My Green New Deal and Finance for the Future colleague, Colin Hines, had this letter in The Guardian this morning:
Nesrine Malik is right that Labour's continued electability will depend on it meeting the desires of the “left behind”, not just the relatively “well ahead”, and will involve huge investment in public infrastructure, secure work and the spreading of opportunity across the nation. Labour could achieve this by redefining growth as the increase in economic activity directed towards rebuilding public services and turbo-charging a green transition in every constituency. This must include retention and recruitment in these sectors through adequate pay levels, and in the process also boosting the businesses connected with them.
Older people are often accused of only supporting policies that appeal to their self-interest. Yet baby boomers like myself are worried about what the future holds for our children, grandchildren and indeed ourselves in terms of the health and care system. This concern could be turned into “intergenerational solidarity”, were Labour to prioritise encouraging the redirection of domestic savings and hence positively involve millions of savers in this transition. This would involve ensuring that all new ISA funds and 25% of new pension contributions are invested in social and green infrastructure projects.
“Savers for intergenerational solidarity” could be the funding rallying cry to improve people's lives and decrease the insecurity felt by many. This would also increase Labour's chance of re-election.
Colin Hines
Convener, UK Green New Deal Group
Those familiar with this blog will recognise the idea in savings. It comes from the Taxing Wealth Report.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’ve sent this and a couple of your other growth related blogs to my MP Ian Murray (the newly appointed Sec of State for Scotland. He’s interested in what you have to say, Richard, so perhaps if you were minded to reach out to him directly and offer to meet with him in person to have a conversation about your thinking, it might happen.
Can you mail me your links?
Much to agree with. If I may a (real) project example.
A building that produces 24/7/365 loads of heat – which it ejects to atmosphere. Just on the other side of the road – various fields used to produce crops. There is sufficient heat to heat a 50/50 mtre greenhouse – which could be locally or socially owned (JV farmer/land owner and locals?). Fresh local furit & veg – year round with the main operational expenditure (OPEX) – heat – reduced to zero. Local employment etc. Deliver fresh fruit/veg in boxes to locals. These are the sort of projects that need to be funded. Real project by the way – in the process of fleshing it out.
Keep going
What is the rationale for saying 25% of of new pension contributions should be invested in social and green infrastructure projects? I would have thought that, in view of the urgency of the situation, a much higher percentage, 75% say, would be appropriate.
Pragmatism.
But it also relates to the approximate tax subsidy
Go higher and there might be reduced pension saving