Back in the day when I was an SNP member, I must admit that I took a certain joy from blogging a position that was contrary to the remarkably well disciplined view across the party members as a whole. As generally ornery as I am, I like to think that I actually believed what I was writing so I have thought through the below post more than I ordinarily would to ensure that I am not being unfair on my beliked Greens.
The world is a complicated place and one way that power-brokers make sense of it all is to calculate the GDP of the ‘countries’ that exist either side of the arbitrary borders that history, war, imperial ambition and no end of murder has helped to create.
A common riposte from those less than impressed with GDP as the apparent be-all and end-all of our daily 9-5,(6,7) lives is that if everyone paid for their partner to sleep with their neighbour then GDP would go through the roof. It wouldn’t make us a better off country. Indeed, the main proponents of this view seem to be the Green Party (yep, here I go) many of whose members are in favour of replacing GDP with some sort of ‘happpiness index’ that reflects quality of life.
I am not against the idea of a more appropriate, fuzzier economic index and would even say that I am, on balance, in favour of it. I certainly agree that an increase in a country’s GDP is not always necessarily a good thing. However, the flip side of that argument, and one that the aforementioned Greens should accept, is that GDP decreasing is not necessarily a bad thing.
Therefore, I raised an eyebrow with interest when I saw that leader of the Green Party in England & Wales, Caroline Lucas, was arguing passionately that George Osborne’s cuts may result in a double dip recession. After all, why should she care? The converse of what Caroline is proposing is not related to the GDP index and is not even affected by a double-dip recession, not directly anyway. I just suspect that the Green leader is picking the convenient response and easily sellable soundbites over the more relevant line of argument.
One tweet from the GPEW leader is that we “need investment, not cuts, or we risk a double dip recession”. Granted there’s only so much one can squeeze into 140 characters but that’s a skin deep response to an issue that is cutting to the very bone.
I understand that the minority must, at times, operate and argue within the parameters set down by the majority but it’s not enough to cry foul at a double dip recession that might (might!) be necessary and it’s not even enough to put forward the Gordon Brown-esque no-brainer option of ‘investment vs cuts’.
What is required is an explanation as to why investment, a costly increase in GDP and a Green revolution is a better option for the country than cutting bloated spending, the risk of a double dip recession and avoiding crippling interest payments.
I am already sold on the former but if the leaders proposing it are stopping short of deepening the argument and appear to artificially make it a black & white, good & evil issue, then one can’t help but wonder about the latter and the intellectual rigour that may be holding it up behind the scenes.
The Greens may be playing on the Capitalist court but that doesn’t mean that they have to play by their rules. Throwing GDP in the garbage bin must surely also mean resisting using its accompanying lingo.
Or maybe I’m just a wind-up merchant.
#1 by Weggis on October 25, 2010 - 12:22 am
Amen
#2 by Kristofer Keane on October 25, 2010 - 7:10 am
I agree that we should be more concerned with happiness, meeting potential and equality as economic measures, but a double dip recession will affect all of these as well as GDP. In this instance, I think GDP has been used simply as a term that people outside Green circles will understand, and as you say we do have to be able to reach out to the wider public at times. Also as you say, Twitter is not the best environment in which to attempt to explain the finer points of Green policy.
I personally have no problems in talking about GDP. Not just in terms of “when in Rome…” but simply as it is the official measure of the current economic state of the country for the time being and as such can be used to highlight trends associated to the economy (our happiness index, etc) while if we start trying to highlight happiness directly, we don’t exactly have access to good data on how it’s changing on the same level (although there’s a new survey out today which shows household confidence in the economy has collapsed since the spending review, but that’s another matter).
#3 by Jeff on October 25, 2010 - 8:15 am
Thanks for that Kristofer. Fair enough that the official measure is the only show in town but nonetheless I still think there is a hollow tinge to the Green press releases if they don’t push the argument onto the next level beyond GDP up = good and GDP down = bad (I am basing this post on more than that Twitter item by the way, though I should have linked more).
The Conservatives can get away with celebrating a rise in GDP with no more beyond as they are generally taken to be pro-capitalist. I just reckon the Greens look a little opportunistic in lamenting an oncoming double-dip in apparent isolation.
#4 by Stuart Winton on October 25, 2010 - 9:35 am
“….replacing GDP with some sort of ‘happpiness index’ that reflects quality of life.”
So you mean widespread depression will mean a depression?!
Good post though, Jeff, but I think you’re a bit too frank for your own political good!
#5 by jim jepps on October 25, 2010 - 10:04 am
I think there is a certain have our cake and eat it attitude towards growth and gdp. However I don’t think that’s because gdp is irrelevant (and therefore a recession as measured by gdp *is* bad) but because we don’t have a sophisticated enough grasp of what we mean by growth and our aspirations for a steady state economy.
I personally think we need to be clearer about what kind of growth we are opposed to rather than putting down some zero growth marker without any sort of differentiation.
The failure of the current system is bad news for millions in this country, and the Tory economic strategy will make things so much worse. But you can’t build a sustainable green economy on the back of a failed consumer society – so I think it’s right to lay down a clear line that we’re opposed to a collapse in the economy.
#6 by Jeff on October 25, 2010 - 1:20 pm
Thanks Jim. I don’t know if it was in reference to myself but I never said GDP is “irrelevant” but I do agree when you say there is not enough of a grasp of what growth means and should mean.
I think you make a fair link between a double dipped economy not being strong enough to sustain the investment required for a truly sutainable future. I suspect however that if Cameron’s ‘growth strategy’ pays off and the private sector does fill the economy gap then the Green party, rightly or wrongly, won’t be satisfied so said linkage is only part of the story and a Lucas-led blanket opposition to a decrease in GDP is, I think, only party robust.
#7 by jim jepps on October 26, 2010 - 8:32 pm
The reference to irrelevances was more to do with the way that sometimes, when it suits us, we use the GDP figures and at others, when we want to say something else we say they are meaningless. We shouldn’t do both – or we should at least finesse the points we make.
We basically have two economic policies, which I think is at the core of what you’re pointing to here. We have our lefty GND short term policy and we have our ‘after the revolution’ style policies – I think there’s a good reason for that but currently we neither acknowledge that’s the case or try to square how the two fit together.
#8 by Dubbieside on October 25, 2010 - 2:16 pm
Jeff
I think that the biggest problem here is “just what does GDP mean to the average person” probably not a lot in fairness.
I personally an not interested in the slightest in what the GDP of Germany, France or the USA is, what matters to me is the pound in my pocket, and how much it is buying, which at the moment appears less each month.
What is required, in my view is, both agendas presented on just how each will effect the ordinary working people in the UK, not some abstract “our GDP is stronger than yours therefore we are more successful” argument.
I believe the SNPs failure to spell out the implications of independence, versus being a part of the UK, and just what that would mean to ordinary voters in terms of their living standards, is holding back the independence movement.
Equally a happiness measure in my view is unworkable. Someone in Morningside on £60000 per year may score higher on happiness than someone in Pilton on minimum wage or benefits.
P.S. By average person I mean not a political anorak.
#9 by Daniel J on October 26, 2010 - 7:28 pm
I’m all for the school of economists in Paris that suggested a shift from our obsessions with GDP and Growth to a green growth model. (I’m sure some-one here actually knows what they propose.. I’ll admit to not looking into it to thoroughly)
Sadly with so little media coverage you’re not really able to argue for a completely new way of thinking outside the mainstream discourse.