Relieved of Debt

When the decision finally came that the Green Party would be adopting a policy that cuts the link between money creation and the parallel creation of debts it came as a huge relief. Following more than a decade of pondering, discussing, educating and campaigning the party's activists were convinced that they could believe in the possiblity of public credit creation to end the centuries of capitalist privatised money and replace it with money produced for the common good. The motion was passed on Sunday at the annual conference in Brighton by 110 votes to 90.

Key to the change of heart of the Green Party have been two members of Kent Green Party, both of whom might be described as 'outraged of Tonbridge'. Brian Leslie has been a campaigner for monetary reform all his life and he recently recruited to the cause Andrew Waldie, who is a tall, softly-spoken accountant with a Scottish accent - exactly the sort of person you want to be on your side in a debate about money. From this most unlikely centre of radicalism has come what Andrew called the final part of the trinity of radical economics policies, taking its place alongside Land Value Tax and Citizens Income on an economic platform that has the potential to liberate working people from the oppression of wage slavery.

I am reproducing Andrew Waldie's proposal speech in full here: read and rejoice!

'This motion strikes a blow at the heart of financial capitalism by removing from banks their power to create money - and restoring the supply of our national currency to democratic and public control. Through their lending, banks create 97% of the money we use in the form of credit.  This gives them enormous power to direct the economy and shape our society - without any form of democratic accountability.

'Our banking system is also unstable.  History shows that debt-fuelled booms and speculative bubbles inevitably turn to bust.  Governments bail out banks that have become “too big to fail” – and the price of these bail outs are savage cuts in public services. The burden of servicing the debt on which our money is based also increases inequality and drives unsustainable growth.  These are issues which are of fundamental concern to the Green Party.

'Simply bringing the banking system under "Social Control" is not enough - more radical reform is required.  Leading green economists have advocated reform based on the principles set out in this motion. The motion avoids the fundamental conflict of interest that has corrupted the current banking system.  It separates the power to create money from the power to decide how that money is first used.  A National Monetary Authority – NMA - appointed by Parliament, would manage the supply of national currency.  Its decisions would be protected by law from influence by financial or other special interests.

'Elected governments would decide how currency created by the NMA is first spent.  This currency would then circulate freely at all levels of society.  Saving and borrowing would continue.  Local currencies could circulate alongside the national currency.  The major benefit of the system we propose is that people would no longer need to go into debt to keep money circulating in the economy.

'Over a transition period of 20 years, the NMA would convert the stock of debt-based money by issuing the same amount of national currency to the Government as additional revenue.  The value from transferring the endowment of our currency to public control has been estimated at £50 billion per year – that’s enough to fund the construction of 300,000 new homes – for each year of the transition period.

'Restoring the supply of our currency to public control would deliver a huge prize that could finance the transformation of our society.  Today, we have the opportunity to commit our party to seizing this prize by passing this motion.'

.

Tweet

Welfare Cap Will Never Fit Green Head

The electoral timetable is more pronounced than ever since this government introduced fixed-term parliaments. So, two years out from the next general election, Labour have entered the phase of their political messaging chart that is labelled 'reinforce core messages', no longer feeling able to get away with keeping from us their darkest, inner thoughts.

If their approach to welfare is anything to judge by then it is no surprise that they have delayed revealing their true colours for as long as possible. In his speech last week Ed Miliband made clear that, not only is he going to abandon Labour's traditional commitment to the principle of universalism--which he himself has defended eloquently since becoming his party's leader--but they are also going to accept the draconian and illogical welfare cap, a concept introduced into policy-making by the arch-deacon of austerity George Osborne.

The concept itself is oppressive, as though people made choices about being ill or growing old, as if we could somehow make a decision not to become unemployed or to need help in supporting our children. Of course it is these implications that appeal most to Tory policy-makers who have no compassion for those in need, but that Labour should also support them is disgraceful. Most importantly the concept of a welfare cap forces the rationing of funds for the sorts of services that a civilised society demands and, given that the most needy are least able to fight for their rights, it ensures a miserable future for the most vulnerable of our citizens.

As discussed in a recent paper I co-wrote for the Green House thinktank, the most fundamental questions about social policy are about the ownership and distribution of resources. Traditional socialist parties would have accepted this and based their policy on it, but the ability to connect wealth accumulation and the need for redistribution appears to have deserted all but the Greens. Two policies that it draws immediately into the discussions are a land tax and a citizens' income scheme. Together these form a nexus which ensures that those who have acquired assets are forced to share the value of them with the population as a whole: assets are a social resource not a private benefit.

From conservative Switzerland comes hope that the Citizens' Income policy may soon be the subject of serious political debate in a leading democratic nation. Campaigners for a basic income have achieved the 100,000 signatures on their petition which triggers an automatic referendum on the issue within two years. And if Switzerland's particular approach to accumulating wealth is problematic for you, perhaps we could turn our attention to Norway, where oil wealth was not considered as private property, as it was in the UK. The government took a profitable stake in the industry on behalf of its citizens and also taxed private companies' earnings. The result is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, commonly known as the Oil Fund, which will pay for the pensions of Norway's citizens.

.

Tweet

Hell fire or a bottle of Bulgarian red on the beach?

The early industrial workers were faced with a stark choice: a joyless life of work or an eternity of hellfire. It is unsurprising that so many took Kierkegaard's way out and struggled to keep a faith in eternal life. In a similar way many lives are being stolen today by an economic system which finds its own supportive ideology in the forced-work ethos of New Labour.

Like the beliefs of their Protestant antecedents, Labour's apparent belief that work is a universal panacea to solve all our social and economic problems can only have its source in faith. It has no basis in either fact or experience. As Brother Gordon intones from his postmodern, designer pulpit to the faithful journalists, the glint in his eye gives a clue to the messianic origin of his political project.

In fact the obsession with work pervaded Christianity for only a small part of its 2000-year history. Despite the odd desperate Biblical reference to his training as a carpenter, it is obvious that Jesus Christ himself was the prototype hippy. It was Jesus who advised his disciples to "Consider the lilies of the field; they toil not, neither do they spin". He spent most of his adult life telling stories, discussing the meaning of life, begging food from friends; and he had long hair and wore sandals.

The problem with religious commitment, however, is that it does not allow this sort of argument. We are not permitted to take issue with our Prime Minister about how we would like to spend our short span here on earth, either we take up our oars on the slave-galley of the economy or we are wicked sinners to be cast into outer darkness. Like Torquemada, enforcing belief in an insane ideology with the fire of the Inquisition, to be acceptable in New Labour Britain we must spout the litany of holy work: yes, I enjoy my job; since beings made redundant I have spent every hour on my bicycle seeking work; I don't enjoy being unemployed; I wish I could spend all my waking hours licking up toxic waste like you do (melody available on request).

The political commitment to work for all is taking on totalitarian dimensions. It is becoming almost blasphemy to suggest that we might not want to work, might not enjoy work, might rather sit on the beach and listen to the sea, or even (out come the garlic and crucifixes) prefer to stay in bed with a bottle of Bulgarian red. But New Labour ideology, like all religious ideology, is no diversity. Those who use their own energy to bolster an impossible belief cannot afford to listen to opposition. They will not enter the arena of rational debate. If it makes Blair, Brown and their brethren feel good to work hard all day then not I would not wish to stop them. What I would challenge is their right to impose their choice on the rest of us.

My own view is that most of the work that is carried out in a modern, advertising-led, consumption-based economy is both environmentally and socially destructive. Would we really rather that the uncountable unemployed all found jobs in the factories of transnational corporations making cars? Aside from the corporations' profits, who benefits from their work? Wouldn't they be better off living on a citizens' income and enjoying their lives? As I sit patiently at my postmodernised "work-station", watching my life tick away on the office clock, I think venomously of this crusade for jobs. And I rage against the New Jerusalem Labour has led us into.

Tweet