The Guardian has noted today that:
Labour is to begin courting regional mayors and councils over its plans for £250bn of transport and infrastructure spending, promising to prioritise projects that boost productivity and help the rest of the country catch up with London.
Speaking to the Guardian, Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the party would open a series of consultations with local leaders over the coming months on its proposals to help close the regional divide.
One of the first policy proposals I ever wrote was for 'People's Pensions' based on local authority bonds. With Colin Hines and Alan Simpson, then an MP and close associate of John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn I argued that we needed to:
create an entirely new investment framework, completely free of the stock market, to provide a secure and safe place in which an individual or company pension scheme can invest to provide for a pension in retirement.
This was possible, we argued, if:
People's Pension [were] backed by People's Pension Funds. These entirely new funds [would] be created to provide a way in which pension contributions can be invested in the building of new public infrastructure projects such as:
- schools and universities
- hospitals and other health facilities
- transport systems (including railways, trams and bus networks)
- social housing
- sustainable energy systems
And to organise these investments:
A People's Pension Fund [would] be specifically linked to a:
1. government department
2. local authority
3. other statutory authority e.g. an NHS Trust or an education authority
4. charity or other public not for profit body undertaking public work e.g. housing trusts
This organisation will be called the “sponsor” of the People's Pension Fund. The People's Pension Fund will raise the money needed to build the infrastructure projects that these bodies need in order for them to undertake their work.
This would mean that a person wishing to make a pension contribution in this safe and secure way would, we suggested:
be able to choose between investments in the type of services they think desirable and/or in the area/region of their choice.
Quite specifically we argued that:
The possibility of People's Pension Funds being promoted for separate localities or regions would be strongly encouraged, especially for health, housing and education services. Local People's Pension Funds would increase the identification between the person saving and the asset they had helped fund, and so promote the ideas of:
1. common ownership
2. localisation
3. ethical investment
4. sustainable local communities
5. provision of a resource base that people might need now and in their retirement (such as hospital facilities) from the savings they have made during their working life.
Roll on a few years and People's QE developed this idea with the backing that state underwriting of these bonds was possible, without (I would contend) any chance of EU objection.
The ideas all exist. Labour just has to sell them.
And this would be so vastly more useful than the absurd NEST pension scheme that now forces people to waste their savings for their future in the stock exchange for no net gain to society at large but at massive profit to the City.
We still need a pension revolution: I would still argue that this is the way to do it, simply by linking four good ideas (local authority and other bonds to end the curse of PFI, pension reform, localisation and PQE) together.
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:
Thank you, on the front page of City AM (Friday 20th) an article describes a lecture at the BOE which was given by Mr B Bragg not an economist. The response by one attendee Anthony Evans was “Braggs views on QE are a combination of dangerous and misguided”. I have not seen a copy of the lecture but on the radio before Mr Bragg mentioned some of the points you make above. Are the comments on the front page of City AM, an attempt by the establishment to scare people like me?
In a word, yes
Anthony Evans is a right wing think tank spokesperson with all the baggage that goes with it
Anything that leads to state activity is dangerous in his opinion
So People’s QE is, by default
City AM is a fundamentalist rag. If they still used newspaper for chips it would have a use. They don’t, so it hasn’t
Hi Richard
I’m surprised to be described as a “right wing think tank spokesperson”. That’s news to me!
In fact, I’m a tenured professor and my comments were made in that capacity.
My views on QE are shaped purely by my scholarly work on the subject. Unlike you I’m not funded by vested interests.
Regards
Anthony.
I was not aware that City, University of London was a vested interest
And are you saying you have not worked closely with the IEA now?
Depends what you mean by “working closely” – I guess I’ve attended a few of their events. I think you were a speaker at one of them.
You have served on a committee for them
Have you forgotten?
Indeed, one riddled with disagreements about QE.
Anthony J. Evans says:
“I’m surprised to be described as a “right wing think tank spokesperson”. That’s news to me!”
Looking at your biog on the Adam Smith Institute page, Professor Evans , to describe you thus would be an easy mistake to make.
“In fact, I’m a tenured professor and my comments were made in that capacity.”
Cuts no ice with me I’m afraid. Professors profess many things and they sometimes profess BS. Peer review was invented to weed out the crap, but it isn’t foolproof as I’m sure you would be quick to admit.
“My views on QE are shaped purely by my scholarly work on the subject. ”
In that case you should have a clear idea of why the Brown/Darling QE worked so well to avert complete disintegration of the global financial system, and why it has done so little to resuscitate the real economy since.
If you have serious criticism of the idea that QE can be effectively applied to the wider economy, outside the confines of the financial sector and asset holders, I for one would like to hear it.
Hi Andy
I recently published a policy proposal relating to QE, you can see more here:
https://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-boe-must-abandon-inflation-targeting-to-avoid-another-banking-crisis-says-new-report
Yes, it was published by the ASI. So note that (contra Richard’s false claims) they are operating as a spokesperson for my scholarly work, not the other way around!
I have already made one response to pedantry in the last few minutes. Another may leave me out of stock.
And as for an Austrian solution……I despair, whilst resting my case
Anthony J Evans
I’m not expecting much from an a analysis that assumes there is such a thing as a free market.
And I rather thought Robert Kennedy summed up the utility of GDP fairly concisely in 1968,
But, I’ll have a look.
Thanks for the link.
Great, feel free to get in touch directly if you have any feedback.
[…] was once known) by any other name, pretty much exactly as I proposed it in various forms (I even summarised the 2003 origins of this idea on the blog yesterday afternoon, by chance). I am, of course, pleased that people are now realising that this really will be the only game in […]
Well that’ll give the MSM something more productive to fret about than spurious antisemitic witch hunting.