Molly Scott Cato Makes Sure That the Green Party Is the True Party of the NHS

“Only the Green Party is offering a bold and effective solution to the NHS funding crisis. We must finally put an end to the pain of privatisation that has been inflicted by Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories. The Green Party is the only party that never has and never will collude in the dismantling and selling off of our beloved NHS. Instead, we will give the NHS the funding it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century.” – Molly Scott Cato, Green Party candidate in Bristol West


How many times have you heard either Labourites or Conservatives say that it is they who are the true party of the NHS?

If you’re a frequent viewer of Prime Minister’s Questions, odds are that you hear it at least a few times a month.

When it comes to the NHS, the conversation usually centres around a familiar set of topics: long waiting lines, junior doctor contracts, privatisations, missed targets, and the general ineptitude of Jeremy Hunt and the government that he represents. Indeed, we seem to have got so used to the negativity surrounding the conversation that we’re barely surprised when organisations like the Red Cross describe the NHS as being in a state of “humanitarian crisis“.

Perhaps that’s why it feels so refreshing when, on a rare occasion, you get a glimpse of what things could be like if only the society we live in looked a little different, and if only our politicians thought in slightly different terms. Caroline Lucas, the joint leader of the Green Party, provided one such moment when she, during the ITV Leaders’ Debate last week, remarked that a lot can be done to help the NHS by way of tackling climate change.

At a glance, it may seem like a leap — how are the two really connected? — but, of course, the closer you look, the more sense it makes.

In 2016, a report published by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health estimated that health problems caused by air pollution costs the UK more than £20bn per year. (It’s worth noting, here, that the budget for the NHS in 2016 was £116bn.) The same report argues that air pollution contributes to a staggering 40,000 pre-mature deaths per year in the UK. And another report, also published in 2016 — this one by the World Health Organisation — estimates that 19% of all cancers can be linked to air pollution.

It is perfectly clear that environmental factors have an enormous impact on public health in the UK. That the very air we breathe sets the NHS back more than £20bn per year is nothing short of a total catastrophe. And yet, despite this, both Conservatives and Labourites continue to back fossil fuels and the expansion of airports. When it comes to tackling climate change and air pollution, the Green Party really does stand out as the only serious alternative. As such, they also stand out as the only party that is genuinely concerned about illness prevention.

vgp

In Bristol West, the Green Party’s Molly Scott Cato emerges as another politician who, like Lucas, often gives us that rare view of a different kind of politics. Scott Cato’s candidacy — including her approach to the NHS — is, without doubt, informed by her training and work as an economist. As the author of several books on economic theory and policy, she has done significantly more than most politicians in the UK to critically address the way economies interact with social and environmental demands. In much of her writing, Scott Cato advocates a green economy that prioritises environmental protection and social justice. It is therefore hardly surprising to learn that she takes the NHS as seriously as she does, and many voters in Bristol West will surely rejoice in a candidate who has pledged to fight against the privatisation of health services, and to support increased funding.

“[NHS] spending,” says Scott Cato, “is at its lowest since the 1950s and, at the same time, our NHS has been asked to make £22bn worth of cuts — cuts that researchers have concluded are responsible for 30,000 excess deaths a year.”

More, so called Sustainability and Transformation Partnership plans will drastically reduce the number of beds in hospitals around the country.

“In Bristol,” Scott Cato points out, “[these] plans, which were only revealed after pressure from healthcare campaigners, will see £139m of cuts to local healthcare services and a further £104m of as yet unspecified cuts. We can’t stand by and let this happen.”

Privatisation of the NHS has previously had the support of Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labourites, but it has never been backed by the Green Party. Many would argue that one big problem associated with privatisations is that they make services more expensive. Others might say that they undermine the status of staff, and that it can be difficult to hold private companies to account. Molly Scott Cato would also argue that it’s something that people have never actually asked for. As she said at a local husting a couple of weeks ago: “it’s so clearly an area of policy where Conservative governments and all three of the main Westminster parties have done something completely against what the public want.”

Bristol West is one of quite few constituencies where a Green Party candidate has a real chance of winning. It is, therefore, one of few constituencies that has a real chance of electing an MP that will significantly add to the intellectual and ideological diversity of the House of Commons. Molly Scott Cato is a serious economic thinker and she has spent her entire adult life developing methods for implementing a green economy aimed at delivering sustainability and social justice. And, just like the party that she represents, she promotes a political model that comprehensively addresses the challenges of the NHS — from air pollution to privatisation.

What is party is the true party of the NHS? Well, it’s worth having a think about it.

#VoteGreen2017 to #ChangeTheGame.

 

Changing the Game, One Step at a Time: The Green Party

Over the course of the last couple of years, it has become increasingly clear that a majority of Britons want to see significant political change in their country. Some 52% of the population gave voice to that desire by voting in favour of Brexit in 2016. Many others are giving voice to that desire through their participation in the current General Election campaign.

As certain, however, as many may be about the need for change, the less certain they seem to be about how that change can be effected on a political level. Indeed, many would seem to think that it can’t — that the current electoral system is rigged against them, that it favours a perptually centrist two-party state, and that their vote is either wasted or meaningless. Yet others might wonder what their votes mean in practice when politicians so often seem to go back on their word. Nearly a year has passed since the EU referendum but there are still few who seem to have much of a clue as to what Brexit will eventually come to mean. And although many are hugely disenchanted with the current government, there is still a large group of voters who doubt that the Labour Party can provide a serious alternative to Tory austerity.

So what can we expect in terms of change as a result of the General Election in 2017? 

Well, crassly put, the Conservatives and the Labour Party have both made pretty clear what they want from this General Election. If we disregard the obvious personality differences between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn — personalities which in many ways distract us from concrete political content — and if we simply look at what the two parties are actually saying, we soon find that they’re surprisingly similar.

The Tories? More of the same — protect the status quo, pull your socks up, and things will slowly get better. Hard Brexit.

Labour? Little will change for 95% of the population, but corporations and the richest 5% will have to pay a bit more in order to facilitate greater investment in public services. Somewhat less hard Brexit.

In a way, the Tories are right. There is a choice to be made. The two parties ostensibly represent different economic models and their practical application won’t yield the exact same results. So much is clear.

And yet, in a different way, the Tories are quite wrong. Look a little closer and, sure enough, it’s all rather blurry.

As Jeremy Corbyn pointed out a couple of nights ago, it is hardly revolutionary to raise corporation tax to 26% when it was 28% in 2010. Theresa May obviously doesn’t want to increase corporation tax — she wants to lower it to 17% — but in quite many respects, the two parties appear to see eye to eye. The Tories maintain that immigration ought to go down whereas Labour has effectively promised that it probably won’t be going up. Theresa May wants the best Brexit possible — whatever that actually means — and so does Corbyn. Where the Tories are decidedly weak on the environment, the Labour Party is merely vague. Both parties are in favour of investing a lot money in the building of Hinkley C; both parties will pursue oil interests in the North Sea; and both parties support the renewal of an extremely expensive nuclear weapon supply that must never be used.

Effecting real political change is obviously hard, and it also takes a lot of time. A vote for the Labour Party would be a vote for things to be different, but it’s hard to argue that it would be a vote for change, and there’s something to be said about making that particular distinction. To redistribute wealth but to otherwise do everything more or less the same won’t in any significant way change the face of Britain, nor will it take the country forward. Most likely, it will only take the country to another election, five years from now, where we still debate whether taxes should be one or two per cent higher or lower.

Given the state of the political mainstream, it would appear that those who look for a genuine alternative to the status quo would have to look elsewhere. To locate the voice of real change in 2017, you must go to the periphery. There, we find the Green Party.

Earlier this year, former Green Party leader Natalie Bennett argued a point that I believe many agree with:

“You can’t run a centrist position that says, ‘We won’t change anything much.’ People just don’t believe that now. We’re not producing a society that gives people hope for the future, so people are beginning to understand the need for real change.”

In a few sentences, Bennett here neatly sums up the position of the party that she represents. The Labour Party may present an alternative to the Tories, but it’s not a party that signals a new way of going forward. By comparison, the Greens openly recognise the need for large-scale reforms.

During the current General Election campaign, the Greens have made a bit of a slogan out of the hashtag #ChangeTheGame. That may sound ambitious for a party that only has one MP, and that would consider it a great victory to elect a second one, but it isn’t if you take into consideration that parliamentary representation isn’t the sole goal of the party. A significant aspect of the Greens’ political agenda is to push awareness of many of the issues and problems that often figure on the periphery of the mainstream. Eco-consciousness, LGBTIQA+ rights, gender equality and proportional representation are some of the questions that are central to the Greens, and the fact that these questions increasingly make national headlines is testament to the relative influence of the party.

The most important aspect of the Green Party is not, however, that they, as an opposition party, attempt to bring the periphery into the centre. The most important thing is that they envision a comprehensive economic model in which equality and sustainability is at the heart of every policy. To get an idea of what this means, you don’t need to look much further than the joint leader of the party, Caroline Lucas. Only a month ago, Lucas convincingly argued for a future Britain in which people work a four day week, and where the country is significantly better as a result: healthier, more equal, more productive.

Now, how would that work? Well, it’s actually fairly straight-forward, even if it would take a while to fully implement. Take this as an example: currently, 6 million people in the UK work more than 45 hours a week. (As a point of interest, the International Labour Organisation deems anything above 48 hours a week as excessive.) Redistributing these peoples’ workloads to the 1,5 million who are currently unemployed would, in Lucas’s words, “share prosperity and start to tackle the costs associated with unemployment.” More, reduced working hours effectively reduces stress levels which in turn reduces stress-related illnesses, which in turn puts less pressure on the NHS. Countries in which working hours are fewer also tend to leave smaller environmental footprints, which reduces problems associated with air pollution. Who foots the bill, though? Lucas cites a report published by the New Economic Foundation that suggests that the state and employers would share the costs so that “productivity increases could be matched by increased hourly wages.”

Sounds far-fetched? It doesn’t have to. There’s plenty of evidence that suggests that the four day week, or the three day weekend, has a positive impact on productivity and workers’ happiness. An article in The Atlantic makes the following case:

“Beyond working more efficiently, a four-day workweek appears to improve morale and well-being. The president of the U.K. Faculty of Public Health told the Daily Mail that a four-day workweek could help lower blood pressure and increase mental health among employees. Jay Love of Slingshot SEO saw his employee-retention rate shoot up when he phased in three-day weekends. Following this line of thought, TreeHouse, an online education platform, implemented a four-day week to attract workers, which has contributed to the company’s growth.”

How long it takes before the four day week is implemented on a national level remains to be seen, but it is evident that the Green Party and its representatives have got their eyes firmly fixed on what’s happening in the world. It’s a party that is serious about political innovation. It’s a party that is serious about finding new solutions where the old one’s just aren’t working. That goes for everything from climate change to the gender gap, from health issues to immigration and electoral reform.

When so many people seem to be crying out for change, and when the mainstream appears unable to significantly depart from political lines designed to barely satisfy, it won’t hurt to look more closely at what people like Caroline Lucas, Molly Scott Cato and Jonathan Bartley are saying. As said: political change is difficult and time-consuming, but with a few more Green MPs in the House of Commons, at least we’re on our way. Caroline Lucas has proven that much ever since her election in 2010, and hopefully she’ll be in an even better position to do so after June 8th.

#VoteGreen2017 to #ChangeTheGame.

 

 

It’s the (Green) Economy, Stupid. – Pt. 3.


”The proper names of leaders are distractions from concrete economic models.” – Ben Lerner, Leaving the Atocha Station


The economy has grown, but real wages have gone down by 10%. One in four British children lives in poverty. Disability benefits have been cut. The people on Britain’s Rich List have become 14% richer only in the last year. Welfare cuts and a lack of affordable housing have caused a homelessness crisis. Renewable energy sources are now cheaper than fossil fuels but the Conservatives prefer to back fracking and dirty energy. Spending per school child is set to fall by 8%. Foodbanks are increasingly in demand. The UK is currently set to miss its 2020 renewable energy targets. University tuition fees have trebled. The NHS is in a state of perpetual crisis.

Now, remind us, again: why is all of this good? (Strong and stable leadership? In the national interest?)

Let’s for a second forget about the fact that Theresa May polls well with people and that Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t — at least according to figures released in April — and consider instead, on the basis of the evidence given above, the concrete economic model that she represents:

1) it’s a model of neo-liberal capitalism in which human beings are seen, quite simply, as consumers, and in which ‘society’ is seen as little more than the market place on which these consumers act;
2) it’s a model in which citizens have few civic responsibilities (to participate in the creation of our society), and diminishing or weak civil rights (mass surveillance, the low status of mental health, the gender gap), and in which ‘society’ is ruled by economic movements rather than political decisions;
3) it’s a model which fails to value our natural environment for anything but its unlocked economic potential.

This is an economic model that has disappointed the millions of people who have suffered its consequences, and it is one that will disappoint millions more — unborn generations, even — as it fails to properly address the challenges of climate change. In January this year, “air pollution in London passed levels in Beijing”, which prompted Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to describe London’s air quality as constituting a veritable “health crisis”; and The Economist recently reported that the Arctic will, according to the most recent predictions, be ice free in the summer by 2040. Earlier predictions had indicated that this would not happen before 2070.

The climate crisis is as real as the poverty that affects 25% of British children, and the best way to face both of these problems is not by being passive, but by being realistic and active.

The economic model of Theresa May and the Conservative Party is unsustainable and to market it as “strong and stable” or as “long-term” or as “in the national interest” is to deceive. To vote for it is to vote for nothing to change. It is to bury one’s head in the sand and hope that, eventually, all the bad things will go away on their own. They won’t.

Generally speaking, ‘hope’ wins elections, and I believe that it was ‘hope’ in the Conservatives’ “long-term economic plan” that gave the Tories a majority in the General Election of 2015. In the General Election of 2017, however, I hope that ‘hope’ shall mingle with ‘fear’ and ‘realism’ to such an extent that the Conservatives will fail to renew that majority. Because as much as we need hope in order to believe that a better future is possible, we also need ‘fear’ and ‘realism’ to guide us away from false promises.

Luckily, there is an alternative. There is an option to the voice that says that the best thing is to just maintain the status quo, and to change nothing. There is a model that represents hope, but that also knows that — realistically — society needs to change, and to change quickly. That alternative is the Green Party.

The Green Party represents an economic model that is based on active political decision-making. It’s a model that seeks to end poverty by means of introducing a universal basic income, and to ensure greater welfare by introducing a more progressive taxation system.  It’s a model in which our political representatives will promote sustainble, low-carbon energy industries, and in which they will phase out unsustainble, high-carbon energy industries. It is an economic model that will promote technological innovation in the field of sustainable energy, and that will initiate the construction of an environmentally friendly, state owned transport infrastructure. It is an economic model that means taking control of the NHS, and rolling back previous privatisations. It is a model that means that education should be free, and that it should be of world class quality.

It is, in short terms, an economic model that will restore a sense of civic duty and a social contract, as well as greater civil rights. And, crucially, to market it as “strong and stable”, “long-term” or as “in the national interest” would not be to deceive.

Forget about Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and the others. Instead, look closely at the world. Look at what you’re being offered. Don’t let yourself be distracted.


 

 

 

Common Sense, or: The Green Party Youth Manifesto

“The Green Party knows that education and equality are key to an economic model that can deliver a sustainble future for the UK. Not only do they want to do the sensible thing, which is to scrap tuition fees and cancel student debt, but they also want to ensure that the UK promotes a type of education that will have long term benefits for all of society.” 



The English philosopher John Locke is known to have said quite many, quite clever things.

One of the things he did not say, is that a university education should cost £27,000, or thereabouts.

Why did he not say that? I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m just throwing it out there. It’s Saturday, after all, so this is bound to be a Saturday kind of blog post.

But it’s a fact. It’s a fact that he did not say that. At least there’s no historical evidence to suggest that he did. And as I sit here and think about it, I realise that, hm, hey, it’s also a fact that no other major or significant philosopher ever said that a university education should cost £27,000 (or thereabouts).

And, hey, why would they? It is widely accepted that education is a good thing and that it has a positive impact on society. A solid higher education system tends to produce a more skilled and productive labour force, and skilled and productive workers tend to produce innovative products and services. To offer free higher education is to ensure equality of opportunity. It is also to back productivity and innovation.

“But look,” some of you might say, “if we invest in free higher education, then that means we can’t spend that money elsewhere. Not all people want to go to university, so what if instead we were to spend that money on early education and vocational training? That way, we ensure that 18 year olds enter adult life on the best possible terms.”

And I guess that would sound like a pretty good idea, if only it were that the people who trebled tuition fees had done anything to support it in practice. Instead, the opposite of that seems to be happening, as spending per pupil is currently set to fall by 8%.

So what do we have? We have huge tuition fees that saddle graduates with crippling debts that prevent them from investing in the economy, and we’ve got decreased spending on early education which effectively threatens the academic progress of children and adolescents in the UK. We’ve also got increasing numbers of young people who are forced to ask themselves if it’s even worth bothering with university.

The Green Party knows that education and equality are key to an economic model that can deliver a sustainble future for the UK. Not only do they want to do the sensible thing, which is to scrap tuition fees and cancel student debt, but they also want to ensure that the UK promotes a type of education that will have long term benefits for all of society.

For example, the Party has pledged to create Green jobs for more women in STEM, renewables and sustainability, and also to offer more such training opportunities, as, at the moment, only 5% of engineering apprentices are women. To encourage women to enter into typically male-dominated sectors of work and education is to promote gender balance in Britain’s work force. It is a fact that female-dominated work sectors were hit hardest by the financial crisis, and that women, as a consequence, have struggled more than men to regain financial power. To encourage women to enter into historically male-dominated work sectors is also to promote greater financial empowerment of women, as these sectors tend to offer higher wages. Of course, as Britain progresses towards a greener economy (though not so much so under a Conservative government), the value and importance of education in science, technology, energy and mathematics can hardly be overestimated.

Let’s be realistic, though. As things currently stand — according to recent predictions, we’re looking at 398 Conservative seats after June 8th — tuition fees will never, ever be scrapped, and student debts will never, ever, ever, ever be cancelled, and the UK’s economy and education system will be grey rather than green, and renewable energy sources — even though they’re cheaper than fossil fuels — will see less backing than fracking and other dirty energy sources, and gender equality and LGBTIQA+ inclusivity will remain but an inconvenient parenthesis as the Conservatives continue to promote a male dominant agenda.

That all is, of course, unless the UK votes for someone else. As Green Party councillor Simon Bull said on Twitter said: “One more Tory backbencher will make no difference, one more Green MP will.”

Take that message to heart and give the Green Party your honest consideration on June 8th, especially if you live in Brighton, Bristol or Sheffield.


Bennett’s Better for Sheffield Central

Photo: Natalie4Sheffield.org


[T]he problem is that the centre is not holding anymore. You can’t run a centrist position that says, ‘We won’t change anything much.’ People just don’t believe that now. We’re not producing a society that gives people hope for the future, so people are beginning to understand the need for real change. What we need to do is provide an inspirational, hopeful message that we can do much better than this.” – Natalie Bennett 


There’s Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) in the South East, there’s Molly Scott Cato (Bristol West) in the South West, Siân Berry in London (Holborn & St Pancras), and Vix Lowthion (Isle of Wight) in the English Channel. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the Greens are doing well in the South. But what about the North?

It may come as a bit of a surprise — a Labour majority of approximately 17,000 seats is hardly something to scoff at — but there are signs that suggest that former Green Party leader Natalie Bennett may just be able to win Sheffield Central from Paul Blomfield and become the first Green MP in the North. She may just be the better choice, too.

What speaks in Natalie Bennett’s favour?

Well, for one, Sheffield Central is one of few constituencies where voters have a straight choice between the Labour Party and the Green Party. That particular dichotomy of choice presents an interesting situation. On the one hand, you’ve got a Labour candidate who represents a manifesto which, in many respects, seems to draw inspiration from the Green Party manifesto of 2015, but which has been criticised for its many contradictions. As Green Party co-leader Jonathan Bartley said:

“You can’t solve the air pollution crisis while expanding airports and roads. You can’t be a peacebuilder while renewing Trident. You can’t transition to a new economic model while hanging onto 20th century ideas where growth is the only answer. It’s time Labour embraced our full vision for the future instead of cherry picking a few good Green policies, then contradicting them.”

On the other hand, you’ve got a Natalie Bennett who, over many years, has consistently represented a version of environmentally friendly social democracy, and who has championed an economic model where growth isn’t the most important indicator of success. As Bennett said in January this year:

“If you vote Green you know exactly what you’re voting for. Our principles and values are solid and unchanging, based on the evidence that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. And while we’re trashing the planet we’re also delivering a deeply unequal, unbalanced society. The Greens identify this and offer the real change that we need.” 

In other words: the choice in Sheffield Central is one between a somewhat unstable, shifting version of a social democracy where, as Bennett has said,  “the environment is still very much an add-on at the end”, or a green-oriented social democracy that for long has set an agenda that many other parties have had to follow. The Labour Party purports to represent “the many, not the few”, but it’s worth considering if it’s a party that is capable of delivering real social and economic change.

Secondly, Sheffield — The Outdoor City, the climbing capital of the UK, city of hills and valleys — is a green-minded kind of place that seeks to obtain the status as a European green city. In 2016, the independent Sheffield Green Commission published a report in which they suggested a number of priorities that would work towards ensuring that the city reaches its goal. To elect a Green Party MP in Sheffield Central may be key to ensuring that not only Sheffield, but also the UK, actively pursues the path of developing a more sustainable and eco-conscious way of doing politics.

Thirdly, Natalie Bennett is a singularly determined and principled politician who has chosen to make Sheffield her home, and who has vowed to improve the city for all its inhabitants. She and the Green Party — unlike Labour — unanimously and comprehensively reject fracking; she promotes the building of affordable council homes in order to tackle Sheffield’s homelessness problem; she supports rent control; and she has said that her first priority, if elected, will be to focus on wages.

The Green Party in 2017 presents a comprehensive and distinct political philosophy that puts human beings in the centre of all its pursuits and policies. The party supports an end to tuition fees and a voting system that more fairly represents the will of the British people. It also rejects policies pertaining to mass state surveillance, as well as suggestions to further privatise the NHS.

To vote for Natalie Bennet would not only be to elect a good representative for Sheffield. It would also be to elect a person who will present a different way doing things to the other members of the House of Commons. It would be to elect a person who offers a clear alternative to austerity and to Tory ideology, and it would be to elect an MP who believes that people are more important than GDP.

Now, what speaks against Natalie Bennett?

Well, there’s that margin of 17,000 votes. To win in Sheffield Central would certainly be a “gain” to remember. In other words: she’ll need all the help she can get. But as long as the people of Sheffield Central know that there’s a real opportunity, here — that there is indeed a Green Party candidate who may better serve their and their city’s interests — then there’s a real chance that she could win.

Help Natalie Bennett become the first Green Party MP in the North:

Natalie’s fighting fundhttp://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/natalie-bennett-for-sheffield-…

Join Team Nataliehttps://www.natalie4sheffield.org/pledge;

 

Women’s Manifesto: Gender Equality and the Need For Legal Regulations

“The Green Party’s manifesto for gender equality is an important document, full of innovative as well as morally instructive policies. Many of these ideas are not politics as usual, and they deserve representation in the governing bodies of the UK. To #VoteGreen2017 is signal your support of these ideas, and to make sure that you’re represented in the House of Commons.”


“Legal regulation can accomplish its goals directly, through fear of sanctions or desire for rewards. But it can also do so indirectly, by changing attitudes about the regulated behaviors. Ironically, this indirect path can be the most efficient one, particularly if the regulation changes attitudes about the underlying morality of the behaviors.” – Bilz & NadlerThe Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law

On May 13, The Green Party launched its manifesto for gender equality at Yarl’s Wood detention centre. The manifesto suggests a number of policies that are meant to increase gender equality via different routes of legal regulation. I believe that legal regulation constitute of one the most efficient ways of facilitating wide-ranging behavioural and attitudinal changes, and I also believe that ensuring gender equality is essential in the process of creating a greener economy. To me, the most important aspects of this manifesto are therefore those that concern the safety and well-fare of women, as well as those that concern equality in the labour market. It is also my belief that the former category precedes the latter: namely, that we cannot achieve gender equality anywhere before the female body is worth as much as the male.

Why is legal regulation in the context of gender equality morally productive, and how does it benefit the (green) economy?

It is a commonly held view that human beings accept and follow laws which they believe to be just and reasonable. It is also commonly held that laws help shape and strengthen public perceptions about what is morally right. The law that ensures universal suffrage is one example of a law that encompasses both of these views. Although many 19th and early 20th century Britons may privately have believed in the moral benefits of allowing women to vote, legislative action was still required in order to render universal suffrage a publically accepted norm. A law that gives women the right to vote strengthens the perception that women and men are equals and that they therefore ought to have equal rights and opportunities to shape society. Conversely, where there is absence of law, perceptions of moral justice and injustice are undermined.

In the context of women’s welfare and safety, the Green Party’s pledge to de-criminalise prostitution presents itself as a particularly good example of how laws can serve to change moral perceptions and also protect certain members of society. The law that criminalises prostitution have two particularly damaging effects:

1) it effectively criminalises the right to own one’s body and, by implication, it labels prostitutes as deviants. In criminological terms, the concept known as labeling theory states “that deviance is a socially constructed process in which social control agencies designate certain people as deviants, and they, in turn, come to accept the label placed upon them and begin to act accordingly.” In other words: the criminalisation of prostitution associates women with a type of deviance that society purports to reject, and it therefore undermines the sovereignty of the female body.

2) it forces sex workers to operate outside of legally protected contexts. Their status as deviants imply that their physical sovereignty is compromised, to what end they risk physical and mental abuse by men who perceive them as without right.

To decriminalise prostitution is a measure that will protect the sovereignty of the female body, and it will remove the status as deviants from many women who have faced prosecution as a result of a legal framework that curtails their right to own their own bodies. It is my conviction that these kinds of measures will, in the long run, lead to changing perceptions about the status of the female body, and therefore I support this idea.

**

In terms of policies and legal regulations that increase equality on the labour market, the Green Party’s manifesto on gender equality contains plenty of promise on several fronts. Amongst these pledges, a few stand out as particularly exciting:

  •  1. The initiative to “create Green jobs for more women in STEM in renewables and sustainability. Currently, just 5% of engineering apprentices are women. The Green Party would ensure that the roll-out of Green Jobs would be accompanied by specific initiatives to train and encourage young women, in particular, to fill these roles.”

report released in 2010 by Raul Romeva MEP showed that female-dominated work sectors, such as retail and services, were among the worst affected by the financial crisis. These sectors generally tend to offer less job stability. As Britain becomes increasingly geared towards creating a greener, low-carbon economy, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that men and women have equal access to employment that will support this process. This pledge will see more women engaging in science, technology, engineering and math programmes, and will consequently serve to unlock unprecendented amounts of potential

  • 2. The pledge to guarantee parental leave rights, regardless of gender. 

One does not have to look far to realise that many people today hold the belief that men are more work prone than women, and that women are more family prone than men, and that therefore we don’t need to impose regulations that destabilise the framework that supports the gender gap. A law that encourages shared responsibility of early child care may just work to show why those people are wrong. As an article published in The Economist in 2015 argued:

“when childcare responsibilities fall exclusively on the mother, the effect is to depress women’s wages. Time out of the labour force deprives them of experience and promotions. When men shoulder more of the childcare burden, the effect is lessened.”

Paternal leave enables women to make greater career progress and to ultimately make more money. It effectively creates greater equality on the labour market and greater social equality, as both women’s influence on the work place and their purchase power increases. Measures such as these seem increasingly relevant and necessary when research shows that in three years from now, women will have lost “twice as much income as men due to the Conservative changes to our tax and benefits system”.

  • 3. To increase diversity with a “50/50 Parliament” through measures such as enabling MPs as well as other “full-time” politicians to job-share – a practice which has been shown to increase representation of women, disabled people and those from ethnic minorities.

Predominantly Conservatives and those on the right wing of the political spectrum will argue that laws that promote gender equality by means of quotas or affirmative action are insulting or demeaning. They will say that they support whoever is best suited for the job, regardless of gender or ethnicity. As much as that sounds perfectly fine in theory, one would have to say that most works places and public institutions today are not equally represented, either in terms of gender or ethnicity. Therefore, if one follows the logic of aforementioned right-wing thinkers, one would have to assume that it is mainly white men who fall within the category of best suited. Although I agree in principle with the idea that the best candidate should win, I do not believe that there generally is only one candidate that is suited for a particular position, and I do not believe that board rooms and work places are unequally represented simply because the best candidate always won. A 50/50 rule is an important measure directed as instigating much needed cultural change in public institutions. What better place to start than the House of Commons?

The Green Party’s manifesto for gender equality is an important document, full of innovative as well as morally instructive policies. Many of these ideas are not politics as usual, and they deserve representation in the governing bodies of the UK. To #VoteGreen2017 is signal your support of these ideas, and to make sure that you’re represented in the House of Commons.


N.B. In this blog post I have but scratched at the surface of what’s in the Green Party’s manifesto for gender equality. For further reading, click on the link below:

It’s the (Green) Economy, Stupid.

When more and more new research challenges the notion that the targets set out in the Paris Agreement — targets that were set two years ago — will ever be met, and when the government succeeds in delivering economic growth but fails to protect its population from poverty and homelessness, then it is essential to bring voices of change into Parliament.


“We’d have to say, ‘it was all too difficult’, and [our grandchildren] would reply, ‘well, what was so difficult?’ What was it that was so difficult when the earth was in peril? When sea levels were rising in 2015? When crops were failing? When deserts were expanding? What was it that was so difficult?”

David Cameron, speech to the COP21 summit in Paris, 2015

In December of 2016, the independent think thank The Green Alliance published a report in which they stated that renewables spending in the UK had fallen by £1.1bn in the last six months. The think tank further stated that this spending reduction could not be accounted for by falling renewables costs, and that it was sooner the consequence of a declining number of environmental projects.

“Most significantly,” the report reads, “there is… a 95 per cent fall in investment between 2017 and 2020. This cliff edge needs to be avoided if the UK is to meet its world leading carbon budgets and Paris agreement pledge.”

The report from The Green Alliance followed another report released in September of 2016 by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which stated that the UK, as things were going, would fail to meet its 2020 renewable energy target. Following the release of the report, Committee Chair Angus MacNeil MP said:

“The experts we spoke to were clear: the UK will miss its 2020 renewable energy targets without major policy improvements. Failing to meet these would damage the UK’s reputation for climate change leadership.”

Time and time again, Prime Ministers David Cameron and Theresa May have repeated the statement that the UK cannot be run well if the economy isn’t strong. For the UK to succeed, argue the Tories, it is imperative that the country continues to be governed by the fiscally responsible economic principles of the Conservative Party. In spite of this recommendation, few people seem to understand what it is, in practice, that makes the Tory economy strong, when so many Britons rely on food banks; when so many Britons are homeless; when real wages have gone down by 10%; when the government’s deficit reduction targets demand severe cuts to disability benefits; when poverty affects one in four British children; when the NHS is doing worse and worse for each passing year; and when the government fails to design policies that make meeting the targets set out in the Paris Agreement a possibility.

When so many people fail to see the benefits of this type of economy, then it may just be that the Tories haven’t got it right. It may just be, that in spite of their good intentions, the Tory economy isn’t strong at all. And it may just be, that GDP isn’t the only indicator of prosperity.

The Green Party won’t win the General Election of 2017, but in light of the current government’s struggle to govern in the best interest of the whole of society, it seems more important than ever that the electorate sends as many Green Party MPs as possible to the House of Commons in 2017. Green Party candidates, it serves to be mentioned, have a slightly different understanding of what makes an economy strong.

For one, they support the emergence of an economy which recognizes the limits of natural systems, and which makes sure that the political ambitions of all of humanity are compatible with those limitations.

For another, they hope to achieve a society in which resources, wealth, opportunity and power is distributed fairly, and in such a way that it enables personal as well social development.

And for a third, they believe that

gross national product (GNP) is a poor indicator of true progress and does not adequately measure people’s sense of well-being. It measures only the activity in the formal sector, regardless of what that activity is. In consequence, current economic theory fails adequately to reflect the real effects of human activity within a finite ecosystem, and is used to ‘validate’ economic activities which are ecologically unsustainable and/or socially unjust.”

When more and more new research challenges the notion that the targets set out in the Paris Agreement — targets that were set two years ago — will ever be met, and when the government succeeds in delivering economic growth but fails to protect its population from poverty and homelessness, then it is essential to bring voices of change into Parliament. It is essential to bring  into Parliament those voice that may offer it an ideological direction that is grounded on principles such as fairness and equality, and in the conviction that the interests of human beings should be put before the interests of corporations. The key to the economy isn’t more austerity or higher taxes — the  key to the economy is to put human beings in the centre of it.

The electoral system may or may not be rigged, but one way to #ChangeTheGame and to make sure that your interests are represented in the House of Commons is to #VoteGreen2017.

Further reading:

“Stress that [you’re] the candidate of change, stress that [you’re] the candidate of the economy, and get mad about something. Don’t be so cool. Show some anger about what’s happened to the country.” – James Carville in reply to the question “How do you think Obama can win in the 2008 election?”