I was pleased to read Zach Polanski's first major economics speech, delivered this morning. You can read it here.
There was a great deal to like about this speech. He focused on care, which, of course, pleases me.
He raised issues that have been discussed here often, such as electricity pricing, the Bank of England's failures, and the need to abandon fiscal rules.
He also discussed re-nationalisation of key economic activities as a real political option, and that was welcome.
Thankfully, he also discussed the climate crisis we face and referred to many of the ideas that first saw expression in the Green New Deal reports, of which I was the principal author on every occasion.
Unsurprisingly, I was keen on what he had to say on tax, which was as follows:
So I want to talk about who we're going to tax – and why.
We know that a wealth tax won't fix everything, and no one's ever pretended it would, but it's a good place to start. Implementing a 1% tax on wealth over £10 million and 2% over £1 billion would raise around £15 billion per year – and send a very clear message that those who have accumulated the most money, will pay a little bit more – and get that money flowing through the economy, and benefiting everyone.
For a truly progressive government a wealth tax should be a day one priority.
And to get our economy moving we need to look again at all of the levers we have to pull. That must include equalising Capital Gains Tax with income tax and closing down avoidance loopholes, and expanding National Insurance to cover income from investments as well as earned income.
The framing of his comments on wealth taxation was interesting. He gave it his support, as the Green Party requires him to, but his nod to some of the leading ideas in the Taxing Wealth Report is also very welcome. No one but me has been talking about imposing national insurance on investment income, for example. He is clearly picking up ideas from there.
So, there was much to be pleased about here.
That said, there are also issues to raise. What is interesting about any speech is what is not said, as much as what is included, and a number of key issues were excluded here.
First, although Zach talked about reforms that imply rejection of the neoliberal framework of economic management, he did not suggest an alternative framework, and, in fact, the discussion on tax was a little uncomfortably close to the household analogy in the related press release, even though he says he rejects that framework. An exposition of an alternative macroeconomic framework is going to be required, and it was not present in this speech.
Nor was there a clear explanation of how he would propose to use the power of the state to create money, to regulate, and to direct. The hint that these things might happen was in the speech, but the conceptual framework was not.
And whilst there was much criticism of 'rip-off Britain', quite appropriately, as well as of extractive economic activity, there was no clear indication of what alternative measures were to be put in place. I know the Green Party is keen to replace GDP as a goal, but there was no indication here of what might take its place, including climate sustainability, poverty alleviation, reduced inequality, and greater social inclusion. I think a clear explanation of these points was, perhaps, the most obvious omission.
However, let me not be too nitpicking or negative. This was an excellent start. It laid out a moral framework for action, which was welcome. It made clear that financial considerations cannot be the epicentre of economic management, and that again was welcome. And I cannot help but be pleased that some of the policy proposals that I have made have found their way into this speech.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you for sharing and I agree.
I am heartened by his speech, but at the moment my ballot paper etc., is still on track to be returned to the Council when it comes through my door for forseeable future.
Zack has had a lot of unfair criticism for not discussing economic policy and Rory Stewart was appalling in how he treated him. There isn’t much to disagree with here and it’s about time capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income. Unlike you I’ve not met Zack personally, but he comes across as highly intelligent and engaged in his podcasts and genuinely wanting to improve our country. I too would really chuffed if my ideas were making into Green Party policy. The public are so sick of neoliberalism they are ready to listen to new ideas. It’s good timing given the Greens stand to do really well at May’s local elections and start taking control and running several large councils, with the focus being on whether they can really manage well. Reform have shown they can’t, though many of their councillors had no relevant experience and many Green candidates are better qualified.
Thanks
I really hope the Greens do very well in May. My worry is that Westminster will starve the Green councils of the money they need to deliver effective services for political reasons
My suspicion, when I heard the speech, was that although Zack mentioned a straight wealth tax, and nothing much deeper, was that he was not trying to introduce too much outside of what many people are familiar with. If you mention mmt to the majority of the public they have no real idea of what you’re talking about. And given that the speech was quite long anyway, it probably was considered that getting more technical would just make people switch. Are least that’s my hope.
There is also a Green Party conference coming up at the end of the month and it is this not Zack that determines party policy. Zack can talk in generalisims and about agreed po.icy,but he can’t unilaterally decide policy. The current method of policy determination is probably not practical now the party is gaining traction and more likely to have government influence,but I don’t think it will ever allow the kind of back tracking that Starmer has been able to do.
I have seen the policy proposal on economics
I believe its following the foot-in-the-door technique, it’s best to not go full on into theories that, while obviously true, does not align with mainstream economics, lest more media paints the party as radical and “like Reform UK”. Privately, he’s probably a staunch believer of MMT, but publicly it’s best to imply it but not fully say it due to reasons I’ve previously stated. I want to see this party win, I want to see a transformation into accepting MMT and how an economy should function.
Yeah this is how I saw it too. Zack needs to get people to trust him on the economy before he can turn their world upside down (or… the right way up).
I almost feel like there was a verbal winking going on to followers of Funding the Future. I’ve also heard him mention how we need a Politics of Care more than once. Where else could he possibly have heard that?
What’s important I guess is that these ideas win inside the Green party. I am of the belief that they are going to form a government sooner or later, and it would be a terrible shame if they set themselves up to fail as Labour have done. Signs are that they wont.
nit picking.
Or highlighting , he knows a man who can help him out with some of those issues ☺️
🙂
Richard, some of the seed you have been sowing for years, has fallen on good ground. May the harvest be tenfold, thirtyfold, a hundredfold.
You are encouraged, and so you should be.
Thanks
Thanks for everything you’ve done and are doing to help develop the Green Party’s economics policy Richard.
It’s going to be so important if we are to keep growing at elections in the coming years. We must be able to communicate it confidently and clearly to the public, in a way that comes across as responsible and deliverable… as well as caring.
Regards…Bob
Thanks, Bob
I agree the speech was excellent. Clearly it is a start at framing a coherent overall Green Party economic policy that could change the UK into a caring society. On the whole I am happy now that policy items are now nailed to the wall (note the wall is still being built). I was particularly heartened to hear the policy on housing and rent control.
I really think we are at a cross roads and that fence sitting is now not an option. Sitting on fences only leads to saw bottoms! Zack also highlighted the governments duplicitous Middle East stance that is both cowardly and truly wicked – nobody with a conscience could support Labour ever again. Not one resignation! The time has come to join the Greens, the only party in England that cares! Its the time to be counted!
A 1% tax on multi millionaires and 2% on billionaires? That’s what the rich are fighting tooth and nail to avoid, up to and including enabling fascism!? It’s pathetic. We, the general have been losing a similar percentage of our wealth annually, likely more. Why are they more important?
I’m not sure the rich are “fighting tooth and nail” to avoid a wealth tax. There’s a group of them calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires UK” who propose 10 tax reforms to raise £60 billion for public services. As a director and shareholder of a number of limited companies I always elected, perfectly legitimately, to take dividends where possible rather than salary to save tax, but I never felt comfortable about it, and was purely being prudent. In may case I wasn’t even in the top 10% of earners, of course, and I suspect I might have had a different perspective if I was.
Note how they are called Patriotic Millionaires, and not Patriotic Billionaires.
I think it’s disheartening that Zack made no mention of MMT
It’s condescending to think that the public cannot understand it and therefore to make no attempt to explain it.
Covid showed clearly that gov can find money when they decide it’s important as they do for defence spending when required.
If the Green conference makes no progress on this there seems little reason to vote green.
Your Party might show some better understanding – the conference had an excellent lunchtime session on it – but candidates for the ruling committee did not mention MMT There have as yet been no policy proposals or decisions.
On the other hand – Zack doesn’t even have to mention MMT to be trashed for it by the mainstream press – see the quote below from today’s Guardian. Although “MMT” has entered the mainstream lexicon it still isn’t reported accurately and as demonstrated by the quote below, misunderstood and used as a point of ridicule. For me this shows Zack was wise in how he pitched what he did, and what he chose to leave out.
Quote:
“That [fiscal referees] would be a significant shift, and might cause market anxiety, but steers well short of modern monetary theory, which Polanski has previously been accused of flirting with, and which suggests governments can simply print money.”
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/18/zack-polanski-greens-economic-policy-reeves-taxes-labour
Total bollocks (a technical term) from the Guardian
A pretty ropey and tendentious Guardian piece by someone called Heather Stuart illustrates the problem:
“That would be a significant shift, and might cause market anxiety, but steers well short of modern monetary theory, which Polanski has previously been accused of flirting with, and which suggests governments can simply print money.”
(my emphasis)
Heather Stewart, as usual, is writing total nonsense
Read the comment I posted some hours ago. It would be small gestures that go further into MMT. His speech does reject the household analogy, but he won’t fully state it lest media outlets would clip it and say that the greens will bankrupt England, all the while the current government is bankrupting the people.
Given that we are (sadly!) unlikely to get a General Election before 2029, there’s time to refine the Greens’ economic policy and its fundamental basis; and spread the word about MMT; then see that in media communications and finally a manifesto.
I’m pretty sure Zack is ‘on board’ with basic MMT ideas (and that it’ll get into the policy foundations: but as mentioned by others, the policy-approval process means that Conference (probably the Autumn 2026 one) needs to have a good body of members participating who understand it, to the extent they need to see it as valid, not muddy the waters with other defective ideas, and get it passed into policy). I met Zack briefly at a showing at UCL in 2024 of “Finding the Money” – the film featuring Stephanie Kelton, with contributions from Warren Mosler and others (and some hilarious ‘gotchas’ from various politicians and central bankers and economists, who were stunned or said silly things in response to questions that MMT answers) – he seemed to ‘get it’ in the post-film panel discussion.
Much to agree with
I have to say, while I like a lot of what he does have to say, the entire debt referees proposal which I can only seem comes from the NEF is a bit rubbish. The debt of the UK is always sustainable, and has been for centuries. If you are making a body to assess the debt, you are either making a pointless rubber stamp factory, or you are assessing debt in ways which don’t actually make sense in the framework of the fiscal system.
I’d instead propose, if you really want some sort of economic referees, a body whose responsibility is constantly assessing the multiplier effects of recipients of government funding. The Office of Government Investment Research – pronounced ogre as an acronym. They would then assess on a rolling basis, in response to targets established in the policy which approved initial funding, whether the level of funding being made is sufficient to meet the expected multiplier effects, insufficient, or too great. This would then have knock-on advisory effects to government when it comes to policy review down the line. It might also call for a change in the way projects are funded by gov – from a model where all funding is given in one major batch set out in policy, to a model where there is a major funding provided at the start, followed by follow-up funding rounds where based on those predictions additional funding can be increased or reduced based on further research and analysis.
I also think chasing peanuts with a wealth tax, while politically popular, is ultimately a waste of time. The annual budget is around 1.4tn. What does recovering 15bn mean in the grand scheme? Very little. How much work and political strife will it involve to get it going? Probably a lot, potentially enough to significantly hamper the electoral chances of the party when we look at past, recent GEs. Agree wholly that NI and CGT are much more likely to have desirable impacts to managing our money due to this. I’d drop the wealth tax entirely.
I have to agree – this idea makes little sense to me either, as presented.
OGIR (Ogre) makes sense – monitor the multiplier effect. Great idea, could be very revealing.
I noted the phrase ” governments can simply print money” being used to undermine the credibility of the economic narrative especially” simply print” rather than the more neutral and accurate “create.”This conjures up an image of irresponsibly producing banknotes which have increasingly little value. Of course this is nonsense but it is as misleading and dangerous as the household analogy which Zac rebutted.
I think a priority must be to state constantly that all UK governments create the money the question is what is it then used for.
Agreed
Their minds will be really blown once they read the 2014 quarterly bulletin from the Bank of England that explains that every time a commercial bank makes a loan, it literally creates (prints) money!
🙂
I saw a couple of clips from Zack’s speech including the end of the speech where he poses three questions: how do we make life more affordable for everyone, how do we back the caring majority against the wealthy elite, and how do we protect the planet for future generations? I commented that the answers to these questions could be found in Richard Murphy’s Alternative 2025 Budget, which I hope will adopted by the Green Party as its future economic policy.
Noted
Their policy prices is long, and complicated.
While I am pleased that the Greens are doing well in Englandshire, it bothers me that the Scottish Greens don’t have the same profile. I suspect that their preoccupation with gender politics is the main reason for their lack of popularity, but their inability to put across their other ideas also seems to hamper them. I do note that Zack does not seem to engage much with his Scottish counterparts, which is probably pretty smart politically. A charismatic leader with some smart ideas would certainly help, but it’s a bit late for the May elections.
Agreed.