Greens lack any real answers to capitalism and cuts

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, has had a difficult time lately. The ‘excruciating’ performance she gave when interviewed about housing policy on LBC radio will surely have resulted in many sleepless nights. Many listeners (after cringing their way through the clips) will feel some sympathy for Natalie. After all, ‘mind-blanks’ do happen to the best of us. At least she doesn’t have the robotic approach of most capitalist politicians.

But what actually lay behind this meltdown was not just one or two forgotten statistics (nor even a nasty cold). Really, it highlighted the limits of the Green Party’s overall political approach.

Sums

Natalie’s difficulty lay in explaining where her party would get the funding for its pledge to build 500,000 ‘social rented’ homes by 2020. She quoted the figure £2.7 billion. A simple calculation can tell you that this works out at around £5,400 for each house.

Later in the interview she stated that each home would in fact cost £60,000. But, if you include the cost of purchasing the land for these homes, this remains optimistic. When asked where the Green Party would raise the money to fund the project, the only example Bennett could muster was ending tax breaks on mortgages for landlords – a reasonable enough policy, but unlikely to raise enough build to half a million homes.

Terms of debate

The crux of the problem the Greens face is that they have accepted the terms of political debate as laid-out by the capitalist establishment. The so-called ‘logic’ of crisis-ridden capitalism dictates, for instance, that the national debt, swelled by the billions handed over in bailouts to the banks, must be ‘got under control’ through austerity measures.

This ‘logic’ also tells us that, for example, the Duke of Westminster has the right to sit on over 300 acres of land in London and a personal fortune of £1.7 billion. This wealth, afforded to him through no other merit than an accident of birth, allows him to stand in the way of providing decent, affordable housing for the millions in need of it.

Convincingly answering the question ‘how would you deal with the housing crisis?’ requires more than getting “genned up” before an interview, as right wing LBC host Nick Ferrari suggested was the problem for Bennett. What’s really needed is a clear understanding that there is an alternative to the capitalist system and its austerity consensus.

For example, why should it be necessary to spend billions purchasing land on which to build social housing, when this land is owned by multi-millionaires whose wealth has been inherited – or else accumulated through cruel exploitation?

The ‘big four’ property developers are sitting on enough land to immediately build 1.4 million homes. Their profits have risen by 557% since 2010. Why could that land and the biggest vultures in the construction industry not be nationalised, with compensation paid to current owners only on the basis of genuine need?

What’s more, why should it be ordinary people who foot the bill for a crisis created at the top of society? In the last year, the 1,000 richest individuals in Britain increased their wealth by 15% to £520 billion (more than five times the NHS budget).

‘Logic’

Socialists reject entirely any ‘logic’ which argues that the 99% should be made to pay the price for capitalist crisis, responsibility for which lies with the super-rich.

Unlike the Greens, we do not accept the need to ‘strike a balance’ between the interests of working class people and those of the 1%. We have the advantage of understanding that there is an alternative. We fight for a socialist society, in which production is democratically planned to meet the needs and desires of the many – not to secure profit for the few.

That’s why the Socialist Party hopes that when the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (see page 5) gets some air-time – even given the human problems of colds, mind-blanks and fatigue – our understanding of the possibilities for a socialist alternative will stand our representatives in good stead to make the case for a working-class programme which offers decent houses, jobs, services and much more.

The Greens and Bristol cuts

The Green Party in Bristol council abstained on the Substantive Revenue and Capital Budget for 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 Medium Term Financial Strategy vote according to the council’s official webcast of the meeting.

However, abstaining on a budget that will have a further devastating effect on the lives of ordinary Bristolians is unjustifiable, and many will question how committed they are to opposing the cuts.

Within days of the budget vote, the Green Party’s assistant mayor and cabinet member with responsibility for the libraries, had to explain why a consultation exercise has recommended the closure of a quarter of them. Councillor Radice said: “This is the horror of austerity. We have to face up to the reality that there will be more cuts…”

They are not providing an anti-cuts strategy or using their position in the council to reach out to community campaigners, service users or council staff. When they present library closure proposals or line up with the mayor to argue for the scrapping of Bristol’s no-eviction policy for bedroom tax arrears, they confirm their lack of confidence in a real movement against austerity being built.

This is why TUSC will be contesting every seat in the forthcoming elections in Bristol.