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
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.
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 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.