View
220
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Launch issue of Free Lunch: a pamphlet about politics based at The University of York. Visit frunch.co.uk for more food for thought.
Citation preview
FREE LUNCHA PAMPHLET ABOUT
POLITICS
Free Lunch
I s Wi ll Lawrence, Nei l Webb,
Oscar Pearson , Oli ver
Bayfi eld, and Tom Monk, wi th
words thi s i ssue from I sobel
Edwards .
I f you ’ d be i nterested i n
wri ti ng some words for Free
Lunch get i n touch wi th Wi ll
at:
editor@frunch. co. uk.
frunch. co. uk
facebook. com/drawi ngsbynei l
Catch21 is a charitable production company / Social
Enterprise which produces videos & online content to
help engage young people with politics and their
communities. We are looking for people who want to write
about current affairs and a broad range of political topics.
Writing for the blog is a good way to get experience and
to develop your online presence and writing portfol io.
Commitment would involve writing one blog every 1 -2
weeks, on topics that interest you. There may also be an
opportunity to get involved with the making of our videos.
Register your interest and to find out more information,
email Gil l ian Reeve at Gillian@catch21 .co.uk
University of York,we knowwhere you bankWe are now experi enci ng the fi nanci al
hardshi p to whi ch the soci ally and
ethi cally i rresponsi ble banks of our
ti me have subj ected us .
Banks have been responsible for so much of the
financial crisis we are in. However, despite being
at fault, banks wil l not be the ones to change
their pol icies. We must be the ones to put our
money into banks who have ethical pol icies and
sound business investments. We can make sure
our universities take responsibi l ity for their
banking practices.
The University of York banks with HSBC. From
the Arab Spring to the use of unconventional
fuel, the 'world's local bank' has been playing a
central role in some of the most pressing issues
of our time. Sadly its actions only seem to
benefit dictators and have added to the
pressures on our environment. Try this for
starters: £1 .2bn in bonuses a year; mil l ions of
pounds of tax avoidance; operating in countries
under oppressive regimes such as Libya and
Iraq; being a principle shareholder for 1 2
different arms manufacturers or suppliers; and
colluding in a campaign of intimidation, waged
by Egypt's rul ing mil itary council , against human
rights groups and NGOs.
HSBC is one the worst environmental offenders,
involved in financing some of the most
environmental ly irresponsible projects in the
world such as the Toka Tindung gold mine -
destroying species, ecosystems and tourism
industries in Indonesia. Their morals don’t
extend to their customers either. HSBC were
made to pay a £1 0.5m fine for advising 2,500
elderly customers at average age 83 to buy 5
year investment bonds to pay for their long-term
care when most customers did not l ive for
another 5 years.
There is a wide range of alternative financial
providers, ethical banks such as The Co-
Operative Bank and Triodos, Building Societies
such as Nationwide and Coventry Building
Society, Credit Unions such as London Mutual,
Bristol Credit Union and Manchester Credit
Union and Community Development Finance
Institutions such as London Rebuilding Society.
We are now experiencing the financial hardship
to which the social ly and ethical ly irresponsible
banks of our time have subjected us. As a
student, do not feel l ike you haven’t got a say in
where your university puts your money. Lobby,
petition, appeal: You can make a difference.
- IE
1
ReasonsWhyYUSU
ShouldLeave
The NUS
5
1 York concernsmatter mostWe need a York-centric, student-focused union
that takes action when and where we need it,
rather than at the NUS’ command. YUSU should
be tackling local issues such as investment in
flood awareness; more ATM machines on Hes
East; and better value for money in where we
eat, sleep and study.
2 Fi nanci al wi n forsoci eti esYUSU spent more than £4000 on subsidising
York students’ involvement in the one-day NUS
Demo 201 2, including free entry to Tokyo. The
Liberal Democrat Society on campus gets £50 a
year. Why not fund more active politics on
campus all year round? Only the NUS, who we
pay tens of thousands for the privi lege, can tel l
us that. But we don’t have to l isten.
3 The NUS areslaves of consumeri smNUS leaders have celebrated how the
organisation “puts money back in students
pockets by negotiating deals and discounts
offered via the NUS card”. But whether we
should be part of the NUS or not has absolutely
nothing to do with how much money we can
save when we go shopping. The NUS should be
a collective voice of student interests not a
database of potential customers for big
businesses.
4 The NUS areslaves of bureacracyThe NUS are an amorphous, bureaucratic
machine who have an incestuously close
relationship with the government. Our sabbatical
officers and Students’ Union staff have the vast
majority of their information and training dri l led
in by this machine. Disaffi l iation would al low our
elected student representatives to stand free to
make decisions based on what they think is
right in the context of the students they
represent, which means accountable
representatives who we can count on.
5 The NUS- free arethri vi ngSouthampton's union president Stephen
Edwards said it wil l provide better services than
those offered through the NUS for the £68,850
fee. "Southampton University students want a
national union that truly represents them,
without wasting their money on the bureaucracy
and the political time-wasting of the NUS”. Other
universities in England - including UMIST and
Imperial - have disaffi l iated, along with
Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews in
Scotland, al l to positive result. We should fol low
their lead. - OP
The Uni versi ty of York Conservati ve
soci ety are due to launch thei r campai gn
for di saffi li ati on thi s term. Get
i nvolved i n the debate @YorkTories.
Also be sure to ask NUS Presi dent Li am
Burns and YUSU Presi dent Kallum Taylor
some di ffi cult questi ons when they
speak at a Nouse Event i n February.
3
ReasonsWhyYUSU
ShouldLeave
The NUS
‘ Student apathy’ i s an
ali bi .
In our self-contained, concrete world on
campus, motivation to do politics is easily paved
over; the ‘student apathy’ al ibi is easily
constructed. Yet within the confines of campus
lies a history which highl ights the falsity of such
an alibi. Look hard enough and you can find the
traces of a political ly al ive community in York:
l iving, breathing and pamphleteering.
Track these vital signs of political l ife and the
trai l leads to one decade and one publication:
1 970s Nouse. In the 1 970s, Nouse was more
than simply a dead cold specimen to be
examined for no longer than necessary; it was a
hotbed of revelation, criticism and confrontation.
Whilst taking on different physical forms, from
broadsheet to booklet, early-70s Nouse very
much took on the higher form of the pamphlet.
That is, it had the purpose of reporting a
perceived wrong while strongly advocating a
means of redress. The 1 974 student demo,
campaigning against cutbacks on grants, was
not, l ike 201 2’s equivalent, just a one-day, once-
a-year ritual in which students sleepwalk around
London. Readers of Nouse were woken up and
challenged to a whole week of action; to
lobbying of local authorities, to catering
boycotts, to teach-ins. “Once more unto the
breach”, was the call to arms of the October
1 974 headline.
Student col lectives would also frequently close
down campus to get to issues closer to home,
l ike the social science department being crap.
“Social Scientists: ‘We’re al l pissed off’”, was the
November 1 973 headline in Nouse. Boycotts of
lectures and tutorials were common. “I ’ve got an
essay to hand in this week, so I ’m certainly
going on strike”, was one, you might imagine,
popular response, as quoted in the December
1 973 issue.
And whilst today’s Occupy Movement struggles
on in distant lands - Occupy Paris, Occupy
Vancouver, Occupy Cairo - in March 1 970, York
had its own very real occupation. Occupy Hes
Hall saw hundreds of students swarm the
administrational hub of the university. Nouse
outl ined the aims of the organisers “to gain
access not merely to political fi les, but to al l
confidential written material pertaining to
students”: it was a data hack 1 970s-style, with
much more emphasis on the hippies than the
hashtags.
So whilst you might struggle to see signs of l ife
from any political community, turn over a few
concrete slabs and those signs are there. Now
we must do as 1 970s Nouse did before us: seek
them out, get our hands dirty and do some
overturning. - WL
Zen and the art of
pamphleteering
5
FL: Followi ng thei r accusati ons of
you as a “rape deni er” , what i s
your posi ti on on the NUS? Should
YUSU leave the NUS?
GG: I am currently suing the NUS. However,
despite my feelings about the political
leadership of the NUS, I would be strongly
against disaffi l iation. I have been, since the age
of 1 8 unti l now, a member of the same trade
union. I have frequently been at odds with its
leadership. But I would never have left it, sti l l
less encourage others to leave it. I think a
collective of student interests is vital ly important.
Especial ly at a time when students are under
attack with rising tuition fees, l ikely to rise
further, fal l ing standards in terms of face to face
tutorial time, and so on. Students need a
collective voice to argue their case.
FL: Do you thi nk a uni versi ty
educati on should be a ri ght?
GG: I do. Moreover, I ’ve worked since I was 1 6
years old, paying tax so that the very politicians
that abolished free education could enjoy
themselves in the countries best universities. I
payed for Mr. Blair to go to Oxford university
and gave him a grant to enjoy it. I very strongly
believe that those who think education is
expensive should calibrate ignorance. I f we
don’t educate our young people to the very
highest standard that they can reach, then we
wil l pay a price for that as a country. So I see
education not just as a right but as an
investment by the country.
FL: I n March you clai med that the
“Bradford spri ng” was the start of
a “peaceful democrati c upri s i ng of,
especi ally, young people” . What
role do you see students playi ng i n
thi s upri s i ng?
GG: In my victory they had a considerable role. I
won the university ward with 85% of the vote in
an 8 party race, which has to be some kind of
record in a democratic election. 85%. And that
was both because a very high number of
students in Bradford support my take on war, on
Palestine, and so on, but also because the
tuition fees were then looming and were at the
front of everyone’s mind, as was the withdrawal
of EMA. So we have a thriving youth section:
young people are beginning to join us in quite a
considerable way and I ’m quite glad about that.
FL: Do you thi nk Respect could be a
genu i ne progressi ve left
alternati ve to Labour?
GG: I do. Unless Labour becomes Labour
again. But they’re not. And we would settle for
that. We only exist because Labour cease to be
Labour. I f Labour became Labour again there
would be no need for us.
FL: So what are Labour now?
GG: Labour became New Labour, then Non
Labour, and have frequently appeared in the
guise of Anti Labour. For example, if you are a
public sector worker in Britain today, you are two
and a half years into a five year pay freeze
supported by both the government and the
opposition. I t’s some kind of Labour party that
supports a pay freeze for mil l ions of working
people, many of whom are the lowest paid
workers in the land. And a pay freeze, of course,
is a pay cut. When inflation is factored in, rising
food and fuel prices all mean that public sector
workers are taking a pay cut. And it’s ful ly
supported by Labour. That doesn’t compute.
Interview: George Galloway
FL: But do you thi nk that, rather
than j ust bei ng anti - war, anti -
publi c sector cuts and so on ,
Respect can uni te young people and
acti vi sts around a reali sti c
programme?
GG: Yes, I do. But how realistic do you have to
be? We live in an age where the state has just
bailed out capital ism to the tune of hundreds of
bil l ions of dol lars on both sides of the atlantic,
where capital ism effectively no longer exists
except via state subsidy. All norms are now
stood upon their head. In the communist
manifesto of 1 848, Marx predicted that, under
capital ism, “al l that was solid would melt into
air, and all that was sacred would be profaned”.
He was right then, but actual ly he’s right again.
Because even the shibboleths of capital ism are
now slaughtered. The concept of sound money,
not printing bogus money and so on, al l of
these things are now commonplace. They don’t
even make much of a splash on the news. So
what we think of as realistic isn’t what it was.
When I say that a different political and
economic system is possible and is necessary,
that’s not as unrealistic as it might have
sounded just a few years ago.
George Galloway talked to us at the
Charles i n December, where he was
havi ng a coffee ( he doesn ' t dri nk
alcohol) before speaki ng at a Nouse
Event . For the full i ntervi ew,
featuri ng such hi ghli ghts as , " when
the last Telegraph j ournali st i s
strangled by the last copy of the
Dai ly Express , I ’ ll be very happy" ,
vi s i t frunch . co. uk.
7
Put your handsup and comequietly,banks.
This is anassault onfree money.
As soup kitchen queues lined American streets
in the depths of the Great Depression,
economists at the University of Chicago
produced a groundbreaking call for fundamental
monetary reform which would revert the banking
system to that of the 1 7th century. And now, in
the midst of the Great Recession, two
researchers working under one of the pil lars of
the capital ist machine, the IMF, have revisited
this Chicago plan. Benes and Kumhof have
found that by eliminating a bank’s abil ity to
create its own money we create huge economic
advantages: business cycles can be control led,
private and public debt reduces dramatical ly,
and we see output gains of over 1 0% - all of
which occurs through the handover of our
country’s economy from the banks to the state.
For the last three centuries we have slowly lost
the control of our money supply, to the extent
that 97% of the money supply of the United
Kingdom today comes from the hands of
commercial banks. Prior to the Cavalier
Parl iament in 1 666, it was the state who was in
control of our money and its creation; a situation
Benes and Kumhof want to return to. They plan
an assault in ‘fractional reserve banking’, the
foundation of today’s monetary system, and the
banker’s huge bottom line. Under this practice,
banks only have to hold a percentage of what
they lend in currency, either in vaults, or with
accounts in the Bank of England. This means
that with a 1 0% reserve requirement, a £1 00
base deposit in a bank can be multipl ied within
the banking system via the ‘money multipl ier’ ,
by lending £90 to the next bank, who
subsequently lend £81 , which continues ad
infinitum creating £1 000 from nowhere, backed
by nothing - ‘free’ money.
For the last three
centuri es we have slowly
lost the control of our
money supply.
The advantages of the abolishment of fractional
reserves are numerous, and the first is clear -
the elimination of bank runs. What became the
symbol of the UK’s financial col lapse was
something entirely of the Great Depression, the
swaths of crowds queuing to release their own
money from Northern Rock, a bank with no
abil ity to repay them. By definition, a bank
holding purely government backed liabi l ities wil l
always have the abil ity to repay, increasing
financial stabil ity hugely by enabling a bank to
solely depend on its core lending, rather than its
l iabi l ities.
By putting banks into the position of mere
intermediaries, boom and bust real ly would be
‘no more’ due to government being able to
control both directly. Further, and perhaps most
pertinent with regards to the European crisis,
with no multipl ier debt for the banks to borrow
against, net government debt would be
eliminated. Money would become an equity of
the state, and not a debt to the banks. With the
consequential huge fal l in interest, GDP would
increase by around 1 0% - a remarkable growth
rate. Long-term inflation would fal l to 0%, with
no negative financial impact.
As a policy with such extraordinary economic
advantages, which gains support from across
the political spectrum, harmonizing the left’s
pursuit of freedom from the tyranny of the
banks, and the right’s Austrian economic model,
it can be hard to see why no government has
seriously looked at these proposals. I t would be
a paradigm shift in the way we see economic
power and responsibi l ity, but that’s exactly what
we need to help us escape a future forever
threatened by the soup queue. - TM
9
Recommended