Try the political quiz

30.1k Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

@9866TLHPlaid Cymru answered…11hrs

Only for the elderly and disabled and mental health citizens only.

@97ZSBF9 answered…1wk

@97YSXCG answered…2wks

People should receive help but only if they are in a working job so it doesn’t encourage lack of work

@97YS6K2 answered…2wks

yes within reason, everyone is entitled to some basic help but the governing system shouldn’t become a total nanny state

@97XKJWG answered…2wks

Yes, but ensure people on the universal basic income program work a certain number of hours, unless they have to care for a child.

@97XHJRY answered…2wks

@97X7W2G answered…2wks

Those who work should be given extra incentive to do so, buy having a portion of their essentials covered.

@97X3CND answered…2wks

@97VLZCL answered…3wks

Yes, enough for the VERY basic necessities. They still need to work to live a proper life, otherwise they might be encouraged to not work at all.

@97TXZBR answered…3wks

need evidence that it scales up and it doesn't affect the economy too badley

@97SQKSM answered…3wks

@97SNG47 answered…3wks

@97SKVWT answered…3wks

Medically Ill people deserve it, but people without jobs and don’t try and get a job don’t deserve it

@97Q9PMQ answered…3wks

@97Q997K answered…3wks

Because some people who need it get refusesd or not getting enough to be stable

@97Q4J7Tfrom Colorado  answered…3wks

@97P2TV4 answered…3wks

No, create a job guarantee that pays a livable wage and retrains people for high skill sectors

@97NX8D8Liberal Democrat answered…3wks

People should have easy and free access to education, energy, water, and essential services to life. People shouldn’t be paid to stay at home and do nothing.

@97N7CP6 answered…4wks

Yes, it should be trialled on a small scale first however to see if it is economically viable and effective at tackling socio-economic issues

@976DSYZ answered…1mo

Yes but to qualify, you have to find employment within a 3 month period of receiving or have a job already

@974Y276 answered…1mo

@974V27WConservative answered…1mo

No, this will cost too much and will hurt economic growth by encouraging people to not work

@973PCM2Green answered…1mo

Yes, but we need to consider those who need extra support and still work very hard. Not just those who are unemployed.

@973NWH8 answered…1mo

Should be better requirements, if they can work they should, if they can’t they should get UBI

@972FJLB answered…1mo

People should receive an income without working if they are proven eligible for benefits

@96ZT4BM answered…1mo

Yes in principle but no able bodied people should be better off on benefits

@96X5V8M answered…1mo

Yes, but it should only cover housing and the introduction of Children Livelihood Tokens

@96SLGYZ answered…1mo

@96SN65P answered…1mo

Yes, but people should register and be monitored with the spending of this money to avoid it being wasted.

@96SMX2C answered…1mo

Yes, but only for those who are unable to work on medical grounds and go through thorough checks in order to determine as such. For the rest issue a living wage.

@96RNTJH answered…1mo

Yes, only for people with disabilities and medical health issues only.

@96QKBVY answered…1mo

No, but basic necessities should be covered through some form of government measure

@96Q83M5Labour answered…1mo

Yes UC should have a more progressive taper - perhaps 30% rather han 55%


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...