WATERMELON Conference Newsletter of Green Left Autumn 2023:: online edition
watermelon
Conference Newsletter of Green Left Autumn 2023
CAPITALISM KILLS, TIME TO TRANSFORM POLITICS!
Karl Marx argued
that capitalism kills. recently, it has become clear that Marx correctly concluded
that capitalism creates a ‘metabolic rift’ between humans and the natural
world: on which our survival depends. Like
Cerberus capitalism kills in three main ways,
‘Austerity’ The first of capitalism’s Cerberus-heads is ‘austerity’ – or an inflation-charged ‘Cost of Living’ Crisis. It is a deliberate accumulation of wealth from the 99% to the already grossly-rich 1%. This can be by cuts in welfare and social benefits, and a regressive taxation policy – or by letting prices rip whilst preventing workers from maintaining real wages.
A report from University College London, compared trends in mortality before 2010, with the years after. It concluded that, the austerity that the Tories and LibDems had deliberately chosen to impose had resulted in 120,000+ deaths. One of the authors, Professor Lawrence King of the Applied Health Research Unit at Cambridge University, said: “– it is bad economics, but good class politics. […]a public health disaster..” The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 2022, estimated that, by 2019, more than 330,000 excess deaths in the UK were linked to austerity. , These reports are supported by projections by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) that, such policies would result in over 1 million ‘excess’ deaths by 2058:
The Climate and Ecological
Crises A
new way to condemn millions to death is by pursuit of profit., The second head
of capitalism’s Cerberus is‘ Climate and Ecological Crises.’
July 2023 has seen numerous broken
climate records and ‘extreme weather’ events. A joint statement
released by the European Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) and
the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) confirmed that the first three
weeks of July have been the hottest three-week period ever recorded, and
predicted that the month will be the hottest ever . Among the catastrophic
consequences are wildfires in Canada, large portions of Southern Europe, the
USA and other regions have experienced floods and heat health-alerts..
There has been a simultaneous
marine heatwave: The surface temperatures of the North Atlantic
Ocean became 5C hotter than normal. The extent of Antarctic sea ice shrank to
about 1m.sq.mls below average his threatens coral systems and the plankton with
mass die-off, and thus, threatens
the world’s entire foodchain The lack of Antarctic sea ice also may cause flooding of coastal areas This
has been caused by capitalism –with its largely-unregulated burning of coal,
oil and natural gas. Although climate scientists such as Kevin Anderson
warn that continuing could result in a 3-4°C temperature rise by the end
of the century, the fossil fuel companies – aided by governments – are planning to increase production.
The fossil fuel companies
themselves think that’s where their greed is taking us. The investment campaign
group Share Action reported that oil giants Shell and BP were assessing their
‘resilience’ against climate models in which temperatures hot up by between 3°C
and 5°C! ‘Resilience’ means they expect
to cope with such temperature increases.
BP’s total investment in renewable
and clean technologies between 2005-17 actually shrunk, it invested 1.3% of its total capital expenditure in
low-carbon projects. Shell had ‘pledged’ to invest 3% of its annual spend on
low-carbon by 2020, it recently announced it was dropping its ‘target’ to
reduce oil production: These impacts are most directly felt by workers and with
the 1% still determined to extract profit from remaining fossil fuels– the
fight to end the Climate and Ecological Crises is a class question.
War Not Peace War is Capitalism’s third and
final Cerberus-head. Capitalist states have inflicted death around the world
but, US imperialism: is the most powerful and bellicose.
Transform Politics! We are at a turning point in history – and must jettison
the ‘old ways’ that pushing us to the brink of uncontrollable Climate Breakdown
Most lifeforms on Earth – can no longer be subordinated to
the selfish and destructive demands of a small minority. Currently the main
‘opposition’ party is reneging on green ‘pledges. Such ‘actions’ are
catastrophic from the standpoint of the Climate and Ecological Crises, and don’t make sense as an electoral strategy.
What’s needed is to demand MUCH more – not offer less and less. we need to
‘Unite to Survive!’ – and that will require us to really transform politics
Allan Todd is a member of Left Unity’s National Council and of ACR’s Council, and an ecosocialist/environmental and anti-fascist activist. He is the author of Revolutions 1789-1917 and Trotsky: The Passionate Revolutionary – and the forthcoming Che Guevara: The Romantic Revolutionary
In Congress and on the fringes at the
TUC
The Case for a National Climate Service
Tahir Latif: Secretary, Greener Jobs Alliance
At 2023 Trade Union Congress in Liverpool,
I was very pleased to chair a fringe meeting co-hosted by Campaign Against
Climate Change Trade Union group (CACCTU), Greener Jobs Alliance (GJA) and
Public and Commercial Service union (PCS). The title was The
Case for a National Climate Service: reorganising the state for the climate
emergency, people and public ownership.
A National Climate Service (NCS) has
been a centre piece of demands for a radical transformation of our society in
the face of the climate crisis since 2008, when it was proposed in the first
edition of One Million Climate Jobs. While high profile
sectors such as energy, transport and construction tend to be where the Just
Transition discussion is largely focused, an NCS is seen as an essential
coordinating body to make the transition happen, planning the funding,
resourcing and training (and re-training) necessary for a rapid switch to a
decarbonised economy, while also protecting the employment, and rights, of
workers in all sectors.
What this implies is that the roles
of civil servants (PCS) and local authority workers (UNISON) are every bit as
critical to that transformation as UNITE, GMB, RMT and others in the more
industrial sectors. Hence it was encouraging to see the NCS concept
being picked up by other unions, such as ASLEF and RMT in the carried Composite C04 on an
integrated public transport system.
All unions hold a distinctive piece
of the decarbonisation ‘puzzle’ and it was clear from this meeting that the
crucial task of fitting those pieces together cannot be left to the private
sector. That is why a National Climate Service is so central to the
future organisation of society. As UNISON’s excellent motion (Composite C05) states
‘Climate justice cannot be separated from social justice. It is the most
marginalised communities whose health suffers most from climate change,
pollution and loss of nature.’
However, it was acknowledged that
the mainstream political parties are a long way from this
position. One would expect nothing less from the Conservatives, to
whom another public body would be anathema, but it’s not unreasonable to hope
for more from Labour, who are likely to form the next government. Just
what Labour’s promised ‘Green Prosperity Fund’ will look like and what it will
do remains an open question. Certainly, no mention has ever been
made of a NCS or similar body, leading to the suspicion that some woolly public/private
mix is on the cards.
At Congress itself, there was
greater unity around climate issues, with a notable absence of the
‘ring-fencing’ tendencies that some unions had espoused in previous years, and
what controversy there was displaced onto the differing nuances on the
Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Still, while such unity is
refreshing, it is within strictly limited bounds. Members of the big
industrial unions who attended our fringe bemoaned the continued support for
fossil fuel industries and the lack of vision about how to
decarbonise. One attendee identified the misconception, deliberate
or otherwise, of some leaderships warning of a ‘cliff edge’ for their members,
the attendee rightly asking ‘what part of the word “transition” do they not
understand?’ One of our guest speakers astutely noted that older
workers who may not wish to retrain are susceptible to such arguments, and that
we need to utilise their experience in productive ways as well as guaranteeing
good pensions for them upon retirement.
In all, there are two distinct, if
not contradictory, strands in the union movement: a very welcome growth in the
normalisation of climate policies that only a few years ago seemed
‘pie-in-the-sky’, on the other a retrenchment based on a (false, in my opinion)
belief that conserving the status quo is protecting the jobs of their
members. In other words, a typical year at the TUC!
THE GREEN PARTY AS THE NATURAL HOME FOR TRADE UNIONS?
The historical
events of organised workers groups are well established. One of the first
recorded strikes in modern times took place in Philadelphia in 1786. Unions
arising in Britain with the Industrial Revolution aimed to protect workers from
exploitation by the capitalist system, resisting erosion of the few rights
workers had, pushing for improvements in working conditions and change of the
underlying system. this s pre-dates official political parties. Trade unionism
would come to be associated with the emergence of a party which was not
dominated by advocates of the capitalist system.
From today’s perspective an essential question would be – how does a healthy environment and an associated systemic ecological understanding of industrial and general work processes support or disrupt meaningful and fulfilling working conditions?
One could start with Aldo Leopold, an American forester who was a huge influence on a nascent ecology movement during the early 20th century. Rachel Carson and her ‘Silent Spring’ is of course an iconic contribution to the growing ecological awareness of the post-war period. Garrett Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ requires acknowledgement that ecological concerns were not the preserve of people with socialist or at least social leanings.
The later part of the 20th century offered the possibility to continue with the predominant corporate economic model by evaluating controversial technical ‘fixes’ to clean up the polluting mess left behind by industrial processes in the air, the soil and in the water. It is probably a good thing that the large-scale global untested projects are still on the level of science fiction. Do we want ‘sunlight dimming devices’ or ‘chemical cloud makers’ simply to protect the prevailing capitalist system with its inherently un-green processes?
It has become increasingly obvious that fossil fuel and associated industrial processes bear huge responsibility for the human contribution to the emerging climate catastrophe by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and threatening biodiversity and oceanic acidification.
Political attempts to tackle the problem can be traced back to the 1970s –also the period of the birth of most parliamentary green parties worldwide -, the Montreal Protocol of 1987 was a rare relative success story in dealing with the ozone layer destruction by ratifying a worldwide ban on CFCs. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) was first organised 35 years ago, the Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 are all perhaps indications of the pathetic pace that political action has adopted so far. The Paris Agreement from 2015 has little to show yet. The climate situation is becoming critical, yet political diplomatic steps are painfully slow.
What have progressive groups done to find a solution? Regrettably, and quite inaccurately, during a crucial period they had been lumbered with accusations for the outdated and massively polluting industrial endeavours of the defunct Soviet bloc.
Greens are now inspiring a progressive outlook towards an ecological understanding, as well as becoming advocates for people’s essential protection and the quality of their working lives. The old processes of industrial production and other work areas are no longer sustainable and trade unions have become aware of the situation, the threats and the opportunities the situation offers.
This year there have been two trade union organised conferences – Bold Solutions in London and We Make Tomorrow in Manchester, both with active participation by London Green Party Trade Union Liaison Officers and other Green Party delegates, to try and make sense of the threats on the horizon and to find solutions that offer viable quality jobs. It was clear, judging by the comments and reports coming from union delegates that ‘green jobs’ are firmly and irrevocably on their agenda.
Campaign groups such as Green Jobs Alliance (GJA) and others on the ecosocialist spectrum have come to show alternative to traditional political trade union affiliations; the Green Party has a structure of liaison with unions and the overall societal disasters of austerity, inequality and erosion of human and workers’ rights have not gone unnoticed by trade unions. Neither has the migrant scandal, where the fact of migrant workers supplementing and supporting rather than replacing existing job positions is now becoming accepted within unions
As a committed Europhile, I have been pleasantly surprised that some unions (GMB springs to mind) are making links between the way the current UK government and EU authorities are supporting and funding one of their primary concerns of work place re-training and apprenticeship schemes for future green technology jobs. Also the EU goes about funding research for sustainable industrial processes and how much commitment they show towards supporting their respective work force in not only protecting jobs but offering enhanced quality, well-paid and well-trained work. The UK comes bottom in this contest.
Erwin Schaefer,
London Green Party Trade Union Liaison Officer (job-share)
DEGROWTH:
A REMARKABLE RENAISSANCE Alan Thornett
There has been
an upsurge of interest in degrowth –a
long-discussed strategic alternative to climate chaos and not just from the
radical left. It is experiencing a renaissance at the moment, driven by the
relentless rise in global temperatures and the resulting climate chaos.
It was the theme of a three-day conference in May entitled ‘Beyond Growth 2023’ which filled the main hall of the European Parliament with mostly young and enthusiastic people. It was organised by 20 left-leaning MEPs and it was opened by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. According to the Economist report the young audience ‘whooped and cheered’ when it was proposed that some form of de-growth will be necessary to avoid societal collapse.”
In July, Bill McKibben – the veteran environmental campaigner, founder of 350.org, and prolific author – had a major article in the New Yorker strongly advocating degrowth from an historical perspective.
Numerous books supporting degrowth – to varying degrees and stand points – have been also published recently from the left: The Case for Degrowth by Giorgos Kallis et al; Less is More how degrowth will save the world by Jason Hickel; Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism by Kohei Saito; and The Future is Degrowth by Matthias Schmelzer.
A recent book opposing degrowth is Climate Change as Class War, by Matt Huber – from in my view is ultra-left and voluntaristic position. He has reviewed himself in the current edition of Jacobin.
Growth is the driving force of the environmental crisis. Over the past 60 years the global economy has grown at an average rate of 3 per cent a year, which is completely unsustainable. John Bellamy Foster has pointed out that a 3% p.a. growth rate of would grow the world economy by a factor of 250 over the course of this century and the next. Over the same period the global human population has risen from 3.6 billion in 1970 to 8 billion in 2022.
Such growth rates are incompatible with the natural limits of the planet, and will ultimately defeat any attempts to resolve the environmental crisis that fail to deal with it.
An early
attempt to analyse this issue was undertaken in 1970 by Donella Meadows and a
team of radical young scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. It was published in 1972 as the Limits to Growth Report
The Meadows Report, as it became known reached the monumental conclusion that: “if the present growth in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continues unchanged”, the limits to growth on the planet will be reached sometime around the middle of the 21st century. The most probable result “will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”
It sold 12 million copies world-wide, was translated into 37 languages. and remains the top-selling environmental title ever published. It also became the driving force behind the emergence of the ecology and green movement in the 1970s, and the degrowth movement itself
It was remarkably accurate as McKibben notes and it’s conclusion puts us exactly where we are today, facing increasing frequent climate related societal breakdowns that may soon become generalised.
McKibben also notes that Ursula von der Leyen directly referenced to the Meadows Report at her opening speech in Brussels: “Our predecessors”, she had said, “chose to stick to the old shores and not lose sight of them. They did not change their growth paradigm but relied on oil. And the following generations have paid the price.”
The Report, however, was ignored by the socialist left, with a few exceptions. Tony Benn’s Alternative Economic Strategy of the 1980s, for example, made ever-faster economic growth its key demand. No wonder the trade unions and the Labour Party remain dominated by growth productivism today because they have never been challenged by the left.
William Morris – the outstanding environmentalist in the 19th century – had also gone unheeded when he raged against useless and unnecessary production. In his lecture ‘How We Live and How We Might Live’, delivered in December 1884 in Hammersmith – he raised the issue of how to live dignified and fulfilling lives without the need for mass produced commodities and consumerism, and what kind of future society could best provide such an approach.
What degrowth offers is a planned reduction of economic activity, within a different economic paradigm, and first and foremost in the rich countries of the Global North. Giorgos Kallis puts it this way in The Case for Degrowth (page viii): “The goal of degrowth is to purposefully slow things down in order to minimise harm to human beings and earth systems”.
Jason Hickel in Less in More (page 29) –– tells us that degrowth is: “a planned reduction of excess energy and resource use in order to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a safe and equitable way”.
The adoption of such an approach will need a mass movement involving everyone who is prepared to fight to save the planet on a progressive basis, including environmental movements, indigenous movements, peasant movements, farmers movement as well as trade unions and progressive political parties.
It must demand that
the big polluters pay for the damage they have done. This means heavily taxing
fossil fuels in order to both cut emissions and to ensure that the polluters
fund the transition to renewables as a part of an exit strategy from fossil
fuel that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor, and is capable of
commanding popular support.
Such an approach must be the cornerstone of ecosocialism and an ecosocialist strategy designed to save the planet from ecological destruction and create a post-capitalist, ecologically sustainable, society for the future.
Alan Thornett author of Facing the
Apocalypse Resistance
Books 2019 ISBN-10 : 0902869914 website
https://www.ecosocialistdiscussion.com/
DE-GROWTH AND THE CULTURE WAR
Wealthy people and their camp followers always try to define a problem’s solution so money goes to money. Enabling the financial engineering to do this is economics. It’s not a science.
If economics wanted to be useful it would be solving real problems, like how to sustain greater biodiversity.
Biodiversity is what we want. It’s the life sustaining contrast to monopoly, mono-culture, inbreeding and cheap to clean streets.
To stem the destruction of life support, the term de-growth has arrived. It wants to be valid in a field where profit, increased Gross Domestic Product, return on investment and indeed growth are the aims of almost all entities involved in economic systems.
What chance does it have? it’s the equivalent of saying to a business you should be aiming to make a loss.
Mistakes are not usually turned around simply by negating a concept in the logic that caused the problem in the first place.
A single answer won’t cut through environmental crises. It’s not de-growth, it’s diversity we need. If Ecology is taken as the paradigm, rather than economics, diversity is the answer. Environmental problem solving results in a great many more answers than one. It’s not a binary lock, it’s not us and them, the workers and the owners, the hosts and the parasites, the taxed and the beyond tax, the rest and the planet eaters. If an answer precludes other answers, it is not environmentally good.
The consequence is that there is no point in waiting for an ‘approved’ solution to environmental degradation because multiple answers are going to coexist, if they are the right answers.
It sounds backwards. People will inevitably associate de-growth with recession, depression, deflation, stagnation and poverty. Environmentalists who chorus that this is exactly what we need to save the environment are not going to succeed with this message. Correct though their economic analysis may be.
Even if ‘de-growth’ became a term in some new catechism for the radical left, it still wouldn’t catch on.
Until it is actually synonymous with ecology, economics will have no positive effect on life supporting bio-diversity, de-growth or not. Ecology describes the relationships of the world on which life depends and in which humans have an increasingly destructive part. Markets, including those in which economists sell their services, are a fraction of the human sphere. Despite this economics keeps producing definitions and assigning values to deny it’s own subsidiarity. It wants to insist that civilisation is some kind of market and the environment merely infrastructure.
There have been attempts to make economics more meaningful when assigning value. There is at least one Energy Theory of Value and papers on this can be found behind paywalls. The idea is, that a ‘real’ value can be arrived at scientifically by measuring the energy embodied in an item, in its growth or manufacture and transport. This makes sense to a point. It opens the possibility of assigning value to items that are not normally valued, such as most living things, and as a consequence those things might be protected.
Unfortunately, in such a system humanity’s debt to non-human processes would probably have to be written off. Imagine adding to the accounts the debt to the Sun. If economics took this debt into account, it would be vying with religions’ infinities and this time without any need for guile. An energy debt like this on the books would put humanity and its greedy, often parasitic, little exchanges into perspective.
But while money is power and power is power to make more money, we are stuck on the merry go round, with economics acting as the defence counsel for the most powerful to justify the way things are. Free marketeers are brazen about buying governments or letting a government be bought and profit on a balance sheet has become justification for almost anything.
Economics, the undefeated, throws its weight around, sparks wars, turns fertile land into desert and claims monolithic status. It even has environmentalists simulating its language, see ‘de-growth’. In the meantime the environment has us surrounded and if we suffocate it, it will suffocate us and it’s not kidding.
This is why de-growth really is the wrong word. It’s trapped within the language of destruction. If the environment was understood to be dominant, growth would be the word: more trees, more clean water, less pollution, greater bio-diversity.
Living people would back this because it would mean shade in the streets, water draining through fungi, bacteria, protozoa, worm and insect rich soil, water that did not run off concrete and overflow in sewage farms, clean water, non-polluting cheap energy independent of an autocrat’s whim, insulated homes cool in the summer and warm in the winter, an efficient, goods carrying public transport system and increasing visits from extraordinary wildlife.
In a lot of voter’s minds though there will be no clear difference between de-growth and the ‘it’s cheaper to clean the streets, if we cut the trees down’ way of thought. It’s true that economics might make an occasional exception for trees or an SSSI but we economic units will always be secondary to a plus on the balance sheet while economics wins the political ‘realist’ argument.
It is not realistic. Economics abstracts from financial data and until some loon tries to patent it, it’s not going to put a value on the chemical exchange within a mycorrhizal network between trees in a wood. if it is destroying life, profit is a useless measure of success. De-growth is a genuflection to an overbearing system. The measure of success is greater biodiversity because we live in and are blessed by an ecological system.
Trees support a huge range of life, let's have more trees and while we are at it let's promote diversity because it is the architecture of multiple answers to multiple questions, questions of life.
Chris Cardale Sept. 2023
aka Zolan Quobble poet and musician
‘THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ANTI-BOYCOTT BILL - AN OVERVIEW’
Annie
Neligan with Greens for Palestine.
Democracy is slippery at the best of times but is now slithering away at gathering speed. Recently, Israelis have been protesting the authoritarian moves of an extremist government, many of them at last realising that you can’t run both a democracy and an occupation. Here in the UK, the government are demonstrating that you can’t run a democracy while supporting as ‘one of our closest friends and allies’ a government that is based on apartheid and an illegal and punitive occupation.
How are they doing this? Look no further than the ‘Economic Decisions of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, more sensibly known as the Anti-Boycott Bill, that is on its way through parliament. This bill will take away our rights as council electors, local authority and university pensioners, students, local councillors, to choose where we save and where we spend our money. There is a ‘gagging clause’ which forbids local councillors or university decision makers from even stating that they would support BDS activism were it legally permissible.
The government plans to make illegal any boycott by a public body that conflicts with their foreign policy. Since 2005 Palestinian civil organisations, distressed by international governments’ indifference and the resort to violence by desperate activists, have called for international support in a programme of boycott, divestment and sanctions. Since 2014 the Green Party of England and Wales has explicitly supported the BDS movement.
There has been a steadily growing response. Procurement and investment decisions by UK local authorities and universities have pressured huge companies such as Veolia and G4S to withdraw from operations in or impacting the West Bank. In the last couple of years, three Scottish council pensions funds, Lothian, Falkirk and Tayside, have divested from an Israeli bank operating in the illegal settlements. They present the decisions as fiduciary rather than humanitarian, but are clearly responding to community pressure. Unison has supported the choices all the way.
Local authorities are particularly well placed to exert pressure: as well as £4.4 billion, invested in complicit organisations. They are likely to have contracts with companies heavily involved in the Israeli project, such as Hewlett Packard with surveillance, JCB with demolitions. Barclays and HSBC have investments in arms industries.
Elsewhere in Europe, councils have been bolder. In 2021/3 Norway’s largest pension fund withdrew investment from 16 companies with links to Israeli settlements, citing humanitarian concerns; Oslo and other city and county councils banned the use of settler goods and services; Barcelona cut off links with Israel in response to popular demand.
But the mobilisation against the BDS movement has been relentless. Israel has set up a unit specifically to combat the BDS movement internationally: its greatest success has been to brand support for Palestinian rights as anti-Semitic. Let’s be clear: the demands of the BDS movement are directed at the Israeli state, a political entity, and the myriad of global companies that support it, not in any way at Jews. Meanwhile the UK government has been unswerving in its support for the colonial settler Israeli regime, licensing the export of weapons used in assaults on Gaza, engaged in joint arms manufacturing concerns such as Elbit, proudly promoting companies complicit in the destruction of Palestinian lives, homes and livelihoods.
This bill proposes to ban any choices that conflict with foreign policy, so those pressing for sanctions on Saudi Arabia for its war crimes in Yemen, China for its repression of the Uigur people, are rightly concerned. But this bill is directed above all at ensuring Israel can continue its activities with impunity. It has a clause specifically protecting Israel, the Occupied Territories and the occupied Golan Heights from ever being the target of a boycott campaign, short of another change in the law. It links the bill with combating antisemitism, dangerously linking attitudes to Israel with attitudes to Jews, dangerous to the real fight against anti-Semitism.
There is the wider picture, the effect on Palestinian hopes for some sort of democracy for themselves. As the assaults by settlers and army, the military annexations and curfews, the murder of young activists and anyone who happens to be nearby, relentlessly increase, let’s take action in their support.
|
Boris Johnson promoting the company
that demolished the homes of 49 people in the South Hebron hills last year |
Caroline
Lucas tweeted in response to the bill: Staggering new
anti-boycott Bill proposed by Gove – in effect banning public bodies from
boycotting those who abuse human rights or the planet. Yet another utterly
anti-democratic clampdown we’ve come to expect from the government. This Bill
should be nowhere near the statute book.
What can we do, as Green party members, to keep it off the statue book?
We can
Follow the campaign against the bill at https://righttoboycott.org.uk/
Contact Green Party
elected representatives everywhere from your local council to the House of
Lords urging them to oppose the Anti-Boycott Bill energetically.
Lobby our councillors
to get involved in council wide opposition to the bill.
Look up how our MP
voted on the bill which passed its second reading in July this year at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2023-07-03b.586.0&s=economic+decisions+of+public+bodies+votes#g661.0
If they were one of the
69 who voted against, congratulate and encourage them. If they voted for lobby
them to read the wise words of their colleague Blunt at https://www.blunt4reigate.com/news/anti-boycott-bill-contradicts-conservative-and-british-values.
If they abstained or were absent (most Labour MPs) urge them to oppose the
third reading.
Find out what complicit
companies your local authority deals with on the PSC data base at https://lgpsdivest.org/lgps-investments/.
Lobby your local council to take action to withdraw from such association on
humanitarian grounds.
Vote for the motion at
Green Party conference, October 2023, to commit the Green Party to action in
opposing the bill.
For copies of a Greens
for Palestine short briefing against the Bill and/or a copy of a longer
explanatory document and why the Green Party is committed to supporting the BDS
movement, email your request to annieneligan@cooptel.net.
On New Municipalism by Dr Paul Overend
Across
the world there has been a growing interest in the possibilities of New
Municipalism in the 21st century, with a growing network of progressive ‘Fearless Cities’
(founded in Barcelona En Comú in 2017).
This interest in New Municipalism emerges from reflections on how the city can evolve from being a place of protest and resistance against neoliberal capitalism, as was seen in the ‘Occupy’ movement that followed the 2007-8 economic crash, to develop greater self organization and resilience to market vulnerabilities. (See David Harvey, Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution (2012); Steve Rushton (Ed), Rebel Cities: Radical Municipalism (2018).) Informed and influenced by the work of a range of political and social theorists from Peter Kropotkin (Mutual Aid, 1902) to Murray Bookchin (Libertarian Municipalism, 1991), New Municipalism explores feminising politics, participatory democracy and participatory budgeting, while incorporating other progressive concerns, such as employment practices and environmentalism.
In the UK there has been a desire to shift power from an overly-centralised state. In 1997, the UK government signed the, European Charter of Local Self Government (adopted by the Council of Europe in 1985, and in force from 1988) and the Local Government Act 2000 gave powers to local authorities to promote economic, social and environmental well-being within their boundaries, while extending the possibility of locally elected mayors. In Scotland, Green MSP Andy Wightman's 2014 report ‘Renewing Local Democracy’ explored revitalising local government in Scotland. And in 2022, a Labour Commission on the UK Future, chaired by Gordon Brown, produced a report ‘A New Britain: Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy’ which commends further devolution in the UK (among other reforms, such as the House of Lords) incorporating a democratic principal of subsidiarity. If adopted by the next government, this will offer further opportunities for local politics.
Municipal socialism is not new in the UK: It was variously seen in the Sheffield City Council led by David Blunkett in the 1980s, and the Greater London Council (GLC). (The treasurer of the GLC at one time was John McDonnell, later the Labour shadow chancellor of Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour). New Municipalism differs, in seeking greater democratic participation, for example, but with a wider range of community ownership explored, though not excluding in-house Council ownership.
A good example of what can be achieved can be seen from the so called ‘Preston Model’ of Community Wealth Building. (See Matthew Brown and Rhian E. Jones, Paint Your Town Red’ (2021) and https://www.preston.gov.uk/communitywealthbuilding) Preston council draws on work on Community Wealth Building by The Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES). Community Wealth Building involves ideas of local and progressive procurement policies, including fair employment, support of co-operatives and social enterprises, and insourcing (with council ownership), for example, initially led by existing local Anchor Institutions’ procurement policies. The success in reinvesting into the local economy and improving employment opportunities and pay, and bringing about social benefits, shows what can be done by refiguring the local economy, rather than being dependent on inward investment, by economically ‘extractive’ companies. Wales and Scotland have incorporated some ideas of community wealth building in national politics. And Jamie Driscoll, for example, seeks to incorporate such a model for his mayoral candidacy manifesto.
The renewal of local government and increasing subsidiarity give cause for hope for a Green Left municipalist movement renewing politics and local economics from the grass roots. It is likely that the current Parliamentary Labour Party will still seek to retain centralised party control (so Jamie Driscoll has been blocked from being the Labour mayoral candidate, for example). The Green Party has been more successful in local politics, with the election of councillors more likely than the election of MPs, given the given current FPTP electoral system. But New Municipalism works by building consensual politics across the political parties, and with local institutions and social enterprises, and the local public and community interest groups. The Green Party might be well placed to leaverage political opinion in municipal councils and communities, working with other seeking to advance a green left approach.
INTERNATIONAL RAIL FREIGHT AND THE
BENEFIT TO OUR SOCIETY AND ITS PEOPLE.
Beccy Sawbridge Equalities
Officer for Unite Community-Kent and Dover Town Councillor for the Green Party
As an active delegate to South East Kent Trades Council, I consider
myself blessed to share knowledge on the subject of transport with a wide
number of Trade Union delegates including others from Unite who are very active
on local and national issues.
The RMT offices where we meet each month in Dover is on Snargate
Street which carries the bulk of lorries along the M20 route to and from the
Eastern Docks and is subject to the infamous ‘Dover TAP’ and ‘Operation Brock’
that regularly causes huge tailbacks and in recent decades have become a
regular blight on our town.
A very green solution to the issue is of course more road to rail
transportation of goods and begs a number of questions as to why a better
transport system is not used for our area despite the mumblings of every
stakeholder on the subject.
Our South East Kent Trade Union Council is committed to contributing
to the development of the International rail freight to improve our society and
encourage a transport model which brings environmental, economic and social
justice to everyone. To this end our research and work as active trade
unionists in recent years has concluded that:
There
needs to be a change to facilitate a Green future with a modal shift...
It is also the conclusion of a recent
European Environmental Agency report, so we must ask...
•
Why is the only direct rail route to the
continent not fully exploited?
•
Why is the UK Strategic Freight network not fully
connected to the European Rail Freight network ?
•
Why is it that all regions of the UK* including
the Northern region cannot benefit from the viable direct rail route to the
continent ?
*Fast and efficient Rail Freight from the
North of England & Scotland to the European Union will significantly
enhance the competitiveness and access to market of the UK industry, thus
levelling up the benefits of the combined transport to the Northern UK regions.
*Extract modified from ‘’Railfreight Network
Study’’, April 2017.
Political decisions** have never been so critical
than today...
*£235 Millions invested between 2014 and 2019 to
improve rail links, £23bn invested in providing better journeys on England’s
roads.
In recent years there have been numerous grand ideas and promises to
connect the UK rail freight market to the European market, to allow efficient
access to EU market for the North, and tackle congestion for the South.
So
what is the problem and why has the road use got progressively worse between
Dover and London?
The answer is that The Channel Tunnel Rail Freight Route linking the
Channel tunnel to London North (Wembley), is not able to accommodate
continental gauge trains and lower decks wagons must be used. The costly and
inefficient wagons reduce by a ¼ the numbers of containers carried on each
train.
Governments and independent studies conclude that developing the
loading gauge to the W12 standard is the solution to see strong growth of
traffic… A solution that will see Continental trains reaching the North of
London and up to the Northern regions of the UK.
This means that our government is unable to seize the opportunity to
enhance an already built route meaning the formidable ‘Trade Belt’ linking our
Northern regions to the rest of the continent is broken. It means that the only
direct rail route to the continent is sacrificed due to a lack of investment
between Folkestone and London North (Wembley).
A ‘modal shift’ would mean, less energy consumption, less
environmental impact, less dangerous particles, less death by pollutions and
accidents, less congestion on motorways, less ‘driver shortages’ impact and
less external cost to our Society.
All the regions of the UK, including the North will benefit from
developing a fast and reliable transport system, levelling up and transforming
our economy, creating good jobs and increasing revenues to our society. It is
of course a ‘No Brainer’ that would actively contribute to a viable and healthy
supply chain safeguarding our imports/exports trade and would be key to trying
to keep price under control within our society which is spiralling into the
realm of a cruel and uncontrolled cost of living crisis.
The
research on developing the corridor can easily be seen as really good value for
money but continues to be mothballed by our recent governments
Currently a little bit less than 60% of total of UK-EU trade is on the
short straits, meaning around £264bn of trade and millions of trucks. It must
also be understood that 88% of this massive trade is in the hands of foreign
companies. And of course, neither them, nor their drivers are paying tax in the
UK. These lorries are using our saturated roads and adding pollution to our
roads, yet a ‘modal shift’ would address the issue and bring British jobs to
the rail industry, the terminals in the UK, the warehouses and the last mile
delivery transport...All paying tax in the UK.
These environmental imperatives are a reality that will transform the
transport market and be a game changer for many lives with quick and
responsible action by our government. It is why having lived in Dover for most
of my life and being a committed eco socialist I and many others are determined
to see real progress happen on this issue rather than wait for someone to seize
this very lucrative political nettle.
I must give thanks my fellow Trades Council brothers and sisters for
their continued optimism and work on this problem and leave you with the take
from one of our committed researchers on the subject:
•
Let’s
all trade unionists, organizations and political parties join together to make
it happen... Because we want to, because we can....
•
Let’s
make the change happen...We will hand-over a Green and Sustainable future to
the next generation... because we want to, because we can...
•
Let’s build a
Green and Social environment that will benefit a progressive Society….Because
we want to, because we can.
'CLIMATE JOBS - BUILDING A
WORKFORCE FOR THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY'
by Campaign against Climate Change, Trade Union Group, Nov 2021 98pp A5 booklet
chapters:
* Lighting and Energy Conversion
* Warm homes and building climate
jobs
* Green, accessible Transport
network
* De-carbonising Industry
* Climate jobs on land,
agriculture, food
* Zero waste in the circular
economy
* Trade unions and action on
Climate.
Download
a free copy to read online
Climate Jobs: Building a workforce for the
climate emergency pdf (6MB)
One
Million Climate Jobs (2014) Click here for information
about the third edition of One Million Climate Jobs including
free download
“DON’T COMPROMISE YOUR SELF. YOU ARE
ALL THAT YOU’VE GOT.”
ALAN WHEATLEY
outlines why he prefers UBI to ‘Universal Credit’ (sic)
Despite my perseverance as a disabled jobseeker
before claiming Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in 2009, for which I had to
go through Tribunal, my sum total of waged employment between November 1977 and
March 2009 was 19 months, the last 11 months of which were so part-time that I
submitted weekly records of work shifts and earnings. Despite that, Jobseekers
Allowance (Jsa) wrongly claimed for several months that I was earning above the
Jsa earnings threshold.
In all that time, a propaganda war led to the
tightening of thumb-screws on claimants of working age state benefits, driving
down bargaining power.
I am far more free to ‘do my own thing’ as a
State Pensioner than I ever could as a claimant of ever-more conditional and
means-tested ‘working age’ benefits from the Department for Work &
Pensions. Thus I am all the more dedicated to highlighting the under-reported
perils of means-tested and highly conditional ‘working age’ benefits systems
while economist Professor Guy Standing furthers research and development of
Universal Basic Income (UBI) systems with Welsh government, etc.
Thus in my new life episode on the most basic of
State Pensions, I am less “an over-stayer on Jobseekers Allowance,” decades
long volunteer, serially unsuccessful job applicant and 2009-to-2012 multiply
retested claimant of Employment Support Allowance for a lifelong condition,
more a campaigning content provider for articles based largely on my experience
and insight.
My ‘triple locked’ basic State Pension is far
more generous than JSA ever was, and I believe the more we promote the idea of
UBI and the perils of Universal Credit [sic], the more supportive would be the
basic UBI level.
Though Social Science modules occupied most of my 1994-to-1997 period as a full time mature undergraduate, perhaps the most illuminating module was a 1994 module ‘Law & The Music Market’ that dealt a lot with bargaining power in contract law, and ‘consideration’ as a legal term in that. ‘Consideration’ and bargaining power are vital. As an example, the Unemployed Benefits recipient status of bands such as Frankie Goes to Hollywood accounted for minuscule bargaining power at the time that they were plucked from the dole queue into exploitative contracts that were later revoked via courts of law.
While a
succession of neoliberal governments has since tweaked the conditionality and
means-testing of the benefits system to maximise the exploitation of a ‘reserve
army of labour’ into the furthering of the ‘gig economy’, around 2014 a
Haringey Green Party member whose savings fell within the Jobseekers Allowance
savings limits for eligibility eschewed Department for Work & Pensions
help/hindrance and got a new post probably quicker than it takes for many new
‘Universal Credit’ (UC) claimants’ first UC payment to arrive.
In the time that it takes for a first UC payment to arrive, UC claimants are nonetheless sanctions fodder within a commitment in which they have ever decreasing bargaining power.
Against that backdrop, I point out that the
highly conditional terms of UC quash self-determination, whereas the
flexibility of an unconditional UBI goes a long way to putting the claimant ‘in
the driving seat’. Thus UBI would favour the prospects for jobseekers applying
management consultant Dorothy Leeds’ ‘Secrets of Successful Interviews:
Tactics, Tips & Strategies for Getting the Job You Really Want’ advice such
as, “Only work with people you really trust,” and “Become a questioning expert.”
Now that a Secretary of State for Work &
Pensions implements changes by Statutory Instrument that bypasses democratic
scrutiny, a claimant requires financial reserves to make the most out of books
such as the now out-of-print Dorothy Leeds book and the “each mind is
different” perspective of ‘Do Who You Are: Discover the Perfect Career for You
Through the Secrets of Personality Type’ by Paul D Tieger, Barbara Barron and
Kelly Tieger (Little Bear Books).
I close with transcript of a letter of mine
recently sent to Morning Star on September 1:
My personal support for the principle of
Universal Basic Income is derived from decades of long-term dependency as a
person with an invisible disability, upon rigidly conditional and means-tested
state benefits.
The thumbscrews of Unemployment Benefit morphed into worse thumbscrews under Jobseekers Allowance (Jsa) and on into those of sanctions-led ‘Universal Credit’ [sic] - the Fagship (no, not ‘flagship’) of a neoliberal state benefit system.As examples, for decades now, claimants of means-tested ‘working age’ benefits have been obliged to: seek permission from the jobcentre before going on holiday; remain in contact with a jobcentre near their place of stay; commit to maintaining jobsearch activity while away; and have any holiday ‘freebies’ at hosts’ expense deducted from benefits income for the vacation period.
Now, of course, the progressive tightening of
bargaining-power-stripping thumbscrews is deified in Universal Credit
legislation with its treatment of highly skilled people in one field as
sanctions-driven receptacles for whatever rubbishy jobs government wants to
fill.
Filed under ‘economy’, Cath Wilcox’ ‘One day,
there will be no need for money at all’ (Letters, September 1) ignores all
those conditionality thumbscrews and ends with the dismissive and – I would
argue – misleading statement: “A one-size-fits all universal basic income is
snake oil.”
Professor Guy Standing, an author of books upon
precarity and socio-economic polarisation, acknowledges that Universal Basic
Income should be no ‘one size fits all’ solution, and that there should be
additional, equity-enhancing government interventions.
We need to
open up debate, not shut it down.
Footnote 1: Quotation attributed to Janis Joplin
Vaccines – The new division between Haves and Have Nots
by Joseph Healy
Lord Bethell, former health minister in Johnson’s government has recently admitted that the pandemic was ignored by the government when it appeared in 2020. The same might be said of the response now when experts are predicting a major Covid wave by early October. The only exception to that has been in the field of vaccines and that has been very limited .
The government’s policy on vaccines after Freedom Day in July 2021 was described as “Vaccines Only” rather than the more effective “Vaccines Plus” which Independent Sage and others called for. This was a policy which would rely entirely on vaccination to ward off hospitalisation and death from Covid, while ignoring all other forms of mitigation, such as ventilation and mask wearing. It was already criticised at the time as being too dependent on the virus not mutating and also being based on the health policy around flu, a virus which was seasonal and had an annual vaccination, rather than on a clinically based assessment of a very different pathogen with a much higher impact. It is well known that vaccinations wane and studies have shown that the Covid vaccine wanes considerably within six months, leaving the person much more open to both breakthrough infections and illness. This has proved to be even more important with the studies which show that there is a 10% risk of developing Long Covid, a condition for which there is no cure, after each infection.
Last autumn the government decided to offer the autumn booster shot, a bivalent vaccine, to all those over 50, as well as those with compromised immune systems. However, unlike earlier offers there were important exceptions, such as the carers and partners of elderly or clinically extremely vulnerable people who were not offered the shot. Now the JCVI, which advises the government on vaccines, has decided to offer the booster only to those over 65, clinically extremely vulnerable, those who live them and frontline health and social care staff. The large cohort of people over 50 and those under that age, including children, will be left unprotected. For many of these younger people under 50 it will have been over a year since they were vaccinated and the vaccine will have waned. This will leave much of the population unprotected going into winter and with a new variant on the loose. Schools are super spreader factories and studies have shown that having a child in the house is a major vector of infection and especially with multigenerational households (particularly prevalent among BAME groups) yet no vaccines are offered to children and Long Covid rates defined by workplaces are highest among teachers and teaching assistants.
The UK and Sweden (which is the eugenicist poster boy of the anti vaxxer movement and the Daily Telegraph) are outliers in Europe in only offering the booster to over 65s. Ireland is offering it to all over 50s and France and the US are offering it to all citizens. The impact of only offering it to over 65s and the extremely clinically vulnerable ( and this category excludes many groups such as those with suffering from asthma) means that the vast majority of the population are facing into an autumn and winter season with continuing waves of the virus essentially unprotected as previous vaccination will have waned. This was never the deal when the policy of “living with the virus” was first announced.
Furthermore, having abolished the ONS Covid Survey, which was a world class monitoring system for the virus and also not using the relatively cheap monitoring of wastewater (only used in Scotland) we are, as many scientists have said, flying blind. This is not the time to limit vaccinations or to withdraw them altogether for some. There has been talk of selling Covid vaccines privately, but the costs of doses are high, Pfizer’s current vaccine costs 100 dollars per shot. The vaccines should not become another part of Big Pharma’s ripping off of the vulnerable when huge amounts of state funding went towards developing these vaccines. They should be available to all and if sold by pharmacies, just as the flu vaccine is, should not cost more than the flu jab.
We are entering into a new period of the virus, with the new sub variant Pirola quickly spreading. Many have not even taken the booster which has been offered and we must do all we can to encourage take up, especially among the most vulnerable. Vaccination remains an essential tool in the far from finished war against Covid.
THE REFERENDUM CARD ON ELECTORAL REFORM: GOLD STANDARD OR ‘BOOBY PRIZE’? By Réal Lavergne
Does the
democratic way to proceed on electoral reform include a referendum?. There
is a precedent for a referendum on
electoral reform in the UK,. New Zealand, held back to back referendums in
1992 and 1993, Canada has had seven referendums on proportional
representation.
In Canada,
referendums. have been no friend of electoral reform. Our experience is that
they are difficult to win and biased towards the status quo. Those who advocate
referendums are often opponents of
reform.
The best
result obtained in Canada was the 2005 referendum in British Columbia, after a
citizens’ assembly, which achieved a 57.8% vote in favour. However, the
government had set a 60% threshold for the referendum to pass..
Referendums
in Canada have been used to avoid reform by politicians preferring the status
quo. Only in New Zealand has a referendum been used to overcome political
resistance rather than accommodating it. When Canada held extensive
hearings on electoral reform, 67% of expert witnesses considered a referendum
unnecessary or ill-advised,.
Are
referendums on electoral reform are a bad idea on democratic grounds?
·
Referendums are divisive, pitting factions of the electorate
against each other, Yet issues like Brexit and electoral reform are issues that
should be based on the maximum consensus if such changes are to be legitimate,
long-lasting and widely accepted.
·
Referendums are about majority rule. Yet electoral reform is
about ensuring equal voting rights for all, including minorities. In
referendums on electoral reform, it is very easy for the “comfortable” majority
to favour the status quo at the expense of the minority.
For a
referendum to be meaningful, effective public education is required.
Yet this has often been missing. Electoral reform is a complex issue with
confusing or contradictory messaging from both sides.. Those who are relatively
well informed tend to vote Yes. Others are likely to vote along partisan lines
or to opt for the devil they know.
Getting
electoral reform without a referendum is equally challenging. It can be difficult
to get promises implemented. What we have instead is a promise-and-betray model
of inaction, which has happened in Canada,.
The best
known example of this was Justin Trudeau’s categorical promise that if his
party was elected, 2015 would be the last first-past-the-post
election in Canada. However, Trudeau abandoned that promise in 2017, saying that
there was “no consensus” for reform..
What we end
up with are two very effective formulas for blocking change: breaking one’s
promise or, using referendums.
The basic
problem is that politicians, once they have been elected , have a conflict of
interest about changing the electoral model that brought them to power.
Whatever
else they might do, referendums give citizens a voice where politicians are in
a conflict of interest. In New Zealand, it was referendums that allowed
citizens to override the two major political parties.
However,
referendums are used to avoid change as much as to bring it about. Is there a
better approach to gauge the will of the electorate?
Canada has made
use of other
means by
mandating independent commissions or citizens’ assemblies. The latter have the
advantage of being representative of the general population.
Citizens’ assemblies
are now being used in Europe and elsewhere to address politically intractable
problems, like abortion and gay rights in Ireland.
Canada has
had two citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform: Analysts have praised these for their
non-partisanship and ability to reach a consensus
One could
treat such a referendum as a “validation referendum.” The citizens’ assembly,
itself a representative body of the voting public, would put forward its
recommendations and rationale and a referendum would be used to determine if
the general public agrees with these conclusions.
This
approach was essentially used in the 2005 B.C. referendum, with good success
(57.8% voting Yes).”
Over the
last five years, Fair Vote Canada has put citizens’ assemblies on electoral
reform at the core of its strategy. This idea is getting more traction and is
emerging as a leading means to electoral reform.
To work
properly this approach requires an acknowledgement by politicians that
electoral reform should be non-partisan. Instead of relying on partisan
advantage, the citizens’ assembly model encourages political parties and
politicians to resolve their differences by handing over to citizens themselves.
In the face of growing voter cynicism about ever getting electoral reform, the most credible promise that might be included in a party’s manifesto could be the promise to convene a citizens’ assembly immediately after the next election. Ideally, this promise could be included by more than one party going into an election —in the UK, this could include any combination of Labour, the Liberal-Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, Reform and the Greens.
Citizens’
assemblies are never fully “binding.” However, a robust citizens’ assembly
would create a high level of legitimacy for the consensus recommendations put
forward and high expectations for electoral reform to be implemented.
A change of
this sort requires the sort of social and political consensus that only a
citizens’ assembly convened by more than one party is likely to deliver.
It’s time
we set aside the notion that reform of our electoral system should depend on
politicians to define for themselves how they will be elected. That is a recipe
for self-serving partisanship. What we need is a recipe for building a
non-partisan citizens’ consensus.
Réal Lavergne is a former academic, researcher and policy analyst President of Fair Vote Canada from 2016 to 2021 and has been involved in every Fair Vote Canada campaign over the last 10 years.
IN PROPORTION is the blog of the cross-party/no-party campaign group GET PR DONE! (https://getprdone.org.uk/) We are campaigning to bring in a much fairer proportional representation voting system. Unless otherwise stated, each blog reflects the personal opinion of its author.
We welcome contributed blogs. Send a brief outline (maximum 75 words) to
getprdone@gmail.com
Join the very active Facebook group of GET PR DONE! (+2,800 members as
of May 2023.) https://www.facebook.com/groups/625143391578665/
ANTI-COALMINE
CAMPAIGN IN CUMBRIA HOTS UP!
Although there was a planned
pause in August as regards the local campaigners’ Speakers’ Corner events
(the one in May saw Chris Packham turning up unexpectedly and making a short speech! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0YiZ_Ir6oY ), there was no pause in the anti-coalmine
campaign. Quite the reverse, in fact!
Firstly,
over the Bank Holiday weekend, XR North Lakes & XR South Lakes mounted a
concerted banner-drop action, which saw the holidaymakers pouring into Cumbria
being greeted by banners along and/or above most main roads, proclaiming the Climate
Truth that this is absolutely ‘No Time
for a Coalmine’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZoIh1CV6g&t=53s
Then, on 29 August, Earth First! put the campaign against a new coalmine in Cumbria well-and-truly on the national radar by occupying the site of the proposed mine, and establishing a climate camp there, as part of their Summer Gathering 2023.
On offer during this 6-day protest - as well as the chance to talk with their brilliant activists - were interesting workshops (including on nvda), great vegan food, and stunning views of the Lake District’s mountains and the Irish Sea. Over the course of this protests, lots of local protesters paid visits to show solidarity, and to bring offerings of food (including some Greggs’ vegan sausage rolls and Mexican bakes!).
Among the national organisations publicly sending solidarity to Earth First! for their action were: Transform Politics, Left Unity and Anti-Capitalist Resistance: https://leftunity.org/earth-first-occupy-cumbrian-coalmine/
Fig. 3 - Earth First!’s climate camp on the site of the proposed coalmine!!
Interestingly,
the owners of the site quickly put up notices on the fence, warning the general
public that it was an unsafe site! Although not giving reasons, the warning is
to do with the dangerous chemicals currently buried under concrete slabs -
which the mine, if it goes ahead, will disturb!
Although Earth First! packed up on Monday 4 September, the monthly programme of Speakers’ Corners resumed on Saturday 9 September, with an exciting line-up of six speakers:
1. Rob Marsden: Red Green Labour/Anti-Capitalist Resistance/
XR
Trade Union group
2.
Paul Nickells:
XR North Lakes
3.
Sarah Finch:
Weald Action Group
4.
Graham Peterson:
Greener Jobs Alliance
5.
June Davison:
Pont Valley Campaign
6.
Judy Paskell:
Campaign Against Climate Change (Trade Unions)
Future ones are scheduled for:
·
Tuesday
24 October
·
Saturday
18 November
·
Friday
8 December.
Amongst future speakers are:
·
Anne Harris (of Coal Action Network, and one of
those involved with the brilliant documentary Finite: The Climate of Change - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqTRKophvhI ) who will be speaking on 24 October
and
·
Natalie Bennett (of the Green Party) who will be
speaking on 18 November.
So
there are plenty more up-coming opportunities to get along and support this
campaign, and so help proclaim - loud and clear - the simple message:
- ‘No Time for a Coal Mine’ in a Climate
Emergency!
Changing the Companies Act to put People and
Planet before Profit
77% of the public agree that
businesses should ‘have a legal responsibility based on planet and people’[1] To many people, this simply seems like common
sense. However, the way UK law is currently interpreted is based on
the doctrine of shareholder primacy endorsed by the free-market economist
Milton Friedman. The danger of
this doctrine is that all other stakeholder needs are sacrificed in favour of
delivering payouts for shareholders. This means downward pressure on worker
pay, a drive to mechanise and eliminate jobs, a temptation to circumvent or
ignore regulations and the lobbying of government to relax these regulations.
It also means procurement and processes are focused on the lowest price whilst
social and environmental factors are treated as secondary.
During
the current cost-of-living crisis, however, headlines are starting to make
plain how unequal our society has become. Whilst more and more people struggle
to pay their rent, to heat their home and even to afford the weekly food bill,
obscene profits have continued to be reported by large corporations.
Shareholder dividends and CEO pay are in the spotlight. Not that this is
anything new. Common
Wealth identified a two decade trend in the
UK economy which saw dividends rise six times faster than real wages between
2000 and 2019[2].
Too
many politicians and media commentators shrug their shoulders as if neoliberal
economics are a natural fact of life. In the Green Party, we do not accept
this. Whilst we already have some policies in place, for example a 10:1 pay
ratio, we can also go right to the source and demand that the law changes to
prioritise what really matters in life.
Climate
change too is finally starting to be noticed, not as a distant possibility but
a reality for millions around the world. Not a day went by in summer 2023
without headlines announcing extreme weather conditions at various spots across
the globe – unprecedented high temperatures, wildfires and devastating flash
floods. We are clearly failing to tackle the climate crisis and business is at
the heart of the problem with its insatiable greed for growth, driven by a
mentality of competition and the perceived need for ever-growing profits for
shareholders.
Various
options do exist within current law for companies to choose to prioritise
ecological and/or social considerations. However, only a tiny minority choose
to do so. Given the urgency of the planetary crises we face, a legal obligation
is the best way to ensure that companies shift quickly in a direction that will
avoid further harm. To avoid doubt, to protect directors whose conscience makes
them want to do the right thing and also to bring about substantive change in
the way that businesses are run, the Companies Act needs to be changed.
Hence
we have a motion coming to Autumn conference which proposes a radical change to
section 172 of the Companies Act 2006. Our motion puts people and planet ahead
of profit for shareholders and mandates the embedding of a social or
environmental purpose in companies’ Articles of Association. Companies need to
serve society rather than extracting from society to line the pockets of an
already wealthy elite.
Whilst
other political parties are silent on changing the purpose of business, various
campaign groups are mobilising behind it. Our motion follows the
recommendations of both Common Wealth and The British Academy as well as adopting – and taking slightly
further – the proposals of the Better Business Act.
Making
this fundamental legal change to prioritise the wellbeing of ecosystems and
people, over the narrow pursuit of profit for the few, sends a clear message
about the future vision that we are aiming for. It may act as a key to unlock
broader change in our social and economic structures and is essential to
achieve climate stabilisation.
[1]
Survey conducted in March 2023 by Better Business Act
[2] Lawrence,
M. and Rogaly, K. (2023) Stagnant and Unequal: How the UK is an Outlier
in Corporate Governance and Why That Matters. Available at: https://www.common-wealth.co.uk/publications/stagnant-and-unequal-how-the-uk-is-an-outlier-in-corporate-governance-and-why-that-matters
A weary old pillock
Drags laden shopping trolley
Up suburban hillock.
Trolley contains two pairs of pears,
Four pears, to be exact,
Recently purchased, packed
And cellophane wrapped,
In a nice little tray,
Which will be thrown away today;
After it has been shipped
By muti-national fruit traffickers,
To Dollis Hill from far South Africa.
But the shopping trolley
Is not the only place
Where there are pears.
They are all around
The plodding pillock’s feet
Each step must be
Carefully and precisely placed,
As pavement pears are lying there,
On the ground, rotting and rotten,
Half-eaten and brown.
The tree that they fell from
Seems forgotten by its owners,
Or maybe they have never known
About the fruit that it has grown.
So, the pavement pears are
Unharvested, and to humans, waste
Whilst rats, birds wasps, and flies
Were wise enough to eat and taste.
On a world that starts to fry
Transporting pears for thousands of miles
Seems unwise,
While those homegrown
Just decompose.
Green Left is an anti-capitalist, ecosocialist group within the Green Party of England & Wales. Membership is open to all GPEW members, All views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Green Left.
Comments
Post a Comment