I have written rather a lot about the Green New Deal, and the standard response of commentators is "so what, you're not going to get one". It's time to end this group think.
I will be candid: I think it unlikely that any of the Conservatives, Labour, LibDems or UKIP will offer a Green New Deal in their manifestos for May. But then, they wouldn't, would they? There are three reasons for saying that.
Firstly these are establishment parties, all with strong links to the City of London. The City does not want the Green New Deal and as a result these parties won't supply it.
Second, these parties are all, unfortunately, wedded to an austerity agenda. The Green New Deal, financed by Green quantitative easing, is part of an anti-austerity agenda. Most with current influence in the parties I mention do not seem to understand that.
And third, these parties are London-centric at their core, and London at this moment and comparatively feels good about the economy. This contrasts with the view in most of the UK which the Green New Deal reflects which is about the need to create jobs in every constituency in the country.
Now I know there are those, especially in Labour, who will resent this characterisation and who will be affronted by it. I understand that, and have sympathy. Unfortunately for them their party is not listening to their views. If it was it would be way ahead in the polls.
As it is, it is not a long way ahead. And also, at least partly as a result, many more people are now aware that these four English dominated parties are not the only parties in the forthcoming election. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are real alternatives in the SNP, Plaid Cymru and some of the Northern Ireland parties. In England there are the Greens. And it looks likely that all these parties will be represented in parliament after May 7. I am not going to suggest how many seats they will have; only the reckless would do that. But, what is entirely possible is that parties from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland plus the Greens will hold the balance of power in the UK. Between them it is quite possible that they will be able to dictate the terms on which the UK is governed.
I am not suggesting that these parties will all agree with each other on what their terms will be. In fact, that is clearly not the case, and some will also be on the some ballot papers on May 7. But the point is that the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru have already agreed that they have an anti-austerity agenda in common. This creates a lot of common ground, and what I would hope might be the basis for a common demand for what might be, if not the Green New Deal, then at least an Infrastructure Deal.
What would that be? It would be a demand that the government capitalise investment in the economy by buying bonds issued by regionally controlled investment banks in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. Those investment banks would then work with regional governments, local authorities, housing associations, NHS trusts and others to deliver the infrastructure this country needs. This whole process is, of course, what Green Quantitative Easing is about, and because new money quite literally created out of nothing is used no repayment of the funding is requited, just as no repayment of the £375 billion used to reflate banks will ever be made.
Part of that would be green green energy driven, I am sure. Part would be straight need: much of that would be housing. All would be local. And without exception it would create jobs in every constituency in the UK.
This could be the economic stimulus Scotland needs on top of its new borrowing powers.
This could be the alternative to a policy of disastrous corporation tax cuts for Northern Ireland.
This would empower the Welsh government in ways so far not granted to them.
That would be true of the English regions as well.
But as importantly, to collectively present this policy would be to say that voting for these parties would be about effecting real change.
And it would be about saying that democracy could work.
And it could say that in combination these parties could deliver the anti-austerity agenda the UK needs without ever having to go into coalition with each other.
And that could encourage people to think that voting for these parties is a positive act (which they probably already do in some parts at least of Norther Ireland, Wales and Scotland already, but not necessarily in much of England) when the main three parties and UKIP would dearly like it to be thought otherwise.
I stress: I recognise all the differences these parties have and respect them. But this is the time when they could, by agreeing on this agenda, put forward a combined platform for change for the UK as a whole that would be radical, anti-austerity, affordable, deliverable and local.
It would be great to think there might be takers for such an approach.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Green new dealers confuse various issues: 1, stimulus, 2 green or environmental issues, and 3, infrastructure.
A merit normally claimed for the green new deal is that it would be anti-austerity: i.e. stimulatory. Well the implication of that is that if consumer and business confidence picked up and the economy was all of a sudden found to be at capacity, then there’d be no need for “anti-austerity” measures, including the green element therein.
That of course is nonsense: the optimum proportion of GDP to spend on green stuff or green subsidies is scarcely influenced by whether the economy is at 95% capacity, 100% capacity or whatever.
Same goes for infrastructure spending. The proportion of GDP allocated to that oughtn’t to be influenced by small changes of the latter 95/100% type. Moreover, it can take years to get infrastructure projects going and yet more years to complete them. I.e. infrastructure spending is TOTALLY UNSUITED to dealing with the temporary boosts to demand needed to deal with recessions.
I have to say, as the prime green new dealer, that we simply do not do what you suggest
But it’s true as a matter of fact we do not believe in short term consumer highs
I agree about the critical role these counter a systemic parties could play with Labour short of a majority. However, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the potential undesired ecological impacts of the green stimulus (e.g. more consumption, imports and energy use rebound). This is what Molly Scot Cato called the paradox of green Keynesianism. I’ve yet to see a convincing response although we (Steady State Manchester) have argued that it requires pairing with absolute caps on resource use and emissions – possibly via a cap and share framework.
The The whole point of the Green New Deal is that it is not a stimulus per se. It is, instead, an investment programme to meet the needs of people who live in this country using locally employed people to create long-term, sustainable assets that our economy is dependent upon.
It is precisely not the sort of short-term consumer stimulus that George Osborne is dependent upon by promoting personal debt, which helicopter money would create.
It is about import substitution, about the creation of sustainable energy sources, about removal of dependence upon carbon, about making every building a power station, and about investment for our future.
I am not complaining a panacea because as far as I know there is no such thing, but I am suggesting that this is thoroughly green.
Yes I get that, and want to be enthusiastic about the NGD but all those things would, without other measures, stimulate other grey” areas of the economy. I guess this needs some kind of specific modeling in terms of material flows. The question of rebound, though, seems central. I suppose I’m saying (and perhaps you are too) that the proposal s necessary but not sufficient.
I would never argue it is a panacea
It is a tool to help achieve a goal
I’m disappointed that you think SNP a good use of a vote in Scotland. They have had ample opportunity to show their anti austerity values but had to be pushed into measures to offset the harmful effects of the bed room tax. Nor are their green credentials to be taken seriously. They have done well promoting wind, solar and tidal power but they are very keen on oil as a source of revenue and on fracking as a new energy source. I think you haven’t looked properly at what the destructive nationalist agenda has done and is doing here. Had we gone along with the fantasy the economy would be 7 billion pounds short. As it is we now have a divided community that could have been working together. Your interventions are unhelpful and not well enough informed.
I am making a specific proposal
I am not offering an endorsement of a particular party
That is not my role
“I think you haven’t looked properly at what the destructive nationalist agenda has done and is doing here. Had we gone along with the fantasy the economy would be 7 billion pounds short. As it is we now have a divided community that could have been working together. Your interventions are unhelpful and not well enough informed.”
Dear oh dear. Up until that wee rant, I was taking your criticisms of the SNP at face value and thinking you were just a bit misinformed. But no, you’re actually just against Scottish independence, so see the devil in everything the SNP does. Ho hum.
(In regards to fracking, the SNP voted for a moratorium in Westminster last night. Whatever party you support either voted against it, or – in the case of Labour, and your spiel sounds like standard Labour anti-SNP boilerplate – couldn’t even be bothered turning up for the vote.)
If only the SNP were listening to you Richard….there isn’t much evidence that they are or that their anti-austerity stance has any substantial policy behind it. They can’t see beyond conventional approaches to fiscal management. In my opinion their independence “White Paper” would have severely hampered an independent Scotland. I fear that the potential that exists in the SNP holding the balance of power will turn out to be a missed opportunity. If they can stop the replacement of Trident it would have fiscal advantages but this policy does not stray beyond conventional thinking about fiscal management, welcome though it may be.