29/06/2026
# AI, Automation and the New Jobs Crisis: Is UBI Part of the Answer?
The future of work is no longer a distant debate. It is arriving through office software, factory robots, AI chatbots, machine-learning systems, automated logistics, self-service platforms and increasingly capable digital assistants.
Artificial intelligence, robotics, machine learning and automation are already changing how people work. They are writing reports, analysing data, processing invoices, answering customer queries, checking documents, producing marketing copy, generating code and assisting engineers. The question is not whether these technologies will affect jobs. They already are.
The harder question is whether our politics, welfare system and training infrastructure are ready for the scale of disruption that may follow.
That is why Universal Basic Income, often dismissed as unrealistic or utopian, deserves renewed attention. Not as a magic answer. Not as a replacement for jobs, training or public services. But perhaps as one part of a broader settlement for an economy in which technology can produce more while needing fewer people to do some forms of work.
# # The coming disruption
Predictions about job losses should always be treated carefully. Every generation is told that new technology will destroy work. Often, new industries, occupations and forms of employment emerge. The problem is that workers do not live inside neat economic models. They live in towns, sectors, families and communities. When disruption happens, it is rarely evenly shared.
AI is different from earlier waves of automation because it does not only affect manual work. It reaches into cognitive and administrative labour. It can summarise documents, identify patterns, generate text, analyse spreadsheets, write software, draft contracts and support decision-making.
That means the people exposed to disruption are not only factory workers or warehouse staff. They include administrators, analysts, call-centre workers, paralegals, junior accountants, marketing staff, journalists, designers and even managers.
Some roles will be replaced. Others will be reduced. Many will be changed. A single worker using AI may do work that previously required a small team. That may raise productivity, but it also raises a political question: who receives the benefit?
If the gains go mainly to shareholders, platform owners and senior executives, AI could deepen inequality. If the gains are shared through better wages, shorter working weeks, public services, training and income security, it could improve millions of lives.
# # Jobs will be created too
The story is not simply one of loss. AI and automation will also create jobs. There will be demand for AI trainers, data specialists, cyber-security workers, robotics engineers, systems designers, digital product managers, ethics specialists, compliance experts and people who can connect technical systems to real human needs.
Beyond the technology sector, AI may support growth in care, education, climate adaptation, healthcare, engineering and creative industries. It could reduce dull and repetitive work. It could help small businesses compete with larger firms. It could allow public services to process information faster and respond more effectively.
The danger is not that there will be no work. The danger is that the new work may not appear in the same places, at the same pace, or for the same people whose jobs are disrupted. A redundant administrator in Middlesbrough is not automatically transformed into an AI systems engineer in London. A displaced offshore worker in Aberdeen is not automatically moved into a renewable energy job with the same pay and conditions.
This is where policy matters.
# # The UK energy sector shows what is at stake
The UK energy sector is already living through a major transition. North Sea oil and gas are in long-term decline. Carbon reduction, Net Zero, offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture, decommissioning and grid infrastructure are reshaping the industrial landscape.
This transition is necessary. Britain cannot meet its climate obligations while pretending fossil fuel extraction can continue indefinitely. But the way the transition is managed will determine whether it becomes a programme of renewal or another episode of industrial abandonment.
Oil and gas workers often have valuable skills. They understand offshore engineering, safety systems, subsea technology, logistics, large infrastructure projects and harsh operating environments. Many of those capabilities are relevant to offshore wind, carbon capture, hydrogen and decommissioning.
But skills transfer does not happen by magic. It requires funded training, clear industrial planning, regional investment and serious involvement of workers and unions. It also requires honesty. New green jobs may not arrive quickly enough. They may not be in the same location. They may not offer the same pay. They may require new certificates, new employers and new working patterns.
The comparison with Britain’s coalfields is unavoidable. The Thatcher-era closure of coal mines was not just an economic restructuring. It was a social rupture. Former mining communities faced unemployment, poor health, declining local economies and a loss of identity that lasted for decades.
A just transition must mean more than a slogan. It must mean that workers and communities are not asked to carry the costs of national progress alone.
# # Training matters, but it has limits
The usual answer to technological disruption is reskilling. It is an important answer. The UK will need far more investment in digital skills, data literacy, AI use, engineering, renewable energy, robotics maintenance, cyber security and technical education.
Workers should have access to lifelong learning, not occasional short courses after redundancy. Colleges and universities need to be connected to regional industrial strategies. Employers should be required to invest in training rather than simply replacing staff when new systems arrive. Government should support workers before they lose jobs, not only after the damage is done.
But reskilling cannot carry the whole burden. Not everyone can move into high-tech work. Not every displaced worker has the time, money, health or family circumstances to retrain. Some people will be too close to retirement. Others will live in places where new jobs are slow to arrive.
There is also a deeper issue. If AI and automation genuinely allow society to produce more with less labour, then retraining everyone for another full-time job may not be the only possible response. We should also ask whether people should share more directly in the productivity created by technology.
# # Where Universal Basic Income fits
Universal Basic Income is the idea that every citizen receives a regular, unconditional payment, regardless of employment status. Supporters argue that it could provide security in an unstable labour market, reduce poverty traps, support retraining, recognise unpaid care work and give people more power to refuse bad jobs.
In an age of AI and automation, UBI could also be seen as a technological dividend. If machines and algorithms increase national wealth, a basic income could help distribute some of that wealth more fairly.
But UBI has real challenges. A meaningful payment would be expensive. A low payment would not provide genuine security. There are difficult questions about tax, housing costs, disability support and whether UBI would sit alongside or replace existing benefits. There is also a risk that some politicians could use UBI as an excuse to weaken public services or tolerate insecure work.
So UBI should not be presented as a cure-all. It should be considered as part of a wider package: stronger unions, better training, regional investment, public ownership stakes in strategic technologies, shorter working weeks, improved benefits, green industrial strategy and job guarantees in areas such as care, climate adaptation and public infrastructure.
# # The real issue is power
The debate about AI, automation and UBI is not really about technology. It is about power.
Who decides how new technologies are used? Who owns them? Who profits from them? Who is protected when jobs disappear? Who pays for retraining? Who supports communities when industries decline? Who benefits when productivity rises?
The UK energy transition gives us a test case. We can repeat the mistakes made with coal: allow a major industrial shift to happen, celebrate economic modernisation, and leave workers and communities to deal with the consequences. Or we can plan properly, invest early and make sure the benefits of change are shared.
AI and automation present the same choice on a larger scale.
They could create a future of insecurity, surveillance, job loss and concentrated wealth. They could also create a future of higher productivity, better public services, shorter working hours and greater freedom.
Universal Basic Income is not the whole answer. But it belongs in the conversation because it asks the right question.
If technology allows society to produce more with less human labour, then who should benefit from that progress?
The answer should not be: only those who own the machines.
