Monthly Archives: February 2013

Green Party write social justice into Constitution

From: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/02/28/green-party-write-social-justice-into-their-constitution/

The Green Party of England and Wales this weekend enacted what they describe as clause IV moment in reverse, as delegates at its 40th Spring Conference in Nottingham voted for a left-turn in the constitution.

The statement of core values, which previously focused only on environmental principles, was amended to include a commitment to social justice and a transformation of society for the benefit of the many not the few, on the day that the party celebrated being 40-years old.

A substantial majority 71% of conference delegates voted in support of the change, which condemns the dominant economic system based on inequality and exploitation and calls for a world based on cooperation and democracy.

Student member Josiah Mortimer proposed the motion, saying in his speech The past few years have shown that the Greens are the real party of social justice this motion is therefore fundamental in enshrining that shift into the partys core.

He added: At a time when Labour are failing to stand up to the coalitions austerity policies, it is essential the Greens make our position clear that we are on the side of ordinary people and the planet.

Party leader Natalie Bennett said: The Green Party has for many years been the chief champion of social justice in British politics. Our elected representatives and campaigners have led the way in living wage campaigns, in protecting essential public services and speaking up for benefit recipients, asylum-seekers and refugees and the disabled, in the face of demonisation. This change reflects the existing nature of the party.

At the same conference, Bennett called for an end to poverty wages, child poverty and pensioners being unable to heat their homes in her keynote speech.

Green Party ‘gets it’ on Monetary Policy – so says Positive Money

By Positive Money’s Ben Dyson – guest speaker at the Conference in Nottingham last weekend:

See: http://www.positivemoney.org/2012/03/green-party-gets-it-on-monetary-policy/

Positive Money is apolitical and doesn’t support or endorse any particular political party. However, I thought the Green Partys policy document on money was well worth highlighting, as much of it is entirely consistent with Positive Money proposals. It is also by far the most detailed policy document Ive ever seen from any UK political party.

Here are some key paragraphs, with our emphasis in bold:

EC661 The world money supply has increased over the medium to long term. Almost all is created by commercial lending institutions. The resultant debts are an important promoter of economic growth and consumption, as well as instability. The emphasis in monetary policy will be to control and redirect the creation of money towards socially and environmentally sound areas of the economy, and away from unsustainable and consumption-driven areas.

Green Party Economic Policy

EC663 The current economic system enables commercial banks and other financial institutions to exert an unacceptably large influence on the economy. Their lending power should be reined in, enabling the emphasis of lending to be transferred to sustainable production.

Green Party Economic Policy

EC670 Mutual financial institutions are preferable to those owned by shareholders, since they are more likely to serve customer interests. The Green Party would provide financial incentives for governments at all levels to use mutually owned banks and financial intermediaries for their own business, and to encourage citizens to do the same.

Green Party Economic Policy

Note in particular:

EC676 Since these restrictions on bank lending will severely restrict the money supply, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England will be instructed to monitor the need for increase (or decrease) in the money supply, based initially on maintaining the amount of money existing at the time of implementation of these measures. Criteria will be developed in the light of experience, aiming to avoid both inflation and deflation. It will accordingly instruct the Bank of England to create any supplement needed, on a monthly basis, and credit it to the Treasury to be spent by the government on projects that help society and environment. If the occasion arises that a surplus is threatening to cause inflation, the Bank of England will receive back and cancel an appropriate amount of money.

Green Party Economic Policy

This is entirely consistent with Positive Moneys full reserve proposals, with the caveat that we would rather see banks lose all of their ability to create money (rather than simply have it partially limited through the use of regulation).

EC677 The Bank of England will continue to be the institution for the regulation of the national currency and the setting of base interest rates. However, it will not focus on narrow economic indicators such as the rate of inflation, but instead will take a broader view on the impact of its decisions on the economy as a whole. Final decisions on the setting of base interest rates will be made by a democratically accountable committee made up of representatives selected from the different regions of the country.

Green Party Economic Policy

Of course, as with our draft bill its easier to get it on paper than to get it through parliament, but its encouraging to see that there is at least one party with an understanding of the monetary system and its effect on the economy.

NHS privatisation

38 Degrees Logo
They’re getting jumpy. It looks like Jeremy Hunt is already feeling the pressure of our huge, people-powered opposition to his NHS privatisation plot. The Telegraph is reporting that “an outcry from medical groups, MPs and campaigners against privatisation in the NHS has forced a re-think”. [1]

And that’s hardly surprising – 130,000 of us signed the petition against the changes in just 24 hours. But we haven’t won yet. Over the next few hours, Hunt will be deciding whether or not he can hold out in the face of public outcry. Now we need to ramp up the pressure by making the petition continue to grow fast.

Can you help keep the pressure on Jeremy Hunt not to widen privatisation in the NHS by adding your name:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-section75

In case you missed it, here’s the email from Monday:

Dear Andy,

A new fight over NHS privatisation has just begun. Jeremy Hunt is trying to use new powers, hidden within last year’s controversial NHS laws, to force local GPs to privatise more health services. [2] This is one of the things we were afraid might happen – and now our worst fears are being confirmed. We need to do all we can to stop it.

Jeremy Hunt’s new privatisation plot is contained within “NHS competition regulations”. [3] Usually these kinds of rules get quickly rubber-stamped by Parliament. This time, we need to get MPs and Lords to stand up to Hunt and block his plans. [4]

It’s a long shot, but we have a chance of stopping these changes because Hunt is breaking promises made to MPs when NHS laws were voted through last year. [5] If we generate a huge, public outcry to put pressure on the politicians who clung on to those promises last time the government attacked our NHS, we can convince them to stop these new laws.

Sign the petition against Jeremy Hunt’s new NHS privatisation plan here – we’ve got just a couple of days before we’ll need to deliver it:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-section75

Hunt’s new regulations (Statutory Instrument 257 under Section 75 of the Health & Social Care Act 2012) are like a catalogue of our worst fears. [6] GPs would have to open up every part of local health services to private companies, whether or not it’s what they or local people want. It would speed up the break up of the NHS, giving profit-hungry companies new rights to muscle in.

Last year, the government promised it wouldn’t go as far as forcing privatisation on local health services. Lots of MPs and Lords said these promises convinced them to vote for the NHS law. Now, we need to go back to these same MPs and Lords, and tell them to find some backbone. If they really voted for the law because of those promises, now they’ve got no excuse not to put a stop to Hunt’s latest privatising move.

Let’s build a petition to hand in to each of the MPs and Lords who believed the government’s promises on privatisation:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-section75

All over the country, 38 Degrees members have been working together to convince their local NHS decision makers to do the right thing and limit privatisation in their area. Now, government is trying to take that power away from local doctors and the patients they serve.

This is going to be tough. It could be the start of the second round of the fight to protect everything that’s precious about the NHS. But it’s the right thing to do, because we know that when private companies move in, all too often it doesn’t end well for patients.

Sign the petition now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-section75

Thanks for being involved,

Ian, Becky, Alex and the rest of the 38 Degrees team

NOTES
[1] The Telegraph, Norman Lamb: NHS competition rules must be reviewed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9896186/Norman-Lamb-NHS-competition-rules-must-be-reviewed.html
[2] The National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice & Competition) Regulations 2013 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/257/contents/made
[3] Under Section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012
[4] Although rare, there have been a few examples of Parliament blocking regulations contained in secondary legislation: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf
[5] For example, Simon Burns MP, then a health minister, told parliament: “…it will be for commissioners to decide which services to tender…to avoid any doubt—it is not the Government’s intention that under clause 67 [now 75] that regulations would impose compulsory competitive tendering requirements on commissioners, or for Monitor to have powers to impose such requirements.” (12/7/11, Hansard, c4423)
[6] See for example this briefing by Keep Our NHS Public: http://www.keepournhspublic.com/pdf/Section75parliamentarybriefingFeb%202013.pdf

open.gif

Are there Green red lines? – You bet, its time to fight the bedroom tax!

Introducing Howard Thorp

My Photo
Howard Thorp Follow @hgthorp, Cheshire, United Kingdom

I am a member of the Green Party, and the Green Party Campaigns Coordinator.

I believe in social justice, the importance of living in harmony with the environment and the economics of need – not greed. We can have thriving businesses without damaging the environment and without exploitation of working people. I believe that public services are best delivered by the public sector without the profit motive. Views expressed here are my own.
http://capitalism-creates-poverty.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/are-there-green-red-lines-you-bet-its.html

Since the general election in 2010 the Coalition government has been waging class war against the people of the UK. In his ’emergency’ budget in 2010 Chancellor George Osborne inflicted £81 billion of austerity cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country, including the low paid, the unemployed and disabled people. Women have been disproportionately hit by these cuts and 700,000 public sector workers have lost or will lose their jobs as a result. And all this after those very people helped to bail out the banks and financial capitalism with their hard earned taxes.

We are told that the purpose of the austerity cuts is to ‘reduce the deficit’ and save the economy. But that is a lie, and austerity hasn’t reduced the deficit. The real aim of austerity is to use the economic crisis to destroy the welfare state, and privatize the NHS and public services for the benefit of capitalists and their corporations. Austerity is working, and working very well for the richest, who are gaining wealth whilst living standards for the rest of us have fallen. Austerity is class war. Those who have read the book ‘The Shock Doctrine’, by Naomi Klein, will know that, in times of crisis, capitalists and their tame politicians use the crisis to roll back the social and economic gains made by the 99% by imposing ‘free’ market ‘policies’ such as welfare cuts, privatisation and deregulation.

In the UK, the Coalition government has tried to deflect blame for the cuts by making councils impose them at a local level. Councils have already had to impose cuts but we are now at a stage where some of the most savage cuts in benefits are being introduced, including changes to council tax and the so-called ‘bedroom tax’, affecting the disabled, unemployed and low paid. I have always opposed all of the government’s austerity cuts but now, as more and more people are becoming aware of the brutal nature of the cuts, we have reached a stage where it is possible to launch a real fightback and make the ‘bedroom tax’ into this government’s poll tax.

As far as the Green Party is concerned we have opposed the cuts from day one, and we showed in our 2010 manifesto how the crisis could be resolved without privatization or cutting public services. Our Green council in Brighton and Hove has worked hard to do its best for the local people in very difficult circumstances and has been supported by the Party. The question is – are there any red lines for our councillors? When do we reach a point where we can no longer impose austerity cuts on the poorest? The answer to that has to be now, with the advent of the ‘bedroom tax’ in a months time.

We need to resist the bedroom tax with all the peaceful democratic means at our disposal. We need to learn from the successes of UKUncut, by using protest action and direct action, including supporting victims of these benefit changes whom councils try to evict. We also need to look at all the measures that councils can use to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax, including the re-classification of rooms in social housing. Its heartening to see that a recent meeting of B&H Green Party passed a motion on the bedroom tax, supported by our MP Caroline Lucas, which stated: “The Green Party of Brighton and Hove therefore resolves to:

1. Publicly condemn the ‘Bedroom Tax’ as an ideologically-driven attack On the least well-off in our society.

2. Request that the Convenor of the Green Group makes a clear public statement that no household will be evicted from a Brighton and Hove City Council owned home as a result of rent arrears accrued solely as a result of this cut to Housing Benefit

3. Request that the Chair of the council’s Housing Committee instructs officers accordingly.

4. Publicise this position, externally and in our own publications and websites.”

Its time for our councillors to grasp the nettle and lead the fight against this pernicious bedroom tax. If they fail to do so we will lose credibility as a Party nationally. Parties which support austerity get rightly punished by the electorate as recent elections in Europe have shown. As a Party, we have to make a breakthrough to make a real difference in UK politics. We can only do this by leading the resistance to further cuts and providing people in England and Wales with hope for the future with our positive alternatives to austerity.

Signatures needed to stop DLA from being abolished

Peter Allen (Green Left) has invited us to sign a pledge

“Here’s the chance to do our part. Take the pledge with me today.”

Help us gain the signatures needed to stop DLA from being abolished

Please help support our campaign to stop the UK government from abolishing disability living allowance. Take our pledge and show the world how much you can about the rights of this that need this money to gain vital support. …See More

SIGN THE PLEDGE
B6l
43,447 others so far took this pledge

Trades Unions vital in the long march to equality – GPTU

gptuhed3.jpg

The Green Party put itself firmly on the side of the trade union and working class movement when they passed a motion at the National Conference, moved by Pete Murry of Brent Green Party and the Green Party Trade Union Group, on the party’s relationship with the unions.

The motion said in part:

The Green Part believes that the Trade Union movement plays a vital role in defending the interests of working people and continues to play a leading role in the long march towards equality and social justice in Britain and around the world. Therefore the Green Party encourages all its members to be active Trade Unionists wherever this is possible.

I am looking to start some constructive dialogue with local Trade Union officials in the near future.

Andy

“I’’m offended by that!”

Thankfully, I have rarely heard the words I’m offended by that! in debates at Green Party Conferences. It is the resort of people that are in danger of losing the argument and would rather shut the debate down. It is also a statement at the heart of the culture of over-zealous political correctness. Anyone, at any time, can claim to be offended by anothers words or actions and immediately the offending party is scourged. The claimed right not to be offended seems to trump all other rights and the debate is duly shut down.

Lets consider that for a moment. It may come as a surprise to some, but nowhere in the Green Party Constitution is there a Right Not to be Offended. The right that is protected is the Right to Free Speech, the right to be heard. A freely expressed opinion is always likely be offensive to someone, but we tend to assume that it will generally be our political opponents – generally not our supposed comrades in the same Party.

Some issues, however, legitimately divide opinion in even the most cohesive of Parties. Those that follow this blog will probably be thinking of a couple of issues that I have flagged up recently that would fall into that category for the Green Party – namely the Hospital Chaplaincy issue and, much more significantly, Population Policy. The former was aired at Conference in a very considered and dignified manner; the latter was aired in an atmosphere of thinly veiled contempt. At least three times the phrase “I find that offensive” was uttered by antagonists on one side of the argument. It undermined not only their arguments (which I actually share in part), but also their pretensions to be serious politicians.

We need to get over being offended as a means to win a debate, and instead construct sound arguments to defend our point of view in a considered, rational and (when among colleagues at least) unemotive way. Stifling free speech, even if it offends, will inevitably lead to a loss of essential freedoms, and we cannot allow that to happen – in society as a whole, but within the Party for certain.