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