So, that's Christmas done....and a rest was taken.
Now it's time to think. That's the best bit about not working! Work really does get in the way of being constructive.
What was apparent to me almost as soon as I turned off the day job antennae is that now really is the time for the Green New Deal.
The origins and meaning fo the Green New Deal are discussed in this Vox article, but it recognises that the idea developed simultaneously in the UK and USA. I'd argue we have kept the flame burning brighter here. I would also make clear it was not my idea alone -I was one of the Green New Deal Group who created the idea here - my contribution being largely on tax and Green Infrastructure Quantitative Easing.
The real point is that now the idea has regained support in the USA it has begun to gain support, quite rapidly, as this research from Yale shows:
I stress, this is US data; the sample is not that big and all opinion polls are open to doubt. But the analysis looks to be exactly what would be expected across the political spectrum and that suggests that o0verall the answers may be reliable as well. That left-hand column is especially encouraging.
Labour has noticed. This is from The Guardian on Christmas Eve:
[I]n an interview with the Guardian, [Rebecca Long-Bailey] said the crisis was also an opportunity to bring well-paid, highly skilled jobs and economic regeneration to some of the most marginalised communities in the country.
“We have to tackle climate change in a really radical way, the evidence is crystal clear,” said Long-Bailey. “But this is also a wonderful opportunity to invest in those towns and cities that have felt neglected for a very long time … this has to be — and will be — a genuine transformation of the economy.”
Labour's plan has echoes the Green New Deal being advocated by leftwing Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders in the US.
This does not appear to be an accident. James Meadway, who is John McDonnell's economics adviser posted this tweet this morning:
@tonywestonuk @KimDriver11 @RichardJMurphy Oh something like a Green New Deal would be excellent. See what Becky says here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/24/labour-government-tackle-climate-change
Candidly, the language used by Rebecca Long-Bailey is to close to the 'jobs in every constituency' line that Colin Hines and I have, in particular, been pushing for some time for the coincidence to be just chance. I welcome that.
This is, indeed, the time for the Green New Deal.
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:
Hmmm………….
Who knows – maybe in Labour’s newish ranks there are people trying to get Corbyn to take back seat in order to let the ‘doers’ or pragmatists have a go. It can happen – and should.
Sometimes leadership is about letting go in order to generate innovation or problem solving.
Fingers crossed!!
Those polling figures tend to confirm the impression that support and awareness is currently much stronger in the U.S. (thus far).
As regards Labour (and McDonnell in particular) now playing catch-up, I am reminded of that the Green New Deal was always part of the “Corbynomics” idea and I am also beginning to sense that the pendulum may be swinging back as it rightly should on that account.
Perhaps that was always bound to be the case.
I can hope so
My gut instinct is that there’s a growing and significantly increased level of interest in the GND and indeed progressive politics in general. I certainly hope so. Maybe it’s a logical reaction to the highly visible far right gains – from the Philippines to Hungary via Brazil, Turkey, Italy etc. in addition to the global media noise created by Trump & Brexit. While there are far too many current reasons to be pessimistic, we should be encouraged by and concentrate energy on the symbiotic progressive movements across the globe. Indicative of this is the recently (2015) formed Australian Real Democracy Party which (unsurprisingly) embraces MMT – https://realdemocracyparty.net.au/Policy/Economy.
The current (old) order is unquestionably dying. Nothing stays the same forever. But seeds of radical socio-economic change can take from decades to generations before they show visible signs of sprouting and becoming strong, healthy organisms. For the avant-garde progress is always painfully slow. There will of course be continuing and potentially dangerous chaos in the interregnum. However, with it’s philosophical foundations pretty much in place, I believe the ‘new progressive order’ is firmly under way with structural frameworks starting to produce tangible results, viz.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez + Bernie Sanders in the USA and Green successes in Germany & Belgium (https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/after-successes-in-germany-and-belgium-greens-set-eyes-on-italy).
Informative and inspirational blogs like yours, Richard, along with others spreading similar messages, are crucial to generating and helping to create a critical mass which eventually reaches a tipping point for the final demise of the old order. As I reflect back over the past 40 years, I’m sure we’re on the right side of history although it doesn’t feel like it most of the time.
Just trying to spread some positive news as we approach another New Year. Prost! Santé! Saluti! Sláinte!
Indeed!
Well, that’s a vote winner for me. Don’t know why they dropped it last time. If they are serious it will be the first time I’ve ever voted Labour. Bring it on.
Hi Richard,
What I find particularly pleasing about these proposals is that they turn the big scary threat of climate change into something that people can be positive about.
It would in part be substituting local human capital and inventiveness for the (relatively) simple process of digging a hole in the ground and burning what comes out. In this way it would be able to bolster true entrepreneurship instead of rewarding an industry that extracts wealth by exploiting the earth, and in many countries is closely associated with corruption/cronyism.
One negative note is that the extent of capture of the political class by special interests (as in other areas like gun control) means that that in the US it is difficult for the opinion of the people on energy policy to be acted on. If anything I would think that the fossil fuel lobby has deeper pockets than the gun lobby when it comes to influencing policy.
I came across the following Antony Wycher comment in The Guardian recently:-
“Corbyn the Clown gets it all wrong.
He thinks it is the EU that is stopping his wonderful socialist plans to renationalise and give financial aid to industries, maybe he is as thick as I have been saying in other posts for some time now as I have briefed him on many occasions
The root of the EU rules comes from the WTO specifically the WTO Subsidies and Counterveiling Measures Rule SCM, this has been explained to him by myself on numerous occasions he doesn’t understand it at all.
Here is the document that came into being in 1994, so if you had nationalised industries in 1994 then they were time exempt.
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf
The parts to look at are in the definition of Subsidies parts (i) which stops State Aid and (iii) which stops renationalisation ….gas, water and electricity are Goods and Rail is a Service
The relevant text is here
==========================
AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
Members hereby agree as follows:
PART I: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
Definition of a Subsidy
1.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:
(a)(1) there is a financial contribution by a government or any public body within the territory
of a Member (referred to in this Agreement as “government”), i.e. where:
(i) a government practice involves a direct transfer of funds (e.g. grants, loans,
and equity infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e.g. loan
guarantees);
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g.
fiscal incentives such as tax credits);
(iii) a government provides goods or services other than general infrastructure.
===================
Infrastructure is fine that is why Railtrack was taken back into public ownership but the Rail Operating Companies? Only allowed on temporary basis’
Corbyn knows about this as he has been briefed on it but because, if you actually think about it, the WTO stops Corbyns version of Socialism he refuses to believe it.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/27/four-reasons-jeremy-corbyn-wrong-eu-state-aid#comments
Apart from the fact this is Marco Fante territory believing Antony Wycher gets it all wrong, and apart from the fact China has been breaking WTO subsidy rules for years but keeping it well hidden how does a Green Deal fare in regard to breaking WTO or EU trading rules? Is it all classifiable as contributing to national infrastructure and therefore appropriate for government intervention? Does Corbyn actually know what he’s talking about in regard to the intermeshing of EU and WTO state aid rules hampering the implementation of socialism?
Read that last Guardian article
The GND has no problems…