It's more that the "left" changed. Where it used to be somewhat protectionist, supporting local workers against asset-owners, during the late 80s and 90s the "l

It's more that the "left" changed. Where it used to be somewhat protectionist, supporting local workers against asset-owners, during the late 80s and 90s the "left" shifted to try to be more internationalist, metropolitan, and aspirational. With the seeming rise of the professional classes, that looked like being the next big demographic, and of course government policy workers and journalists fall very squarely into that demographic (city-dwelling professional) so it had the attraction to those whose career is debating public policy of supporting their own niche. Universal basic income is one of the few ideas that the Old-Left and New-Right can agree on, but it's the internationalist New-Left that gets stymied by it. - it implies very strong immigration controls, as a no-questions-asked massive cheque is one heck of an attractor for immigration. (And you're not going to get every country in the world to introduce it simultaneously.) - in the same vein as Charter Schools, it implies the state having less say over your individual choices than if the state were providing services directly (and the state instead of the consumer deciding what shape they should be). The New Left, which to be brutal fell into the trap of caring mostly that everyone should be expected to agree with it (be pro-immigration, secularist, etc) or otherwise they must be horrible / deplorable people, gets painted out on both counts. Stronger immigration controls make international city-hopping harder, and weaker control over services (if the state is just handing out cash) makes it harder to press everyone to fall in line and hold the same opinions. One of the up-sides of "the return of protectionism" might actually be that you need those conditions to allow a UBI to be introduced.