Tag Archives: Colin Hines

Brexit: moving away from globalisation towards self-reliance’  

Colin Hines draws attention to Green MEP Molly Scott Cato’s publication and launch of  a report by Victor Anderson and Rupert Read: Brexit and Trade Moving from Globalisation to Self-reliance’

Although it regrets our leaving the EU and wishes we wouldn’t, the report is written as an alternative approach assuming we are outside the EU.

Its Executive Summary states:This report puts on to the political agenda an option for Brexit which goes with the grain of widespread worries about globalisation, and argues for greater local, regional, and national self-sufficiency, reducing international trade and boosting import substitution”.

Hines continues: “As I am aware it is the first time a report from a politician isn’t clamouring to retain membership of the open border Single Market”

It details the need for an environmentally sustainable future involving constraints to trade and the rebuilding of local economies. Indeed the report actually calls for ‘Progressive Protectionism’ rather than a race to the bottom relationship with the EU – see page14:

Reducing dependence on international trade implies reducing both imports and exports. It is therefore very different from the traditional protectionism of seeking to limit imports whilst expanding exports. It should therefore meet with less hostility from other countries, as it has a very different aim from simply improving the UK’s balance of payments. It could be described as ‘progressive protectionism’, or ‘green protectionism’. X1V reference adds: ‘For detailed proposals on how this could and should be done, see http://progressiveprotectionism.com/wordpress/

Also ground-breaking in Green Party literature of late is its discussion of the arguments for and against managed migration.

Its sensitive handling of this contentious issue for many in the Greens does mark an important step forward and hopefully will help to start an internal debate about whether or not the party should reconsider its open borders approach.

This recent Daily Telegraph article with Iain Duncan Smith and Nigel Lawson frothing to get rid of key environmental regulations shows how impossible any green future will be under a hard Brexit.

Hines feels that we won’t leave the EU and central to that happening will be a realisation across Europe that to see off the extreme right they must manage internal migration and protect domestic jobs. At that point the reasons for supporting Brexit for most are no longer valid.

He ends: “This timely report makes a crucial input to this debate, one that will rage for the next two years”.

 

 

 

Population: edited extracts from Progressive Protectionism:

Following the post on migration and immigration, we turn to Colin Hines views on population – a subject which, he notes, green groups have ‘fastidiously’ ignored, in the face of developing countries’ activists and leaders saying it was a form of colonialism and others claiming that the root of environmental problems was the consumption patterns of the rich, not the growing numbers in poor countries.

Two noted environmentalists, Jonathon Porritt and David Attenborough, disagree with their Green companions about population growth

Porritt has pinpointed a weakness: “they have a very deep fear that addressing population issues will distract people from the real issue: over-consumption in the rich world rather than overpopulation in the poor world” but stresses that “It really is possible to pursue two big issues at the same time”.

One of Attenborough’s key insights was in answer to a question about overcoming the problems of an ageing population. It is often argued that we’ll need more young people to look after the old, hence we should encourage larger families or more immigration. Attenborough’s riposte was: “The notion of ever more old people needing ever more young people, who will in turn grow old and need even more young people, and so on ad infinitum, is an obvious ecological Ponzi scheme”.

A United Nations Population Division study by David Coleman demonstrated that for the UK to retain its 1995 support ratio of working-age people to older dependants (4.09), it would need to import 59.8 million immigrants between 1995 and 2050. This would involve inward net migration of more than a million people every year and nearly double UK population by 2050.

Over the years Colin Hines relates that his focus has moved from population to food to nuclear power and proliferation, to automation and jobs then finally to an anti globalisation and pro localisation approach.

He says ruefully, “Along the way I frankly fell asleep at the wheel on the population topic. This has changed however when I woke up to the fact that if net migration continues at around recent levels, the UK population is expected to rise by nearly 8 million people in 15 years, almost the equivalent of the population of Greater London (8.7 million). 75% of this increase would be from future migration and the children of those migrants.

The population growth would not stop there. Unless something is done about this growth it is projected to increase towards 80 million in 25 years and keep going upwards”. See the Office for National Statistics here.

Chapter Two of his book (above, left) looks at the reasons why global population numbers are projected to rise by over a billion more than was forecast a mere six years ago and debunks the idea that ageing populations in rich countries need more immigration. It explores the right to fertility control as well as the responsibility for choice of family size. The policies of Progressive Protectionism which will help to reduce and eventually stabilise population growth – a crucial goal for a densely populated country like the UK – are detailed. Surprising facts are published by Migration Watch:

Over 90% of international migrants to the UK go to England, which now has a population density of 410 people per square km, just lower than India and nearly twice that of Germany and 3.5 times that of France.

As Hines says, the enormous rise in world population annually takes place at a time of increasing food, water, energy and raw material constraints, of ever worsening environmental degradation and mounting difficulty of providing adequate social needs such as education, health and housing in an increasingly unequal world. Acknowledging that population growth is not the only cause of such problems, he maintains that rising numbers also makes them much harder to deal with.

As life expectancy increases and birth rates fall, populations are ageing and it is currently thought that the only way to cope with the reduced ratio of those working to those who have retired is to increase the number of children or young immigrants

But Hines points out that longer, healthier lives mean more people can work longer, unless they are in very physically demanding labouring work. With more flexible working arrangements, more jobs can be done by older workers, enabling them to top up their pensions by working as much or little as they choose.

In the absence of immigration, it is estimated that the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

There is a fascinating ‘chapter within a chapter’ on the Japanese culture concludingAll these factors result in another advantage, people don’t just live longer, they stay healthier longer. A World Health Organisation study in 2000 found that Japanese people enjoyed an average of 74.5 years of healthy life, compared with 71.7 in the UK and just 70 in the US”. A linked FT study is also of great interest.

Hines’ conclusions:

Reduce the rate of population growth

Hines sees the cornerstone for this as being for people, from now on, to consider having no more children once they have had two. The current Conservative government appears to agree; it has today brought into force new rules on Child Tax Credit – worth up to £2,780 per child per year – so that it will only be paid for the first two children in any family. Like all this government’s cuts and ‘austerity’ this will only be a problem for low-income families.

Train workers in the UK to care for the elderly frail

A valid contribution to strengthening local economies is developing a better resourced and more caring approach to looking after the growing number of elderly who need some assistance will generate huge business and job opportunities in the care sector. A massive education and skills programme will be needed to train workers in the UK for an adequately paid career in this sector.

During this transition Hines realises that it might be necessary – and also in the nursing and agricultural sectors – for some shortfalls to be filled by immigrants for as short a period as possible. He stresses that we should in general avoid taking skilled and much-needed people from their country of origin, but short term transitional arrangements might also improve the skills of those coming and increase the benefit to their host country on their return.

See: http://progressiveprotectionism.com/wordpress/

Colin Hines will be speaking on Progressive Protectionism in Birmingham on April 22nd.

 

 

New Economics question: is there a socially just, green, internationalist and small ‘c’ conservative form of protectionism?

trump-carrier

There was widespread media coverage of American president elect Donald Trump’s appearance at the Carrier furnace factory in Indianapolis, marking a deal to stop the company from moving hundreds of jobs to Mexico and threatening “consequences” for companies that relocate offshore. He also exerted pressure on Ford who backtracked on opening another small plant in Mexico.

Whilst understanding the welcome for more local jobs, Margaret – at a recent meeting of the West Midlands New Economics Group (WMNEG) – wondered if any deeper thinking would take place, “Or will Ford continue to make the ‘gas-guzzlers’ which are damaging the health of human beings and the planet?” Ann asked if there were different forms of protectionism and has decided to look further.

Colin Hines presents a detailed alternative – ‘progressive protectionism’ – which will be the focus of a future WMNEG meeting. As he wrote in the Guardian:

There is a left, green alternative that could effectively challenge the rise of the extreme right, while giving voters hope for a better future. In my new book ‘Progressive Protectionism: Taking Back Control’, I detail why progressives should endorse the controlling of borders to people, capital, goods and services, but not as occurred in the 1930s, when governments attempted to protect domestic jobs while still wanting to compete and export globally at the expense of others.

Progressive Protectionism, by contrast, aims to nurture and rebuild local economies in a way that permanently reduces the amount of international trade in goods, money and services and enables nation states to control the level of migration that their citizens desire . . . championing policies geared to achieving more job security, a decrease in inequality and protection of the environment worldwide.

corbyn-eu-socialist-leaders

Hines would urge Jeremy Corbyn to use his undoubted popularity with European socialist leaders, at next month’s London meeting of European socialist parties, to discuss how all EU member states can cooperate to reverse the present political, social and economic instability that haunts the whole continent.

He calls for a beneficial treaty replacing the outdated, discredited Treaty of Rome, which is increasing economic insecurity through austerity, relocation of businesses and the rapid migration of workers: “This should prioritise the protection and rebuilding of local economies and so provide a positive answer to voters’ concerns. To achieve this, a debate needs to be started about why Europe needs a progressive protectionism to replace the increasingly discredited Treaty of Rome with a Treaty of Home Europe-wide”. Cross-border issues such as responding to non-European migration, climate change, pollution, crime and military security would still of course require intra-European cooperation”.

He will be speaking on this theme at various events, including one meeting on 22nd April in Birmingham

 

Colin Hines is the convener of the Green New Deal group and for ten years, co-ordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit. His latest book, ‘Progressive Protectionism‘, was published in January 2017. It details why and how groups of regional nation states and their communities should join together to reintroduce border controls to protect and diversify their economies, provide a sense of security for their people and prevent further deterioration of the environment. He is also author of ‘Localization – A Global Manifesto‘. This may be bought in hard copy or read on computer/Kindle via the Amazon website. Those who avoid Amazon may like to read the assessment of corporate tax avoidance by lawyer Marc Wadsworth, here.

 

 

New generation QE could stimulate the economy, boost employment and tackle climate change

The Times reports that Howard Archer, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, predicts that quantitative easing, which has been on hold since 2012, will be revived in August, with an extension of the Funding for Lending Scheme, which provides cheap finance for major lenders in an attempt to get credit flowing.

QE – as currently administered – sees the Bank pumping money into the financial system by buying bonds from financial institutions. Adam Marshall, acting director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the employers’ group would support more QE in principle “given the exceptional circumstances of the Brexit vote”. However, he called for QE to be overhauled and “aimed at injecting money into corporates and small and medium-sized companies”.

Others would advocate more widely beneficial applications; a new-generation quantitative easing programme could stimulate the economy, boost employment and tackle climate change instead of – as before – simply adding more cash to bank balance sheets and inflating asset prices.

The latest policy proposal is Green Infrastructure Quantitative Easing (GIQE). Last year, economist Richard Murphy addressed the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to present this in detail as a programme that would buy bonds issued by the Green Investment Bank to fund making every building in the UK energy efficient, and, where feasible, fitted with solar panels, which would reduce energy bills and in the process tackle fuel poverty and cut greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, it would fund sustainable energy projects and enable local authorities to pay for new houses, NHS trusts to build new hospitals and education authorities to build schools.

gnd coverThis concept of directing quantitative easing to fund the greening of the UK’s infrastructure was first included in the 2013 report ‘A National Plan for the UK’, issued by the Green New Deal Group, convened by Colin Hines.

The new economics foundation also published a substantial 2013 report ‘Strategic quantitative easing’, apparently targeted at the banking world, with an extensive analysis of the current monetary system and applications of quantitative easing and a reference to its role in increasing exports in addition to the Green Deal and housebuilding references.

MP Caroline Lucas persuasively summarised the proposal in the New Statesman:

“GIQE could contribute to strengthening the UK economy via a carefully costed, nationwide programme to train and employ a ‘carbon army’. This army would be at the frontline of the fight against cold homes by making all of the UK’s 30 million buildings energy efficient, and, where feasible, fitted with solar panels. This would, in the first instance, dramatically reduce energy bills and fuel poverty, whilst also cutting greenhouse gas emission and cutting current dependence on imported energy.

“Secondly, a GIQE programme could also help tackle the housing crisis by financing the construction of new affordable housing that’s highly energy efficient and built predominantly on brownfield sites.

“Thirdly, GIQE could help finance improved regional public transport networks to help revitalise local and regional economies. That’s more and better buses, trains and coaches, helping people to get around their communities and stay connected . . .

“It’s time that both the Government and the Opposition, rather than continuing to hand money over to the banks as they have done since the financial crisis, will seriously consider this plan to build a resilient economy, protect our shared environment and create thousands of new well paid jobs.”

 

 

 

Post Brexit: four contributions – add yours?

Instead of stealing the brightest and the best from poorer countries, spend on education, training and family support, financed by taxing the rich and closing tax havens. Address the concerns that drove the Brexit vote – mass immigration and declining job prospects . . .

Colin Hines, convenor of the Green New Deal group, writes in the Ecologist: “We need a new, cooperative union: of decentralised regional economies, with public investment in ‘green’ infrastructure driving our transition to a sustainable, low carbon future”.

He sees a failure to control EU migration as being clearly undemocratic given the polls showing the overriding public opposition to present net immigration . . .

population trend eastern europe graph

“It will continue the present stealing of the brightest and the best from poorer countries to save the UK the expense of training its own people. Over 2,000 doctors who qualified in Romania for example are working here, a country that has lost over a third of its hospital doctors over the last few years.”.

Uncontrolled immigration will also have severely adverse environmental effects in terms of increased resource use, a greater national contribution to climate change and further building on the green belt in a country that has to import nearly half of its food in a world of likely ever increasing food insecurity.

green-new-deal-1-728Hines advocates building or refurbishing public sector buildings, more efficient energy and water systems, local transport, waste minimisation and digital infrastructure.

He points out that, aside from its obvious advantages of improving social conditions and protecting the environment, it is employment-intensive, less likely to be automated and can’t be relocated abroad. The scope of such work has been detailed by the Green New Deal group.

As the Bank of England contemplates a further round of quantitative easing, Hines points out that rather than buying bonds, ‘Green QE’ could provide the impetus to fund this work by unlocking massive private co-funding from pension and insurance companies and individual savers. The secure returns that can be earned from such investments are just what such funding sources need.

3

Andrew Walton – whose site tweets the Hines article – has posted in Bioregional Birmingham, also urging the green left to reconsider its stance on immigration for social and environmental reasons:

  • “It’s clear that each bioregion has an environmental carrying capacity, which can be tipped out of balance by population growth and increasing economic productivity; both of which are in part driven by uncontrolled migration.
  • “The discontent among many working class voters is not mindless bigotry but a cultural anxiety. It is driven by the alienating nature of fast paced social change, over which communities have little control. Many of those who feel alienated mistakenly see migrants themselves as the problem.”

“The West’s aggressive geopolitical posturing, which seeks to control global resources, combined with its billion dollar weapons export industry, also contributes hugely to displacement and forced migration”. 

The basic UK problem: its inability to educate and train its population

applica header

Writing from Brussels in the FT, John Morley, Senior Policy Adviser at research institute Applica, highlights the basic UK problem: “namely the country’s inability to educate and train its population to the extent needed to meet the demands of its economy. This has resulted in its reliance on imported labour at all levels — from the governor of the Bank of England down to farm labourers in the fields of Lincolnshire . .

“Rather than invest in its people, the UK government has preferred to put public money into high-cost but high-vis school and hospital buildings, using costly private finance initiative funding, with little regard for what needs to go on inside them. Until this massive structural imbalance between human and capital investment is corrected, it will be very difficult for the UK to reduce its dependence on imported labour”.

j 2 sachsAndrew Walton recommends an excellent article by the widely respected American economist Jeffrey Sachs (right) in The Strategist which looks at the issues he raises in more detail.

We end with Professor Sachs’ sterling advice, to restore a sense of fairness and opportunity for the disaffected working class and those whose livelihoods have been undermined by financial crises and the outsourcing of jobs:

“This means following the social-democratic ethos of pursuing ample social spending for health, education, training, apprenticeships, and family support, financed by taxing the rich and closing tax havens, which are gutting public revenues and exacerbating economic injustice.