The Guardian has reported this morning that:
Momentum, the grassroots group set up to support Jeremy Corbyn, is directing its campaigning muscle into urging Labour to adopt a series of “radical and transformational” pledges in its next manifesto, including a green new deal and the four-day week.
It adds:
Momentum wants to use its 40,000-strong membership to influence the direction of policy on other issues.
But more worryingly notes:
It also hopes to act as a bulwark against the influence of MPs from the social democratic wing of the Labour party.
Becky Boumelha, a Momentum spokesperson, said: “Radical and transformational policy can't only come from the halls of Westminster. It must come from and draw upon the collective wisdom of Labour's half a million members, who live and work in every community across the country. This is especially true when Tom Watson's new group of MPs are intent upon watering down and blocking Labour's most transformational policies.”
This, for me, leads to the obvious question of how radical the Green New Deal really is?
I admit to surprise that the idea is now so commonplace when once I thought it only really existed on this blog. I am delighted that it is. But what is so radical about wanting to save the planet for future generations? Or building social housing that is carbon neutral (or better). And transforming transport so that we get rid of the curse of the car as we know it now? Let alone wanting to create jobs in every constituency in the country? And to make every building a power station so that we can leave fossil fuels in the ground, where we now know they belong?
I genuinely do not see this as radical. I see this as an idea whose time has come. I see it as what is glaringly obviously needed. I really cannot see why Tom Watson would not want to support it. Nor can I see why the LibDems, SNP, or others who think they are on the left might wish to do so.
I can see that the parties of vested interests might wish to oppose it. Those whose well being is invested in burning carbon might not want a Green New Deal. That I accept. And those people we simply have to oppose. There is no choice but to do so. And if that is political, so be it. But I would not cast it as such: survival is not a matter of left or right. Survival is one of the most primal instincts we have. And opposing those who stand in the way of our chance of doing so is simply necessary, wherever the objection comes from.
In this case I'd make a plea. Please do not make supporting the Green New Deal a test of left-wing credibility. Of course it is about making a better world for us all. But precisely because it is so important it has to be a policy for all, and not an issue for internal party politicking. That threatens the goal. And we haven't got time for that.
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:
I’m a little surprised you focus on the antics of Momentum. These are small beer compared to the energy and climate change policies being showcased today by Mr. Corbyn and Ms. Long-Bailey. The renationalisation proposals appear to provide the institutional and organisational backbone. The top two tiers in terms of a National Energy Agency taking over electricity and gas transmission and Regional Energy Agencies taking over electricity and gas distribution are well-defined and provide almost universal coverage for electricity and sufficient coverage for the national gas supply area. But the next two tiers in terms of Municipal Energy Agencies and Energy Communities are largely self-defining and have the potential to generate a damaging lack of co-ordination and no end of chaos.
Although it is popular, there is no good reason for taking the existing energy network companies in to public ownership. It is true they have been regulated ineptly and have run rings around the regulator, but the answer is effective use of the regulatory powers that exist. Labour’s proposal to compensate shareholders with bonds having a face value well below the market value of the shares will generate a goldmine for lawyers and accountants, delay the whole process and cause unwelcome unintended consequences.
In addition, those on the left who favour renationalisation have a strange belief that the renationalised companies will become entirely self-financing. And that is true if consumers are forced to pay up-front (in the form of much higher final prices) to part-finance investment that should be financed by the owner, i.e., the state. People don’t have to look too far to see how household and small business electricity and gas consumers will be ripped off under this type of regime. The electricty and gas networks in Ireland are under public ownership and network charges, and, therefore, final prices, are among the highest in the EU because consumers are being forced to pay extra to part-finance investment that should be financed by the owner.
The GND has never discussed nationalisation
I do not see it as in any way a pre-requisite for the GND
I agree with this:
Although it is popular, there is no good reason for taking the existing energy network companies in to public ownership. It is true they have been regulated ineptly and have run rings around the regulator, but the answer is effective use of the regulatory powers that exist.
Thank you. I agree. Renationalisation is completely separate from the GND. My point is that the apparently unthought-through, instinctive obsession of Labour’s high command with reversing some of the Thatcher governments’ flagship privatisations (and, perhaps, with resurrecting the original Clause IV) runs the risk of either swamping or undermining eminently sensible policies designed to tackle fuel poverty, inequality and climate change.
I have just posted on this point
“Please do not make supporting the Green New Deal a test of left-wing credibility,” and of course US Republicans oppose such measures because they see them as left-wing — disregarding the perils that humanity faces.
“Compared with the 1980s, an area of ice the size of India is missing from the Arctic ice cap,” says Professor Jem Bendell of Cumbria University in ‘Deep Adaptation’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daRrbSl1yvY at 9.30). Also, when the Arctic goes ice-free (less than 15%) in summer, as it will soon, we’ll see weather changes on a new scale. The lowest sea ice extent was in 2012. This year is lower http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/100/?fbclid=IwAR0_p29gfZOMVMBgUKmFYmWAP7hgczufFlYVyo5PMyio3aYqlVe6aMejOHI
This is precisely why I say this is bigger then petty politicking
Hello
I following up a previous email to explore the possibilities of you coming to talk to our YesHighland group in a joint presentation with Tim Rideout.
I had IT gremlins last week hence the follow -up.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Iain Bruce
Iain
You provided email does not work
Please email me
Contact details are all on the site
Richard
A little side note on green transport.
Any blog readers north of Perth in Scotland may well be aware that the A9 is currently being made into a dual carriageway from Perth to Inverness.
My fear with this is that the frequent “Tesco Train” that uses the Highland Main Line may take advantage of the new road.
Oil tanks from Lairg, timber from Kinbrace, grain from distilleries in Invergordon and Kennethmont have already been lost to road transport. If you ever travel on these lines, have a look at the old disused sidings in these areas to see what once was.
Good point in current times, but that should resolve itself in carbon terms as road transport switches out of carbon. There’s a counter factor though – road upgrade is also facilitating and lowering cost of transport South to North – that should lead to better supplies into Inverness and that should reduce demand/need for the trek South.
More concerning to my mind is the lack of parallel investment in the rail line North out of Perth, the actual line as opposed to rolling stock. It’s a sitter for additional track to allow trains to pass each other and also for electrification. There’s a certain absurdity in transporting more renewables South on the Denny line, which is paralleling the tracks for extended periods, and not using that power locally for the rail services. And frankly I’d be doing that all the way to Thurso/Wick – plenty of renewables up there too.
Also be nice if they built the rail extension to Ullapool that the Victorians wanted to – would instantly become another of the world’s great train jouneys. Would make a massive difference to the Western Isles, get rid of tedious bus travel and could take a good few cars and lorries off that road too. If we were the Swiss or Italians the mountains wouldn’t bother us – we’d simply go through them – takes a while, but it’s all do-able.
I don’t need to see all that happening today, does take time, but where are the plans? Where is the ambition? Poverty of ambition being the greatest poverty all. You will never do, what you do not first dream of doing.
I approve!
Including the last sentiment
[…] I have said in a comment on this blog this […]