I sat down with Zack Polanski yesterday, the new leader of the Green Party, for a fascinating discussion on economics and politics. This was my immediate reaction to a discussion where we talked about modern monetary theory, the politics of care, whether UK politics is dominated by one neoliberal party, and where we agree (and disagree) on wealth tax and universal basic income.
For those watching the video, we know it is a bit 'fish-eye'. I am experimenting with an action camera, and I think I had it a bit too close, but the message still seemed worth sharing.
This is the transcript:
I am Richard Murphy. I'm sitting in Shoreditch, right on the Old Street roundabout - Silicon Roundabout, as it is now known, because this is the centre of FinTech in the whole of the UK, apparently. Whether that's a merit or not is a debate for another day.
I have just been recording a podcast with Zack Polanski, who was of course, during the course of this month, elected leader of the Green Party.
He had the most fascinating conversation with me. He was interviewing me. I was clearly not interviewing him. That was the relationship that we entered into, and he was keen to know.
And that was what was so interesting. Here's a politician who's interviewing people because he fundamentally wants to hear what people are thinking.
And I gather from what he said, he's already had a number of people in to be interviewed for this podcast he's producing, and there are going to be more. But, apparently, our conversation was one of the longest they've had, and it focused on key topics, which he showed he understood.
We talked about modern monetary theory.
We talked about what a politics of care might look like.
We talked about what an economy focused on the needs of people and not finance would look like.
We talked about the idea of the single transferable party - the neoliberal party that exists, which dominates UK politics at present, whether it be the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, frankly, the SNP, and to a very large degree, Reform.
We talked about how the neoliberal parties - the single transferable parties - are promoting the idea that wealth must be created for the few and not for the many.
And how, instead, Reform talks about creating division as an alternative to that view.
But, fundamentally, what we talked about was the fact that we need a different politics.
We didn't agree on everything.
We didn't agree on the approach towards wealth taxation. I promote the idea that we can have very easy attitudes towards wealth taxation, where we can secure very large sums of money - much more than the wealth tax could raise - by simply putting into place changes to the existing tax system, whether it be on capital gains tax, maybe inheritance tax, but also for example, bringing in an investment income surcharge on unearned earned income to be the equivalent of national insurance so that we don't have the massive disparity between people who work and people who live off unearned income at present.
We talked about how to reassure people that this was not going to harm the average household in the UK in any way.
We talked about the difficulties of a wealth tax and why I thought they were the eventual endpoint if these taxes did not raise enough and the process of rebalancing the economy demanded yet more from the wealthy, and maybe it will, but that it is not the political start point and narrative to be put forward.
And we talked about universal basic income, which we did not agree on. If there was one thing where we have uncommon ground, this was it.
Zack is committed, as is the Green Party, to a universal basic income. I believe that universal basic services are much more important and that a UBI would be far too disruptive for the economy at present to be able to deliver a sustained process of change that politically he could maintain through a Parliament and continue to win support for the programme. And that to me is really fundamentally important.
So, some slight differences, but what was really clear was that there were many more things in common than we could possibly have anticipated.
He invited me back at the end. Apparently, we had well and truly gone over our limit. It was meant to be half an hour, and I think it was something more like 45 minutes.
But the point is, he was really interested, and I'm quite certain he's genuine.
He does want me back.
He does want to talk about these issues in more depth.
This was a very welcome discussion. Very welcome because it's always fun to talk about these things with people who are interested, but welcome because he is a person who is trying to put these narratives into the public domain, and that to me is a very welcome step in the right direction.
Let's see what happens. We'll share the podcast in due course when it comes out.
He's told us that that's on the agenda for him, so he's keen for publicity.
We are keen on publicity.
We are keen to establish what we have in common and why not?
I'm interested in what is common, and so this was a fascinating visit, and I'm keen to take this further.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
I very much hope that the Green Party talk to you more. I am a member of the party but I always feel when election time comes around, the party’s economic policy lacks credibility to the point that Green interviewees cannot even defend it. I have even seen Caroline Lucas fall apart under scrutiny.
I fear with wealth taxes and universal basic income, the party are making the same mistake. I hope you can play a part in guiding them because what really sets this blog apart (and, to a lesser extent, Gary Stevenson’s) is that it gives intellectual heft to left wing economics that left wing parties have seemed to lack for a long time now.
Let’s see.
Remember the leader does not set Green party policy
As a Green Party member I value the more democratic organisation of the party, but I do think the policy formation process needs to evolve. I hope the current leadership team are able to find a way to do this without moving to the ridiculous situation in the Labour party where conference votes for something the leader can completely ignore. I’m thinking particularly of PR.
It sounds a very productive session Richard. The sight of a party leader actually asking questions – and discussing ideas – is just something they don’t normally do.
He seems to be doing what any party leader would want to do in a thriving democracy – namely to be open to discuss ideas – about the economy and society and to think through the details of what might work to make the country better.
This should be a bare minimum – but Starmer and co’s signature mode of operation is just the opposite – not to discuss, not to be open to ideas . Maybe it is their intellectual insecurity , coupled with their basic top-down authoritarianism.
At last some good news!
I think Polanski stands out for a number of good reasons; he knows what he’s talking about and delivers a convincing argument.
Sounds like there’s a lot of good talking points like an income surcharge on unearned income, UBS – which is a new one on me, but all things that show he’s a breath of fresh air and by implication, The Green Party are people to take seriously.
The problem is, apart from the flat-earthers, you’ve got people of limited intelligence (intelligence/death cult/mass psychosis whatever), who can’t see the wood for the trees – just look at America! I am not placing any bets, but I hope these people are paying attention.
Richard, I’m really pleased that you and Zach have sat down and will hopefully do so again in the future. He seems to genuinely want to talk to people and help them – the more I read about him, the more I like. Good luck – I hope this takes off for both of you.
Look forward to hearing the podcast and interested in where you agreed to differ. You are not alone amongst tax experts in suggesting that there are better ways at taxing extremes of wealth and income than a simple wealth tax. Then having been on a working group looking at UBI, which started with I suspect a majority in favour even if they had not thought it through, we saw three main problems apart from the wholesale change to both tax and benefit systems:
– Politically, voters do not like the idea of people getting ‘something for nothing’
– There are more effective ways of targeting poverty and inequality, which are the root problems
– To be affordable it would not be enough to live on and vice versa
Perversely, Universal Credit used properly could go a long way. As it happens the Tories used it as a tool to cut benefits. It did not have to be that way.
I am surprised more people have not picked up on Universal Basic Services which is much more feasible. Revisiting Beveridge and repairing the damage done by the Tories. Also people should be aware that the far Right have an unhealthy interest in UBI as they see that as an excuse to cut basic services as then people would be able to ‘buy the services themselves’. From private providers of course.
Much to agree with.
” believe that universal basic services are much more important ”
100% agree. The UBI is something for the future, right now people want basic stuff (health service that works, transport, sewage, education etc etc). These are always at the top of the lists of things that people care about.
My concern with the Greens, too middle class, too detached from the Uk citizens that for a range of reasons like/support Deform and fart-rage.
I can hear the reaction now to UBI – “wot give money to people for nowt” (& yes I know – the state already does that – but it is the presentation – the narrative – the story – that matters).
Agreed
I say this on the podcast – when it comes out