be necessary to register to do so and to be assessed for eligibility. According to the DLUHC it is also “imperative that voters and those who administer our elections have sufficient time to understand the new rules and to prepare accordingly”. So, no rush then.

To vote or not to vote

Ministerial responsibility for overseas voters has recently passed to Lee Rowley MP. His answers to questions in the House of Commons recently did not instil confidence.

With local elections just ten weeks away, MP Helen Morgan raised questions about the rollout of voter ID. In response, Rowley disputed the numbers of voters likely to be disenfranchised suggesting that many who were unable to vote wouldn’t have chosen to do so anyway. He added that the purpose of a democracy was for people to “have both the right to vote and not to vote”.

Millions of British citizens abroad, and young people at home, may well be desperate to exercise that right to vote but be unable to do so thanks to government actions, or lack of them.

 

Strong connections to the UK

When the restoration of overseas voting rights was first included in their manifesto, the government likely expected a grateful overseas audience to reward them at the next election. Post-Brexit, if they have any self-awareness at all, they’ll now understand that things may have changed. Many Brits living in Europe were hugely affected by the consequences of Brexit. Bad enough if you voted against it but intolerable if you were prevented even from doing that.

But the battle to have our voice in British politics has not just been with the government. There was also opposition from members of the British public suggesting those that chose to live abroad should have no say in UK politics. That message is still being heard, unlike ours.

Whether Brits back home like it or not, connections with the UK – even for those that haven’t lived there for years – remain strong. For many that connection is family. For others it could be work, property, taxes, pension, or even military service. For many it is deep routed feelings of identity. You can take the person out of the country, you can’t often take the country out of the person. Much as we might want to at times when witnessing the destruction of a country increasingly difficult to recognise.

 

Honouring Harry Shindler OBE

Whatever the reason for strong connections with the UK, it’s also about UK politics. Decisions made by the British government affect lives of all British citizens, regardless of where they choose to live. To have previously valued rights and freedoms taken away by a government we can’t even vote for, or against, is painful. Not to mention undemocratic.

Citizens’ rights groups all over Europe have campaigned tirelessly to enable disenfranchised Brits abroad to once again have their say in British politics. That campaign was started over 25 years ago by veteran campaigner, Harry Shindler OBE. Sadly, at the age of 101 years Harry died this week, unable to cast his British vote one last time. Though at least he did live long enough to see the law finally changed.

According to the government’s own impact assessment, there are over 3.5 million eligible British voters living abroad. It is up to all of us to keep up the fight until the last ‘i’ is dotted and ‘t’ is crossed. We owe it to Harry to finish the job he started and to use our votes to tell this government what we really think of them. They are probably not going to like it!

 

 

Secret Summit admits Brexit isn’t working

Secret Summit admits Brexit isn’t working

Feb 15, 2023 | Bylines, News

Was this secret summit the first tentative step towards reversing the unmitigated disaster that is Brexit? We can only hope, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for West England Bylines.
 

 

On Thursday and Friday last week (9-10 February), a cross-party ‘secret summit’ on Brexit was held at Ditchley Park in Oxfordshire. The meeting, which included high-level politicians from both Remain and Leave camps, as well as prominent businessmen, was so ‘secret’ that by Sunday it was all over mainstream media.

The meeting was entitled: “How can we make Brexit work better with our neighbours in Europe?” In an introductory statement, it was acknowledged that “so far the UK has not yet found its way forward outside the EU”. Not only that, but Brexit is “acting as a drag on our growth and inhibiting the UK’s potential”.

The news brought hope to pro-Europeans that perhaps, at last, politicians of all persuasions were willing to discuss the failings of Brexit, and our future relationship with Europe, with some openness and honesty. Brexiteers, on the other hand, were screaming “sell-out”.

Brexiteer response

Brexit-supporting backbench MP, John Redwood, was quick to complain on Twitter. “Instead of talking of sell-out at private conferences”, he said, “the UK establishment needs to complete Brexit and use its freedoms.” He added that the government should pass the Protocol bill to make Northern Ireland fully part of the UK and in order to “take back full control of our fish for starters”. Not sure what he had in mind for the main course.

Former UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, said the “full sellout of Brexit was under way”, adding that the Tory party had “never believed in it”. Deputy Chairman of the ERG, David Jones, said the fact that the meeting was held in secret raised suspicions that the aim was to have “closer constitutional links” with Europe. Let’s hope so!

Brexit is unravelling, says Frost

Despite walking away from his Brexit role, and taking no responsibility for his wonderful, then awful, Brexit deal, Lord Frost is never one to miss an opportunity to supply unwanted advice and comment. Again. Ad infinitum.

Frost accused those senior politicians taking part – such as Michael Gove, David Lammy, Peter Mandelson and David Liddington – of wanting to “unravel the deals we did to exit the EU in 2020” and to “stay shadowing the EU instead”. He said that the government, which had been elected with a huge Brexit mandate, needed to “fully and enthusiastically embrace” the advantages of Brexit, adding that “Brexit doesn’t need ‘fixing’”.

Despite his former – and now hard to believe Remainer – beliefs, Frost spends a lot of effort looking for ways to criticise those tasked with delivering Brexit. If he spent half as much time searching for mythical Brexit benefits, he might be more useful. Or at least, more muted.

The Downing Street position

A spokesman for Downing Street stated that PM Rishi Sunak had been unaware of the summit meeting held last week. It was a response that surprised no one as Sunak often seems ‘unaware’ of activities going on right under his nose. On a trip to Oldham, Sunak said he was “proud to vote for Brexit” and that, as PM, he was “keen to make sure we deliver the benefits”.  Whatever they may be. If he knows, he’s not telling.

With the UK and EU edging closer to an agreement, and Sunak saying little about his plans for the controversial Protocol Bill, no doubt Lord Frost, the ERG and Brexiteers will be watching him closely for further signs of “unravelling”. They are also pushing for the tearing up of thousands of EU laws, under the Retained EU Law bill.

Sunak may try to give with one hand and take with the other, in an effort to please all parties – not least US President Biden – over Brexit and the Protocol. But this will just further cement opinion that he is ineffective and indecisive.

 

What did the summit achieve?

If the meeting itself didn’t stay secret for long, the outcome of the discussions may take longer to surface. A confidential source described the meeting as “constructive”, saying that the “main thrust of it was that Britain is losing out, that Brexit it not delivering, our economy is in a weak position.” 

The aim was to move on “from Leave and Remain”, to discuss “the issues we now have to face” and how to get into “the best position” for having a conversation with the EU about changes to the UK-EU trade and cooperation agreement. That agreement is subject to renewal, revision or termination every five years. The current deal expires, and is up for renegotiation, in 2025, so getting into the “best position” soon is vital.

While it’s shocking that it has taken this long, the fact that Tory and Labour politicians – on both sides of the Brexit debate – are now having grown-up conversations (we assume), is a step forward. Considering the extensive and obvious damage that Brexit has wreaked, better late than never.

However, there is still a long way to travel. Despite the participants seeming acceptance that Brexit is failing, and a huge shift in public opinion, both Tories and Labour still seem to want to “make Brexit work”. They can’t.

They can tinker around the edges. They can work more closely with Europe where there is common ground. They can even work together to improve the Protocol. But they cannot “make Brexit work”.

Until there is a ‘secret summit’ to discuss re-joining the Single Market, the Customs Union or the EU itself, then they are merely offering a sticking plaster solution when what’s needed is major surgery.

Nice try. Good start. Now get on with it!

Bring back the death penalty says 30p Lee Anderson

Bring back the death penalty says 30p Lee Anderson

Feb 13, 2023 | Bylines, News

With our human rights already under threat, it’s difficult to trust a leader who believes Lee Anderson is the answer to any question, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Newly elevated deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson, is no stranger to controversy. Whether he’s picking a fight with Steve (Mr Stop Brexit) Bray, suggesting food bank users have a “budgeting problem”, or using a friend to pose as a swing-voter on camera, Anderson is a dab hand at stirring up trouble. And he seems to rather enjoy it.

Anderson was promoted in Rishi Sunak’s recent reshuffle, leaving many surprised, if not astounded, by the prime minister’s decision. With Sunak’s credibility already being questioned, Anderson’s advancement only raised more doubt about the prime minister’s judgement. Perhaps, considering Anderson’s latest comments regarding the death penalty, Sunak himself is now having second thoughts about the wisdom of his decision. If he isn’t, he certainly should be.

 

“100% success rate”

In an interview with The Spectator, Anderson expressed his support for the reintroduction of the death penalty by saying that “nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed”, describing it as a “100% success rate”. His comments forced the prime minister to note that neither he, nor the government, shared Anderson’s view and a return of the death penalty was not government policy.

Anderson went on to say that “certain groups” (presumably left-wing wokerati types) would complain that “you can never prove it”. He suggested that video evidence was strong enough proof to warrant an execution. It was an argument that fell apart on the appearance of a doctored video of Anderson himself confessing to a crime on social media, proving how easily video ‘evidence’ can be manipulated.

 

It’s the ‘will of the people’

Fellow Conservative MP and death penalty supporter, Scott Benton, was quick to defend Anderson’s stance, by suggesting that it was a policy “supported by a majority of the public”, as well as many of his Blackpool South constituents. Not only were the “liberal elites”, the media and Twitter “detached from the public” but any outcry was an example of the “usual leftie hysteria”.

 

Whilst I can’t speak for Benton’s constituents, it is certainly not true that the majority of the British public are in favour of the death penalty. In a recent YouGov poll, only 14% of Britons showed strong support for the death penalty, with a further 26% tending to support, making a total of 40%. Amongst Conservative voters, that total rose to 58% support in total. By comparison, amongst Labour voters, support fell to just 23%.

There was also a vast difference in levels of support dependent on age, with only 22% of 18–24-year-olds supporting capital punishment. For the over 65s age group, support rose to 54%. If Benton is to be believed, then presumably his constituents are elderly Tory voters yearning for an England that no longer exists, and that should be consigned to history. Along with his views on capital punishment.

 

No defence for the indefensible

Arguments commonly used in favour of the death penalty – usually in the case of murder – are that it serves as a deterrent, it provides closure for the families of victims and that it dispenses justice, of the biblical eye-for-an-eye variety. However, these arguments do not hold up.

According to Amnesty International (and others), there is no evidence to support the argument that the death penalty deters crime any more than long prison sentences. In addition, states that have a death penalty – often those with authoritarian regimes – do not have lower crime or murder rates than those that do not.

Even within the most vigorous of legal systems, miscarriages of justice do happen, and innocent people have, and still are being, executed. The other compelling argument against capital punishment is that it is simply morally wrong. Taking a human life is completely unethical and sets a bad example to society.

 

The global view

According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, 70% of nations have now abolished capital punishment. However, 60% of the world’s population live in countries where the death penalty is retained, including the highly populated China, India and the United States – the only G7 country to still have the death penalty. In 2021, 579 executions were recorded – a increase of 20% over the previous year. The highest numbers of executions took place in China, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria (in that order).

Our own Human Rights Act (HRA) came into force in October 2000, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic British law. Article 2 of the HRA protects the right to life and states:

“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.”

 

But the Human Rights Act, which protects many other basic human rights as well as the right to life, is currently under threat from justice minister and deputy PM Dominic Raab. His ‘bill of rights’ has been described by Liberty as a “wrecking ball” which would “smash your rights and freedoms”. Maybe Sunak should have a word, if he can work up the nerve.

We have come to expect a certain dangerous rhetoric from our government of late – in particular from the Home Office. So, it’s hardly a stretch to believe there might be more death penalty supporters lurking in government behind Anderson and Benton.

With a government that seems drawn to authoritarianism, and with many rights and legal protections under threat, we need to be vigilant.

Our right to life may not be under threat, but it’s increasingly difficult to trust a prime minister, or government, that believes Lee Anderson is the answer to any question.