Violent Gaming (05/2015)
A New Economics & New Military Spending Agenda (updated 01/2018)
The 5% and the Universal Basic Income (04/2016)
Don’t Buy Don’t Sell in the Trump era (04/2017)
Don’t Buy Don’t Sell: Germany – Turkey (04/2018)
UBI, Defence spending and Coronavirus (03/2020)
January 2018 Written Submission: Labour’s International Development Taskforce / Shaping a new international development policy
What would a world for the many, not the few, look like in 2030? Reaping the rewards from sensible and lower military spending budgets with savings redirected to meeting increased global social justice needs. The world would more fully understand that impact of runaway military spending on the development narrative is huge. It would recognise the fact that military spending is as every bit as central to understanding power, poverty, economic crises and unjust distribution of resources as other structural campaigns such as debt, trade, tax, climate change and most recently the ‘war on drugs’. By joining the ranks of debt cancellation, Robin Hood Tax and other tax related measures, military spending savings could be regarded as yet one more significant ‘new’ revenue stream, redirecting the funds captured to serving the needs of the global community (including SDGS).
June 2018 Written Submission National Policy Forum Submission (SDGS)
Summary and PDF
Many of the Sustainable Development Goals are impacted by conflict. SDG 16 on peaceful societies needs to go much further than presently constituted. Sustainable development requires that global runaway military spending be regarded as an international development issue. The UK is one of the world’s biggest arms traders; it has one of the world’s largest defence budgets; it has a seat on all the major global institutions and is also widely recognised for its progressive int’l development policy – often led by effective civil society campaigns.
We argue that runaway global military spending must be regarded as an international development issue.
Labour National Policy Forum consultation: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
Submission on behalf of the following members of the Progressive Development Forum: Health Poverty Action; Global Justice Now; ASLEF; Tipping Point North South; Western Sahara Campaign UK
RESET for a Green Recovery, Post Covid 19
We were delighted to submit evidence to the RESET project
A cross party Parliamentary Group on the Green New Deal, chaired by Caroline Lucas MP and Clive Lewis MP, launched Reset, an inquiry to
- draw together the proposals from the policy community and academia alongside examples of practical projects, holding online parliamentary evidence sessions where we’ll hear from experts, including experts by experience, that will be available for public viewing
- work with the public as partners in the policy process by engaging with a broad cross section of the public through online surveys, discussions and co-creation workshops on how they would like life in Britain to change after Covid so that it is greener and fairer.
- test the policies that emerge from the process, so that we are able to present a package of measures to Parliament and to Government in the Autumn that we can demonstrate public support for.
Relevant work by others
Mark Curtis’ Report for Global Justice Now (December 2017)
The UK government’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) raises all kinds of questions about the future of UK aid, the nature of the UK’s relations with states abusing human rights and the government’s openness with the public. Established in 2015, the CSSF is a £1 billion annual pot of money operating in dozens of countries which supposedly promotes the UK’s national security interests. Yet there are such fundamental problems with the CSSF that a complete overhaul is needed: It is increasingly using aid money to fund military and counter-terrorism projects which do not appear focused on what aid should be about: eradicating poverty and promoting inclusive development; It is funding ‘security’ forces in several states involved in appalling human rights abuses, thus the UK risks complicity in these violations; It is not transparent. Despite some improvements recently made to the Fund, programme details are scant and some appear to be misleading.