<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Red Pepper &#187; Rupert Read</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redpepper.org.uk/by/rupert-read/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redpepper.org.uk</link>
	<description>Red Pepper</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:29:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Guardians of the future?</title>
		<link>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/guardians-of-the-future/</link>
		<comments>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/guardians-of-the-future/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Read]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redpepper.org.uk/?p=6159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, Red Pepper was invited to the launch of a new report from the ‘Green House’ think tank about how to restructure our leading democratic institutions.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-6160" title="GreenHouse-crop2" src="http://www.redpepper.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/GreenHouse-crop2.jpg" alt="" width="460" height="352" /></p>
<p>The report was authored by Rupert Read, the starting point of whose thinking is this question: ‘Democracy’ means ‘government by the people’, but who are ‘the people’?</p>
<p>Read argued that society exists over time and decisions taken today can have significant consequences for people yet to be born. His report argues that the interests of future generations should be formally represented within our existing parliamentary democracy. Building on the philosophies of Plato and of deliberative democracy, and on the precedent of Hungary’s innovative office of Ombudsman for Future Generations, Read’s report proposes the creation of a new legislative structure – ‘Guardians’ of Future Generations. The members of this body would be selected by ‘sortition’, as is current practice for jury service, in order to ensure independence from present-day party political interests.</p>
<p>The Guardians would have a power of veto over legislation that were likely to have substantial negative effects for society in the future, the right to review major administrative decisions which substantially affected future people and the power to initiate legislation to preserve the basic needs and interests of future people.</p>
<p>There has been extensive coverage of Read’s proposal: including in the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/jan/04/climate-politics-future-generation-justice?%20%29">Guardian</a>, Telegraph, Open Democracy, Liberal Conspiracy, <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/">www.politics.co.uk</a> and now Red Pepper. The House of Commons launch last week was attended by an extensive range of journalists, politicians and civil society representatives. Speakers at the launch included Caroline Lucas MP, Jon Cruddas MP, and Norman Baker MP (of the government). The Hungarian Ombudsman for Future Generations sent an explicit statement of support (for the proposal) to the meeting.</p>
<p>If you want to read Read’s report, here it is: <a href="http://www.greenhousethinktank.org/files/greenhouse/home/Guardians_inside_final.pdf">http://www.greenhousethinktank.org/files/greenhouse/home/Guardians_inside_final.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/guardians-of-the-future/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Green New Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/A-Green-New-Deal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/A-Green-New-Deal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Jepps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Read]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jim Jepps and Rupert Read say the UK needs a 'Green New Deal' to tackle the 'triple crunch' of credit, oil prices and climate change]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the 1930s, the world endured a grim economic depression. In the US, F D Roosevelt pioneered the way out with the New Deal, which helped stabilise the financial system and refloated the economy. We face the same kind of economic problems today but with added ecological threats. The age of cheap, plentiful oil is ending and we cannot simply invest in polluting factories, massive dams, boondoggle transport projects as FDR&#8217;s government did then.</p>
<p>If there is to be a new New Deal, it has to be a Green New Deal, which is exactly what a distinguished group of environmentalists and economists, including Andrew Simms, of the New Economics Foundation; Tony Juniper, former director of Friends of the Earth; Larry Elliott, economics editor of the <i>Guardian</i> and Green party leader Caroline Lucas MEP, propose.</p>
<p>Drawing inspiration from Roosevelt, the Green New Deal group calls for:</p>
<li> Capital flows to be regulated. The power to fix interest rates and the exchange rate to be restored to elected, sovereign governments. Crucially, this means exchange controls must return.
<li> Publicly accountable central banks to be free to inject debt-free money into the economy and keep the cost of borrowing low (so that loan expenditure projects can be easily financed).
<li> Resources to create jobs, in part by filling tax loopholes and closing tax havens.
<li> A new global and independent central bank to be established. Based on Keynes&#8217;s proposal for a global bank (called the International Clearing Union), it will manage and stabilise trade between countries, create a trading currency and a reserve asset that is neutral between countries (perhaps one based on carbon). In short: We need a new Bretton Woods settlement.
<p><b>Creating a carbon army</b><br />
<br />Brown talks of jobs in building a successor to the Trident nuclear missile system. But such jobs would be capital-intensive (not to mention potentially a war-crime), what we now have a &#8216;glut&#8217; of is labour, not capital.</p>
<p>The first thing that a Green New Deal must mean is good, secure, green jobs (see Jean Lambert&#8217;s <a href="http://1658">Green jobs to beat recession</a>). We need a &#8216;carbon army&#8217; of highly skilled green-collar workers, so money is needed for retraining as well as new tranches of public transport investment and to make working on the land more sustainable and localised. By capitalising on economies of scale, the UK could rapidly become a world leader in cheap, eco-friendly energy &#8211; not just wind, but tidal, solar and other forms of renewables.</p>
<p>But can government really lead a relocalisation of our economy and society? Yes &#8211; in fact, only government can do this. We can have a centralised drive to create the tools for localised solutions. Micro energy production and decentralised district heating systems make sense but require big investment and co-ordination from the centre. </p>
<p>We should incentivise localities to welcome renewable energy&#8217;s gift of greater security of supply &#8211; perhaps by reducing tariffs in areas that adopt rather than reject wind, wave or tidal power schemes. This works from both the radical left and any mainstream political perspective. We&#8217;d be crazy not to pursue an avenue that can become the political consensus.</p>
<p>Currently British manufacturers produce few if any wind turbines, and planning regulations make the whole process of moving to a low carbon economy unnecessarily expensive and time consuming. Gearing the country towards independence from fossil fuels does two things at once. It helps cut our environmental impact and distances us from the instability of international fuel prices and markets. This will help us become a more sustainable and resilient economy in every sense.</p>
<p>It is imperative to ensure this unexpected, if welcome, Keynesian consensus is not squandered. This requires government intervention, so let&#8217;s make sure it&#8217;s the right intervention. </p>
<p><b>No taxation without representation</b><br />
<br />The globalised finance system that we now have would have been repugnant to Keynes, who wanted finance and capital kept national &#8211; and thus under democratic oversight. </p>
<p>We need systemic reform of the banking system but reforms alone will never secure long-term safety, because after a while a privatised banking system will start agitating to strip away and circumvent the protections and regulations. Instead, we need a banking system consisting of a large public sector, democratically directed toward a sustainable economy that supports businesses in the real economy, with low interest rates, plus a large network of co-ops, mutuals and credit unions.</p>
<p>A key principle that must govern any just response to the financial crisis is no taxation without representation. If we the people are to put billions of pounds of our money into guaranteeing the banks, then we need to be able to exert real control over those banks to change their behaviour.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a scandal, for example, that Northern Rock and Bradford &#038; Bingley are repossessing more homes than their private competitors. If our money is to keep them afloat, let&#8217;s demand that that these building societies act for the public good, rather than simply aping commercial concerns. In the longer term, they should be remutualised.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s time for a great leap forward in our ability to weather the vast triple threat of dangerous climate change, peak oil and the financial crisis. In our view, putting the banks under public control is a logical conclusion of the urgently needed Green New Deal proposals.</p>
<p>Jim Jepps blogs at the <a href="http://jimjay.blogspot.com">Daily (Maybe)</a> and Rupert Read is one of the 15 Green Party councillors in Norwich and prospective MEP for Eastern Region<small></small></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/A-Green-New-Deal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does the Green Party need a leader? The case for</title>
		<link>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/does-the-green-party-need-a-leader/</link>
		<comments>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/does-the-green-party-need-a-leader/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:28:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Green Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Read]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is nothing left about having no leader 
_ By Rupert Read

]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Shahrar,</p>
<p>It is plain obvious that the Green Party would benefit significantly from an increased public profile, if it were to do what both its MEPs and 70 per cent of its councillors want it to do, and have a leader. In the words of the Guardian&#8217;s John Vidal: &#8216;Not having a leader has stopped mainstream political reporting of the Green Party for years. Having a leader would make for a better platform. It would make sense to change.&#8217;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a no-brainer. But as a radical democrat, I believe that there&#8217;s a deeper reason for change. We need real accountable leadership. We need to know where the buck stops. If the government does something truly appalling, the PM resigns (think Eden, or Blair &#8211; well, actually Blair never did resign over Iraq, but you take my point, all the same). </p>
<p>Think the unthinkable: if the Green Party at the highest level did something appalling, who would take responsibility? In those circumstances, our leader or co-leaders should resign &#8230; But if we don&#8217;t have any such leaders, what is going to happen: will the media and the membership call for our &#8216;principal speakers&#8217; to resign?! It just doesn&#8217;t make any sense.</p>
<p>Without leadership, there can be no genuine accountability. We need to have this referendum go through, not just so that we can reach the public more easily: we also need it, for us.</p>
<p>I imagine that one major objection to all this will be to say that green leftists ought to object on principle to having leaders. But we eco-socialists need to be quite clear that it is a merely individualistic fantasy to think that everyone is equally suited to leading. There are very, very few who are genuinely and consistently capable of leading (as opposed to being tyrants or dictators, which is somewhat easier). </p>
<p>Socialist and communist parties have long known that anti-leadership is not in the slightest radical or left-wing. Anti-leader-ness is in the end as quite literally absurd as &#8216;the American dream&#8217;, the nonsensical notion that everyone can be a millionaire, if only they work hard enough. </p>
<p>Being green is about us acting and living naturally as teams. Not as individuals each with the alleged same capacity to lead. Leaderlessness-advocates claim that all and none of us are leaders &#8211; all of us because we can all lead, and none of us because none of us ought to follow. This is the same false fantasy that drives advertising implying that we can all have the best car, the best body &#8230; Anti-leadership advocates have bought into a right-wing [liberal, consumerist] fantasy.</p>
<p>Anti-leadership is at best a misguided anarchist ideal: NOT a left or green ideal. And it is certainly a quite hopeless basis on which to run a political party.<br />
It is utter nonsense to pretend that anyone whose door we knock on could, with enough assistance, become the next Caroline Lucas. Such nonsense holds us back, as a party, from achieving what we need to: nothing less than saving the future. </p>
<p>Lacking a leader is getting in the way of this utterly vital ambition.</p>
<p>Real leadership is leading &#8211; co-ordinating, inspiring, and strategically spearheading &#8211; a team of others who have complementary skills. That is what the Green Party needs.</p>
<p>Yours,<br />
Rupert</p>
<p><i>Cllr Rupert Read is the lead Green Party candidate in the 2009 Euro-elections for Eastern Region; Dr Read is also reader in philosophy at the University of East Anglia (Norwich), where he specialises in political and environmental ethics</i></p>
<p><b>Read <a href="http://703">Shahrar Ali\&#8217;s reply to Rupert Read</a>, <a href="http://forums.redpepper.org.uk/index.php/topic,212.0.html">join the debate on the Red Pepper Forum</a> and vote in our poll</b></p>
<p>More from the campaigns:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.greenyes.org/">http://www.greenyes.org</a> &#8216;Yes&#8217; campaign for a single leader to replace &#8216;principal speaker&#8217; positions</p>
<p><a href="http://www.greenempowerment.org.uk/">http://www.greenempowerment.org.uk</a> &#8216;No&#8217; campaign &#8211; advocates collective leadership rather than appointing a single leader</p>
<p><small></small></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.redpepper.org.uk/does-the-green-party-need-a-leader/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.490 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-09-18 16:27:42 -->