One of the main themes this column has developed over the past few years is the impact of globalisation and technological innovation on the rich world’s poor, and how the resulting anxiety and anger explain the rise of politicians such as Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. For supporters of these creatures change means loss, especially when it is rapid and hard to prepare for.

In the Nineties, the share of national income that went to the labour force in rich countries was 66 per cent. That fell to 62 per cent in the 2000s, and is falling still. This trend has vast social and moral implications. Stemming it may require radical policies. I am in favour of radical policies, especially when they address the biggest challenges we face, and achieve support across the political divide. That is why I’m interested in the universal basic income.

This is a guaranteed government payment to all citizens, regardless of their private wealth, which replaces conventional welfare. Sound bonkers? It isn’t. After all, it’s not a million miles from the tax-free allowance of £10,600 that the Coalition passed, which now has support from all the main parties.

For those on the Left a basic income appeals because it provides a safety net and attacks inequality directly. Thomas Paine argued for a version of it in his 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada’s version of Nick Clegg, is supporting its introduction in Ontario this week. Yanis Varoufakis, the former finance minister of Greece and an influential Marxist, is an avid supporter.

But the most persuasive arguments emanate from the American Right. Several of the smartest, reform-minded conservatives in the US have endorsed the idea, including David Frum and Charles Murray. And get this: Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman were advocates too. (Any idea that unites those two with Varoufakis has got to be interesting). These influential conservatives were attracted both by the idea of radical simplification of the tax code and lower expenditure on bureaucracy. At a time of austerity and indebted governments, lifting millions out of poverty while increasing efficiency and reducing day-to-day dependency is attractive.

Of course there are snags. It could disincentivise some workers and it’s not clear when immigrants should qualify. Above all, if all citizens received it the initial cost could be vast, and the poor would end up paying the rich.

That is why it makes sense to test the theory in the real world and to start small — which is what they’re doing not just in Ontario but in parts of Finland and the Dutch city of Utrecht. In Switzerland, there’s a vote on the basic income in June. As Hannah Fearn wrote in The Independent this week, if these countries are taking it seriously, “Britain cannot keep dismissing it without its own test of the evidence”.

I am not yet an advocate because I need to test the idea against strong opposition before I espouse it, and see the evidence. But politics across the Western world is waking up to the need for radical thinking to address our fast-changing labour market. After all, George Osborne increased the minimum wage less than two decades after his party opposed its introduction. Might a Chancellor with big ambitions, and in search of popular appeal, guarantee a basic income for you and me?

Amol Rajan is editor of The Independent. @amolrajan