simpol-05-summer

The G8 say they are listening. But what will they deliver?

Mike Brady warns us not to expect much change in G8 policies and suggests thereare fundamental reasons why our leaders fail to deliver global justice Page 3

UK election success

Simpol-UK’s growing network ofAdopters persuaded candidates in 33constituencies to sign the pledge ofsupport for the SP campaign and 10,from all major parties, were elected

to Parliament. Page 7

From Exploitationto Sustainabilityvia Corporate LawReform Page 5

The Simultaneous Policy News • Summer 2005

The Simultaneous Policy

It’s Simpol !The International Simultaneous

Policy Organisation (ISPO)

ISPO is an international pressure group that aims toaddress and resolve global problems such asenvironmental destruction, regulating the economicpower of international capital for the good of all, anddelivering social justice around the world. Hence ISPOseeks solutions on problems that individual nationalgovernments cannot resolve by acting alone. This isbecause the problems transcend national boundaries,and because the global competitive system means thatany government that acted alone to try and resolvesuch problems could effectively make its countryuncompetitive.

ISPO aims to achieve these objectives by encouragingordinary people around the world to pressurise theirpolitical representatives and governments to seekcoordinated international resolution of global issues forthe good of all. This is because it is only by countriesall agreeing to implement changes at the same timethat problems no individual government dares tacklealone can be resolved in a satisfactory way.Simultaneous implementation of such policies wouldensure that no country became uncompetitive as aresult of pursuing policies that were right for theplanet and which embodied people’s higheraspirations.

All you need to do is sign up as a Simultaneous Policy(SP) Adopter, which costs you nothing. By so doing youagree in principle to vote only for candidates (ofwhatever party) who have signed up to SP and agreedto support its agenda. This is the simple mechanismISPO uses to advance its cause.

ISPO’s approach is peaceful and democratic. Thosewho lend their support will all have the opportunity tocontribute to the formation of specific policies thatanswer global problems. And by adopting SP they canuse their votes in a new and effective way to drive thepoliticians of all parties to implement these policies.

ISPO • PO Box 26547 • London • SE3 7YT www.simpol.org

An occasional newsletter published for theINTERNATIONAL SIMULTANEOUS POLICYORGANISATION (ISPO : [email protected])

by Simpol-UK (www.simpol.org.uk)

Edited by Brian Wills ([email protected])Production: Mike Brady

ContentsPage 3 Can the G8 Satisfy the Demands of Global

Justice Campaigners? Mike Brady

Page 5 From Exploitation to Sustainability viaCorporate Law Reform. Patrick Andrews.

Page 7 The UK General Election 2005: A ProvingGround for SP’s Novel Voting Strategy.John Bunzl.

Page 9 Exchange of Letters with Bill Rammell, MP,about Contraction and Convergence (C&C)Policy Measures. Richard Lawson.

Page 11 Letter to the Editor: Peak Oil. Rory Short.

Page 12 News Briefs: PresentationsPublished articlesBlogging exchangesLinksPublic awareness survey

Cartoons: David Chapman.Cover photo: Copyright is Christian Aid/Robin Prime.

Views expressed by authors in this newsletter are theirown and are not necessarily shared by ISPO as anorganisation.

Colin Morley remembered

It was with shock and enormous sadness that we learntrecently of the tragic death of Simpol-UK member, ColinMorley, who was one of the victims of the recent Londonbombings. Colin was an enthusiastic supporter of SP andhelped the campaign in many ways, including holding aforum on SP at his home just before the General Electionin May this year. During that occasion I had the pleasureof meeting his wife Ros and their three teenage boys andon behalf of all SP adopters I offer them our deepestsympathy and our solidarity with them in their loss at thismost difficult of times. It is all the more tragic thatColin whose deep desire was to see global justice andpeaceful co-existence between peoples has been thevictim of the very tensions he was working so hard toresolve. This is surely both the saddest and clearest ofsigns that our task remains vital and urgent.

John Bunzl

Editorial/Comment 3

The Simultaneous Policy www.simpol.org

Once again there is really encouraging news to share!This time it is the signing of the SP pledge by 38candidates and 10 MPs during the 2005 generalelection in the UK. Read John Bunzl’s article recordingsuccesses with “SP’s novel voting strategy”.

In advance of the Policy Forum on corporate lawreform to be organized by Simpol-UK in central Londonon Friday 14 October 2005, you will find out whyPatrick Andrews’ description of the issues involved istitled, appropriately, “From Exploitation toSustainability”.

And note the link between the lead article about theG8 meeting in July by Mike Brady and Richard Lawson’scorrespondence with Bill Rammell, MP.

These letters are particularly relevant to a recentnewspaper headline which said: Blair told: act now onclimate. They are a timely example of how individualaction by Adopters can bring the benefits of the SPprocess to the attention of decision-makers at theheart of government – in this instance concerningaction on climate change through the adoption ofContraction and Convergence policy measures.

For what it’s worth, it’s interesting to note anAdopter’s letter has achieved the response: “Please beassured that your views will be forwarded to 10Downing Street for the attention of the PrimeMinister”. The coming weeks will reveal whetherinformed comment from SP read in the corridors ofpower has in fact been heeded!

Editorial

Simpol-UK is a member of the Trade Justice Movement(www.tjm.org.uk) and supported the Make PovertyHistory campaign around the G8 meeting in Scotland inJuly. For Mike Brady, Local Group Network Coordinatorfor Simpol-UK, the positive headlines in the build up tothe meeting 'hide the detail of the text of what wasbeing negotiated'. Though it may seem top-leveldiplomacy has led to the rescheduling of debt relief forpoor countries and agreements about who pays forgreenhouse gas emissions, in reality very little mayhave changed in the way the world economy operates.For this to happen – as readers of this newsletter know– popular demonstrations need to be backed by supportfor the Simultaneous Policy campaign as a parallelstrategy. Contact: [email protected].

The meeting of the seven richest industrialisedcountries, plus Russia, the so-called G8, in Gleneagles,Scotland, in July has been the focus of global justicecampaigners for over a year. The mobilization isreminiscent of the Live Aid outpouring of publicsupport for Africa 20 years ago. Then the aim was toprovide food for the starving. Today the aim is totackle the root causes of poverty and inequality.Campaigning went well. The UK ‘Make Poverty History’coalition of NGOs including Oxfam, Christian Aid andWar on Want, reported over 3 million white wrist bandswere sold. Tickets for Bob Geldof’s G8 concert werehighly sought after. And 225,000 turned out todemonstrate in Edinburgh, and many more elsewhere.

Campaigners have been rewarded with positiveheadlines promising debt relief and action on climatechange. Prime Minister Blair and his Chancellor, GordonBrown, have been hailed as the ‘Lennon and McCartneyof global development’ by pop star Bono, music to the

ears of the architect and the banker of Britain’sparticipation in the war on Iraq. Perhaps their place inthe history books will be less infamous than theyfeared.

Tony Blair is making the most of the UK’s leadership ofthe G8 group and presidency of the European Union toseize the initiative and secure his legacy, beforehanding over to Brown, leader in waiting who made ahigh profile tour of Africa earlier in the year. Theyappear to be knocking heads together and makingprogress where it has been lacking for decades.

But, and there is a but, the headlines hide the detail ofthe text of what was being negotiated. Not only arethe concessions wrested from our leaders less than firstappears, the double-dealing could actually make thesituation in poor countries worse, not better. Thisraises the question, can our leaders ever deliver whatglobal justice campaigners are seeking?

Fundamentally the world economy operates to rulesdeveloped by rich countries, and rich countries are inlarge part rich because they grab the wealth of othercountries. It is a hard to grasp when we see the poorpeople in African villages, the recipients of our aidhandouts, that the net transfer of wealth is from thesepeople to those of us in the rich world.

How could the world be so unjust? How could ourleaders permit this to happen, engineer it to happen?How can we let them get away with it?

But the sad fact is we are rich because they are poor.The terms of trade penalise poor countries, and therules are set by the rich. The UK Food Group report

Can the G8 Satisfy the Demands of GlobalJustice Campaigners?

Comment 4


Food Inc. Corporate Concentration in the Food Chainquotes a study from Robbins (2003) who calculatedthat, had the prices for the top ten tropicalcommodities risen in line with inflation from 1980 to2002, suppliers of these goods would have received US$243 billion more than their actual receipts – five timesthe total world aid budget. This is the effect of therules set without our knowledge or consent. Whileprocessors and retailers have shown growth in profits,producers have lost out in real terms.

Capital flows further perpetuate the injustice. AnnPettifor of the New Economics Foundation (NEF) said:“Orthodox textbooks teach us that with financialliberalisation capital should flow from where it isplentiful, to where it is scarce. Tragically, the reverseis happening today. This is a form of global theft ofthe world’s poor – and helps explain rising tensions inthe world”.

NEF highlights the role of the dollar-based financialsystem in its alternative global economic report in 2003(the next is due this year), showing how poor countriesare helping to subsidise the US debt with a net transferof US$ 48 billion per year – more than the aid providedto poor countries by rich countries each year, usuallywith strings attached. In addition, transnationalspocket profits of US$ 55 billion made in developingcountries and US$ 97 billion is deposited by peoplefrom the developing world in banks in rich Northerncountries, some as genuine investment, but much isillegal capital that finds its way into the accounts of alltoo willing banks in the North.

If the campaigning around the G8 changes the rules, inthe small print the status quo will prevail.

In advance of the Gleneagles meeting, the G8 FinanceMinisters agreed to write off US$ 40 billion of debt.What a triumph for campaigners! But this is a hollowvictory, for to qualify for debt relief countries arerequired to open their markets to foreign competitionand to further privatise their public services. Actiontaken to date has made many countries poorer, notricher. More of the same is unlikely to improve thesituation. Debt relief becomes another crow-bar toopen target economies to our investors andcorporations. The governments of these poor countrieswill be expected to applaud our generosity as theywatch profits being repatriated.

The practicalities can be obscene. In the past theAfrican country of Malawi eased the impact of droughtby buying from farmers at time of plenty, storingsurpluses and selling it back at times of famine. Theservice was privatised prior to the 2002 drought,surpluses were sold to other countries and, whenfamine hit, profits were maximised by holding backfood so the price soared. Though the drought was lessserious than in other years, more people starved todeath.

On climate change the news is no less gloomy.President Bush famously said that he would take noaction that would prejudice the US economy, andexpecting polluters to pay for their pollution would dojust that. While Tony Blair is seen as calling in hisfavour of supporting Bush over Iraq, the UK position isnot all it seems. In the European Union systemimplementing the Kyoto Protocol the Blair governmenthas backtracked on commitments to reduce carbonemissions in the face of industry lobbying. Why?Because it would harm the UK economy. Business holdsa powerful threat over governments: take actionbusiness does not like and investment and jobs will goto more amenable locations.

The richest countries in the world are winning thecompetition against other nations. It has not been afair fight and we should not expect our leaders topenalise themselves by giving up their powervoluntarily. Campaigning will undoubtedly give somemovement. Our leaders are human and perhaps can betouched by compassion. They certainly can be swayedby the fear of losing public support and votes.

Yet there is a starker truth our leaders face thanthousands of protestors wearing white wrist bands. Most voters will stay at home and their overridingconcern is not global justice, it is the economy. Yes,they care about starving people in far-off places, but ofgreater importance is food on their table and a job topay their mortgage and ballooning credit card bills. Allthe leaders at the G8 will be out of power in prettyshort order if they take action that puts their countryon the slide in the global league table. So there willbe crumbs from the table of the rich, but no fairersharing of the cake belonging to all humanity.

When the dust settles after the Gleneagles meeting,most people who took to the streets will happily listento their CDs of Bob Geldof’s concert feeling they havehelped to make a difference. It may be several yearsbefore many can be stirred to take action again. Forsome, such as George Monbiot, it is worse than uselessto accept the double-dealing coming from the G8 inplace of real change. It is a betrayal of the countriesthe global justice movement wishes to help.

Protest is essential, however. Every person who putson a white wrist band is one more voter wanting to‘Make Poverty History’.

If we can encourage as many as possible to become SPAdopters as a parallel strategy, it will bring us closer tobringing in SP and delivering global justice.

(For additional comment on the G8 event, see thearticle by John Bunzl Live 8 – Making Poverty History?Or Entrenching our Irresponsibility? published byIndymedia on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315279.html. And for ongoing follow-upsee also www.simpol.org.uk/campaign8.php. Ed.)

Patrick Andrews, Simpol-UK Trustee and formercorporate lawyer, reminds us that corporate lawrequires company directors to maximise profits onbehalf of shareholders within an economic system thatnot only provides no effective control over theirdecision-making powers, but also assumes endlessgrowth is achievable. He suggests three reforms thatcould redress this unsustainable situation, includingreducing the power of directors, and lists action eachindividual can take to promote the political and legalchanges required. Contact: [email protected]

One of the great challenges of the 21st century will beto create ecologically sustainable organisations. Only ifwe find healthy ways to relate to each other, to theplanet and to its other inhabitants will we survive as aspecies.

I’m interested in the role that businesses, andparticularly the large shareholder-owned businessesthat dominate international commerce and the politicalagenda, can play in meeting that challenge.

At present these businesses are leading the charge inthe wrong direction. To take just one example, look atfood. Just three companies (Cargill, Archer DanielsMidland and Bunge) control three-quarters of theworld's grain trade (see note 1), reaping massiveprofits. Meanwhile countless millions of third worldfarmers producing these same crops suffer desperatelyfrom low world prices. These two facts are notunconnected – and sustainability will remain out ofreach so long as such inequality exists.

Other evidence of the harmful impact of big businesson the world can be found in books such as DavidKorten’s When Corporations Rule the World, NoreenaHertz’ The Silent Takeover and No Logo by NaomiKlein.

There’s also a film, The Corporation, released in 2004,which characterises corporate behaviour as“pathological”. In the film, Ray Anderson, CEO ofInterface, the world’s largest carpet tile manufacturer,says: “The way I've been running my business is theway of the plunderer.... The day must come when thisis illegal, when plundering is not allowed. It mustcome. My goodness, some day people like me will endup in jail.”

Behind these unsustainable behaviour patterns is asystem that drives relentlessly towards the illusorynirvana of endless growth. Widespread social andenvironmental degradation inevitably result.

I have worked for large corporations as a corporatelawyer and so have witnessed this system first-hand.

Here’s my take on one aspect of this – the role playedby corporate law.

UK corporate law and the need for reform

It is easy to underestimate the influence of corporatelaw on behaviour. After all, it’s not a very sexy subjectand is rarely mentioned in mainstream discussions –though The Corporation film has helped to change thisrecently. The fact is that, because of the law,corporations are not free to follow a truly sustainablepath. Under UK law there are three elements to theproblem (2):

Shareholders are gods

Corporate law demands that the company placeshareholders first. Making money for shareholders isthe bottom line, the alpha and omega. This“shareholder value” is the highest value – higher thanbasic human values such as honesty, respect orcompassion. Worst of all, shareholders have rights butno responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities areimmoral.

The relationship between shareholders and thecompany resembles that between a slave owner and aslave – an inherently abusive relationship. Thisresemblance shouldn’t be surprising since at the timewhen the limited company structure was firstconceived, slavery was still legal in Britain.

If a company director wishes to, say, reduce carbonemissions he cannot do this if it will reduce shareholdervalue. Otherwise he (it is usually he) can be sued oreven fired. The consequence is that no matter howethical the directors may wish to be, they are forced toserve shareholders’ financial interests and take thecompany down an unsustainable path. Hence RayAnderson’s quote above. I agree with him: in the not-too-distant future, anyone behaving as companydirectors do today will go to jail.

Corporations are treated as humans

It is a bizarre thing but for most purposes the lawconsiders corporations to be humans. In fact theyhave the best of both worlds – if a corporation wants todefend its privacy, or its freedom of speech, it assertsits “human rights”. But if a corporation commitsmanslaughter, even on a massive scale such as UnionCarbide did in Bhopal, nobody goes to jail because thecorporation can exist in many places and cannot be putin jail.

Looking back in history, we see that human rights arosefrom the feudal system, a world where masters had allthe rights and serfs none. It took many years of

From Exploitation to Sustainability via CorporateLaw Reform

Exploring Simultaneous Policy measures in process 5


Notes1. Dr Bill Heffernan at Agribusiness Accountability Initiative meetingof agri-food industry researchers, Paris, 15/01/05 – quoted athttp://www.coc.org/resources/articles/display.html?ID=1050. 2. I refer in this article to UK law since that is what I am familiarwith. The law in other countries is significantly different, althoughthe problems I have highlighted are shared with many othercountries.

3. See the 2004 report by Corporate Watch entitled Corporate Lawand Structures, found athttp://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/publications/corporate_structures.pdf.4. Go to www.nikebiz.com for more information. 5. See http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/corporates/core/index.html for more information about CORE, a coalition ofover 100 groups campaigning for changes to UK corporate law.

Exploring Simultaneous Policy measures in process 6


struggle to liberate the serfs and give everyone humanthe rights we take for granted today. Now corporationsclaim the benefit of these rights, without having anycounter-balancing obligation to serve society. This lackof balance is one of the key issues we face.

Over-concentration of power in the hands of directors

There are few checks and balances on the decision-making powers of directors (as Enron showed in theUS). They have ultimate responsibility for the actionsof the corporation and thus seek to retain all thepower, due to fear of loss of control. They developcomplex systems to control what is going on. Asleadership theorist Margaret Wheatley explains: “Wenever effectively control people with these systems,but we certainly stop a lot of good work from gettingdone.” Those at the bottom of the chain of commandend up frustrated and disempowered, and adysfunctional, unhappy organisation is the result.

Possible reforms

Here are some changes that could make a hugedifference to corporate behaviour:

Shareholders as one among many

Many parties contribute to the success of a venture.Corporations should be required to serve them all, andto balance the interests of shareholders with those ofall other stakeholders – staff, customers, suppliers, thecommunity and the planet. Corporations should alsobe required to report on how they achieve this.

Corporations as servants of society

The law should be changed so that corporations areobliged to serve society and the planet, and cannotclaim human rights (just as the government cannot).As Corporate Watch has pointed out: “It would be moreappropriate to see all corporations as organs of thestate …and therefore responsible for upholding humanrights rather than capable of claiming them.”(3)

Broader spread of responsibility

Let’s spread the responsibility and dilute the powers ofdirectors. If the law were to allow the company itselfto decide who has responsibility for what, theparticipants would be encouraged to spreadresponsibility more, which would benefit the system asa whole.

Ridiculous? In fact it has already been done, in thelegislation that established the UK’s latest corporate

form, the Limited Liability Partnership. Here there areno directors, just members who decide amongthemselves who is responsible for what.

What can I do?

Now let’s make it personal (to paraphrase AnitaRoddick). What can I, and you, do to help change thisstate of affairs?

HERE ARE SIX WAYS TO SAVE THE PLANET

• Stop buying products and services from mega-businesses and seek out smaller, more ethical ones (seeNew Consumer and Ethical Consumer magazines forsome ideas).

• Set up new types of businesses that behave moresustainably (think of what the Fair Trade movement hasdone, as well as companies such as Innocent drinks andGreen Energy). Consider experimenting with othertypes of legal form, such as the Limited LiabilityPartnership.

• Push the corporate social responsibility agenda.There is a lot that has been and can be done in thisdirection, although on its own it is far from sufficient.

• Expose the behaviour of corporations, and the rulesthat lie behind them, as Corporate Watch, ActionAidand many others are doing. This can be highlyeffective. Pressure on Nike over many years has ledthem recently to report, in a remarkably transparentway, on conditions in all the factories that make theirshoes. This represented a massive step forward forthem.(4)

• Campaign for a change in the law. A positiveexample of a group of organisations collaborating onthis is the Corporate Responsibility (CORE) campaign(5).

• Promote the widespread adoption of theSimultaneous Policy. This will help deal with theexcuses of politicians who claim to be unable to changethe law because it will affect the internationalcompetitiveness of UK companies.

In this way we can begin to meet the challenge ofbuilding the new types of businesses we need to meetthe challenges of the 21st century.

That’s all. I am going now to drink an Innocentsmoothie and eat some Divine fair trade chocolate,while wearing my Hug organic cotton t-shirt. I lovesustainability!

Analysis 7


John Bunzl, Trustee of Simpol-UK, argues that SPoffers electoral incentives within present “pseudo-democracies” that are significant enough to drivegovernments to address global problems they currentlyignore, and lists the ways in which UK election resultssuccessfully confirm that voting citizens now possess aviable process for developing global problem-solvingpolicies, recognised by politicians as worthy of theirsupport. Contact: [email protected]

Citizens’ attempts to improve representativedemocracy

From the time elections were first invented, citizenshave cast their votes in increasingly sophisticated ways.First, those having the vote learned to use it in its mostdirect and obvious form: by simply choosing acandidate and then voting for them. As time passedand citizens became more aware of the quirks andbiases of their electoral systems, they learnt thepractice of ‘tactical voting’ whereby one no longervotes directly for one’s preferred candidate, but forthe candidate most likely to result in the leastunwelcome candidate being elected.

Today, despite representative democracy having spreadacross the globe, national governments seem moreincapable then ever of meeting many of the world’smost critical challenges. While politicians endlesslyprofess global warming or global poverty, to name buttwo examples, to represent the highest of theirpriorities, decisive action is markedly lacking andadequate policies to address these issues remain all butabsent from party manifestos.

Despite the spread of representative democracy,therefore, citizens increasingly find that it is failing todeliver solutions in a globalised world. This isevidenced by a marked trend towards reduced voterturnouts in national elections. After all, if voting nolonger makes any appreciable difference, why bother?

Democratic deficiencies associated withglobalisation

What voters sense but perhaps fail to clearly realiseand articulate is that the forces of globalisation andinternational economic competition inevitably makehealthy democracy unworkable. Since capital andcorporations can quickly and easily move investmentand jobs to wherever in the world that regulations andtaxes are lowest and profits therefore highest,governments are inevitably restricted to a very narrowband of market and business-friendly policies options.

Competition between governments for inward

investment and new jobs effectively prevents themfrom implementing any policy likely to cost businessmore. This, of course, means that just about anypolicy that would protect society or the environment,nationally or globally, cannot be implemented. Withthese policies having become effectively out of bounds,no political party in power – regardless of its colour orof what it may have promised in its manifesto – canbuck this vicious circle.

Democracy has thus been reduced to what might becalled “pseudo-democracy” in which whatever party iselected to govern, the policies remain substantially thesame: i.e. they remain confined to whatever may berequired to keep business and capital markets happy;to whatever is needed, in short, to maintain thenation’s “international competitiveness”. Meanwhile,global – and many national – problems are left todeteriorate. It is therefore of little surprise thatcitizens feel their votes make no substantialdifference. Frustration and apathy inevitably growwhile the global predicament worsens and becomesincreasingly unstable.

In the present age of globalisation, therefore, votersare confronted with a new and altogether morechallenging question: how to join forces with voters inother countries to use our votes in a new and powerfulway that drives the politicians of all parties toimplement global problem-solving measures in such away that no nation need compromise its internationalcompetitiveness?

The novel global role in party-political democraciesoffered by SP

The Simultaneous Policy (SP) was designed precisely toprovide an answer to that question, and the UKGeneral Election on 5 May 2005 provided anappropriate “proving ground” on which to test SP’snovel electoral approach. SP goes an important stepbeyond tactical voting because tactical voting stillentails citizens voting for policies that are developed,not by citizens, but by political parties. SP, bycontrast, invites citizens to develop their own set ofglobal problem-solving policies.

Indeed, since international competition keeps theseissues out of the reach of political parties, who elseother than ourselves could do so? But taking over thetask of global policy-making is accompanied by theproviso that SP’s policy agenda be implementedsimultaneously by all or sufficient nations, and thatcitizens who adopt SP give strong preference atelection time to politicians who pledge to implementit.

The UK General Election 2005: A Proving Groundfor SP’s Novel Voting Strategy

Analysis 8


This electoral incentive, combined with the fact thatsimultaneous implementation removes the fearspoliticians justifiably have about safeguarding nationalcompetitiveness, are designed to offer politicians awin-win way of building the necessary internationalconsensus required to implement the far-reachingpolicies our world, its environment and its peoples nowso desperately need. So how did SP fare?

Six-point confirmation of SP’s successfulintervention in the UK election

In the event, 38 candidates across 33 constituenciessigned the Pledge to implement SP alongside othergovernments and 10 were elected to Parliament. Backin January 2004, when the campaign on the groundhad barely started and Simpol-UK was still to beformed, we expected that our impact during an earlygeneral election would be minimal.

The 10 MPs who have signed the Pledge is double ourearly expectation. Furthermore, they came from allthe main political parties as well as from Plaid Cymru,the Welsh nationalist party. It is expected many morewill sign up as the campaign grows. So these resultsshow, I suggest, that we succeeded in proving:

1. That the SP ‘technology’ which allows adopters touse their votes to encourage candidates of allparties to pledge to implement SP works very well(in the UK political context, at least). This confirmsthat it is not necessary to be a political party togain official acceptance for SP’s global policyagenda. In short, SP’s novel political approachseems to be compatible with, and yet to transcend,the system of conventional party politics.

2. That Adopters were very effective indeed inpersuading mainstream party candidates to make

the Pledge. As the number of Adopters grows largerstill we can expect increasing support from MPs.

3. That politicians across the political spectrum appearto recognise the need for, and indeed the commonsense of, simultaneous implementation in aglobalised world. SP thus seems to have very broadcross-party appeal (or at least it is not incompatiblewith a wide spread of party-politicalviews/approaches).

4. That some MPs sitting on large majorities (i.e. safeseats) were prepared to sign up to SP simplybecause they think it's a good and practicalapproach to solving global problems.

5. That SP appears to have been particularly effectivein marginal (i.e. very unsafe) seats. In some ofthese, we were able to get Pledges from more thanone of the competing candidates. The increase inthe number of marginal seats in 2005 as comparedto the 2001 election bodes well for substantiallyincreasing the number of SP-pledging MPs at thenext election.

6. That since candidates from Plaid Cymru and the UKIndependence Party signed the Pledge, it wouldappear that SP is not incompatible with nationalist-oriented parties. Indeed, astute nationallyoriented politicians will understand that, far fromcompromising national autonomy as one might atfirst expect, the implementation of SP wouldparadoxically serve to enhance it!

Implementation of global problem-solving policies isnow politically achievable

All in all, the 2005 election showed, I think, that withSP, citizens at last possess a viable process fordeveloping global problem-solving policies, and that itis a process which politicians across the political dividesee as serious, practical and worthy of their support.Indeed, many politicians seem to understand howdestructive competition between nation-statesincreasingly puts solutions to global problems beyondtheir reach.

But SP now provides a way to bring them back; onlythis time with the people – you and me – determiningthe policy agenda. SP thus appears capable ofreinserting these issues into every country’s nationalelectoral ‘space’ where citizens cooperating globallycan, through their adoption of SP, finally develop theirown solutions. And they can make it in the electoralinterests of politicians around the world to implementthem – simultaneously – for the good of every nation;for the security of every corporation; for the welfare ofevery citizen; for the preservation of our planet; andfor the good of all humanity.

Letter exchange 9


Exchange of Letters with Bill Rammell,MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary ofState, UK Foreign and CommonwealthOffice about Contraction andConvergence (C&C) Policy Measures

SP Adopter Dr Richard Lawson wrote to seekclarification of the UK government’s plans regarding itsadoption of C&C measures in collaboration with othergovernments. His suggestion that SP could addressconcerns about the loss of competitiveness "will beforwarded to 10 Downing Street for the attention ofthe Prime Minister". But no response has yet beenreceived to his explanation that SP "can exist alongsidethe conventional process of obtaining internationalagreement". Contact: [email protected];http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/

1. Richard Lawson to Bill Rammell, 16 Feb 2005

I have read the transcript of your evidence to theHouse of Commons Environmental Audit Committee onClimate Change and Contraction and Convergence. Init you state the difficulty of agreeing on this kind ofinternational action: “I think the other moresubstantive difficulty is that to actually get a targetand a cap regime itself agreed internationally, we knowfrom our experience from Kyoto, is extraordinarilydifficult. To set our stall out for that at this stage whennot only has the United States set its face against it,not only has Australia done that but the G77 as wellhas done that, in those circumstances to emphaticallysay that is the way forward at this stage I do not thinkwould help us achieve the kind of consensus that weneed.”

If we accept for the moment that the reactions toContraction and Convergence are as you say (which isquestionable), I would like to point out a way forwardon this supremely important question.

The UK can give a pledge in principle to support C&Cand, when a sufficient number of other states had donethe same, that group of states can move together toimplement their pledges. This way of working is calledSimultaneous Policy (SP) and is set out in detail onhttp://www.simpol.org/dossiers/dossier-UK/html-UK/interface-UK.html. You will see there that,although it is a very new initiative, it has alreadygained support from MPs and MEPs of all parties in theUK, and from politicians in several countries.

Now that the Kyoto Agreement is in place, it isimportant to start moving forwards, towards takingsteps that will lead to effective reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions, as the Prime Minister isrepeatedly stressing in the media.

I am sure that he will welcome this innovative means

of achieving his stated aims without compromisingBritain’s competitiveness.

I would be very grateful if you would consider thisproposal and let me know your thoughts.

2. Alan Richmond, Foreign & Commonwealth Office,Climate Change & Energy Group, 9 Mar 2005

Thank you for your letter of 16 February to MrRammell, and for drawing our attention to theSimultaneous Policy initiative, following the Minister’srecent evidence to the Environmental AuditCommittee. I have been asked to reply.As the Prime Minister has made clear, climate change isone of two priorities for the UK’s Presidency of the G8,and also a priority for our EU Presidency in the secondhalf of this year. Throughout our Presidencies, ourprime objective is to raise the profile of climatechange as a matter deserving the urgent attention ofHeads of State in the G8 and outside it, so as topromote an international consensus on the need forfurther action to control emissions.

You asked about the government’s views on“Contraction and Convergence”. As you say, this is oneof the proposals for future international action onclimate change that has attracted support and interest.A number of other models for future frameworks toreduce emissions have also been proposed, for examplethe “multi-stage approach”, the “global triptych”approach, energy intensity targets, and co-ordinatedpolicies and measures. In addition, there are differingviews internationally on how far future internationalframeworks should address the effects as well as thecauses of climate change.

The UK is committed to finding a workable andequitable framework for longer-term action to tackleclimate change effectively. The architecture needs tobe realistic (relevant to countries with differentnational circumstances), robust (capable of beingadjusted if necessary in the light of experience andever improving scientific knowledge) and durable.For any such framework to be effective, it will benecessary for it to achieve wide global acceptance.Inter-governmental negotiations on action to follow upthe Kyoto Protocol after 2012 have not yet begun. Atthe recent round of UN climate change talks in BuenosAires in 2004, the UK worked hard with EU partners andother countries to secure agreement for a “Seminar ofGovernmental Experts” to meet in May this year. Thiswill be the first opportunity for countries to exchangeviews in the UN framework on action to follow upKyoto after 2012.

At this early stage of the international debate, weneed to be flexible and open-minded about anyinternational framework to make deep cuts inemissions in a cost-effective way. We therefore believethat it is important that all suggestions for future

Letter exchange 10


frameworks are considered and that nothing is ruledout yet, irrespective of the relative advantages anddisadvantages of the options on the table at present.We shall therefore continue to consider the“Contraction and Convergence” approach along withother proposals, as we and the EU develop positions forfuture climate change negotiations.

I am copying this letter to Mr Rammell’s Office.

3. Lawson to Rammell, 13 Mar 2005

Many thanks for asking Mr Richmond to reply to myletter of February 16. I am grateful for his review ofthe present state of play, and am encouraged to readthat Government continues to consider the Contractionand Convergence (C&C) approach. I was especiallyglad to note that C&C fits neatly into the criteriagiven, since it is realistic, robust and durable. It isparticularly robust, being flexible with regard to thedegree of CO2 reduction and the degree of convergencerequired.

The burden of my letter was to show that the UK cangive a pledge in principle to support C&C, setting anexample for other states to make the same pledge.This will be especially effective while the PM holds theEU and G8 presidencies, and I am confident that thePM will welcome a briefing on this initiative as beingfully in keeping with the leadership that he is rightlygiving to the overwhelmingly important topic of climatechange.

The advantage of this “Simultaneous Policy” approachis that the fear of losing competitiveness disappears.The number and make-up of pledging states can bedefined in advance, and the pledge can be laid downwith minimum effort while other options are discussed.When a sufficient number of other states had done thesame, that group of states can move together toimplement their pledges. This way of working is calledSimultaneous Policy (SP) and is set out in detail onhttp://www.simpol.org/ .

I would be very grateful if you would let me knowwhether you will present a briefing on theSimultaneous Policy to the PM.

4. Richmond to Lawson, 19 Apr

Thank you for your letter of 13 March to Mr Rammellabout using the ‘Simultaneous Policy’ approach to givea pledge on the contraction and convergence proposalson climate change. I have been asked to reply.

We will continue to consider all proposals and optionson their merits to find a workable and equitableframework for longer-term action to tackle climatechange effectively. We are also working in a variety ofdifferent fora to create momentum and to look at newways of engaging the global community in the climate

change debate.

For example, the UK recently held an Energy andEnvironment Ministerial Roundtable, attended byministers from 20 countries, including all G8 countries,China, India, South Africa and Brazil, andrepresentatives from international organisations,business and non-governmental organisations. Participants welcomed the opportunity to consider thekey practical approaches to climate change and energypolicy in an informal and innovative forum andcontributed positively to the discussions whichidentified areas of common interest around the issuesof the accessibility and affordability of modem energysystems, security of energy supply and the need forlocal and global environmental protection. Thediscussions also identified a range of priorities forfurther working, both in terms of methodology and inrelation to specific issues such as energy efficiency.

The wide and committed participation of all concernedenabled the Roundtable to provide a real opportunityto build trust and to look for ways in which theinternational community might continue to worktogether in future.

Given the wide range of policy options and ideas, andthe differing views internationally on how far futureinternational frameworks should address the effects aswell as the causes of climate change, it remains ourview it would not be helpful at this stage to limit ouroptions and pledge support for one idea over another.

There are no plans to present a separate briefing on a‘Simultaneous Policy’ approach to future climatechange actions; however, please be assured that yourviews will be forwarded to 10 Downing Street for theattention of the Prime Minister.

I am copying this letter to Mr Rammell’s Office.

Letter to the Editor 11


5. Lawson to Richmond, 29 Apr

Many thanks for your letter of 19 April, setting out theinterchanges at the recent Energy and EnvironmentMinisterial Roundtable. I fully appreciate the delicacyof the task of getting ministers from 20 countries toagree on the kind of policies required by climatechange. On the other hand, I am sure that we bothappreciate the capacity for these fora to lose their wayand drift. The Prime Minister has declared hisintention to lead in this matter, and I am sure that,once he grasps the opportunities offered by both C&Cand Simultaneous Policy (SP), he will be more thangrateful to you for having brought these tools to hand.

The beauty of SP is that it can exist alongside theconventional process of obtaining internationalagreement. All it takes is for leaders to make theirpledge that they will back C&C once a given number ofother states do likewise. The pledges can stand astokens of intent. Their existence, hopefully in growingnumbers, will not interfere with the debate anddiscussion but, rather, will act as a focus for thediscussion, alongside yet gently influencing the process.It is not, in short, a case of holding either informalexploratory talks or putting down an SP pledge forC&C, but a case of both/and.

Of course, I may be ignorant of some technical factorwhich requires that it is indeed a case of either/or. Ifthis is the case, I would be most grateful if you wouldenlighten me.

(No reply had been received by 5 July. Ed.)

Letter to the EditorRory Short, SP Adopter living in South Africa, arguesthat Peak Oil should now be regarded as a candidate SPpolicy measure. Contact: [email protected]

The massive increase in the price of a barrel of crudeoil that we have experienced in the last while shouldgive any thinking person a pause for thought, and thatincludes governments.

Oil is essential to any modern economy as an energysource and we have no reason to believe that it isanything but a finite resource. Thus oil must start torun out at some point in time. The steep increase inprice is thought by some to be a good indicator that wehave either arrived at or are close to the point atwhich we will have extracted half of the available oilon earth. This point is termed Peak Oil.

It seems likely, given our increasing rate of extraction,that this peak will be reached rather sooner than later.What are we going to do then? Though there won't bean immediate danger of running out of oil, we will be

faced with an inexorably diminishing supply of itwhilst, based on past experience, there will be anever-increasing demand for it.

Such a situation, if not collectively dealt with, ispregnant with the prospect of endless conflict. Thereare many who believe, for instance, that the war inIraq was not actually about possible weapons of massdestruction but the first in what will be many warsover the diminishing supply of oil. Do we have to godown that road in which powerful nations go it alone insearch of short-term solutions for themselves – the roadof war and rumours of war over oil? Is there not analternative road? Yes there is.

We must break out of the unending spiral of violenceand destruction and the only way to do so is to addressthe problem cooperatively and collectively.Unfortunately the global mechanisms to do so are notyet in place, so we must set about creating them. Ithink a step in this direction would be for SP to take onpolicy formulation for the prospect of Peak Oil as amatter of urgency.

(An interesting summary of Peak Oil issues is availableon the PowerSwitch website athttp://www.powerswitch.org.uk/ - Ed.)

Local SP Adopters’ Groups - UK

Reading: Contact Mo Adshead - [email protected] or018 950 2281.

Cambridge: Contact Mike Brady [email protected] (Mike is in Brazil untilSeptember 2005 - seehttp://mikebradybrazil.blogspot.com/)

Penzance: Contact Barnaby Flynn [email protected] or 07951 905396.

Bristol: Contact Rob Wicke: [email protected]

Hull and Humber: Contact Richard Speight [email protected]

Do you want to campaign for SP?

Simpol-UK has developed campaigning resources forits growing network of active Adopters and members.

You can find the campaign pack on-line atwww.simpol.org.uk

A DVD on campaigning skills is available on the site.

Contact local group network coordinator Mike Bradyfor further assistance ([email protected]).

News Briefs 12


News Briefs

Presentations

• In March, John Bunzl was invited to give a talkabout SP to the London Integral Circle. ColinMorley’s short report on the meeting in informativeQ&A form is available on request from the Editor([email protected]).

• In April Dominic Dibble of World Goodwillinterviewed John Bunzl in one of a series of“Conversations with Inspiring Servers”. See theWorld Goodwill website athttp://www.lucistrust.org/goodwill/interviews/.

• John Bunzl was also invited to speak at the FesEncounters Colloquium on 4 June during the sessionon ‘Identify and Democracy’ (text available [email protected].)

Published articles

• A newspaper article titled “Cross-party MPs backSimultaneous Policy”, quoting supportive commentsfrom Anne Campbell and Rudi Vis and brieflydescribing the SP campaign, appeared in TheMorning Star of 06/04/05.

• The 22 April issue of the Quaker weekly The Friendcontained an article by Brian Wills titled “Movetowards global cooperation”. It related SP to issuesunder discussion in the UK general electioncampaign.

• ISPO is mentioned at some length in John Stewart’sarticle “The Transmission of EvolutionaryEpiphanies” as "a political organisation that hasbeen energised by the evolutionary epiphany". Forreaders interested in where SP might fit into thestory of evolution see:http://www.thegreatstory.org/ev-salon-stewart.pdf

• It has come to our attention that Josh Floyd, in anarticle published in the Journal of Futures Studies,Feb. 2005, titled "Visions for Global Justice throughthe Lens of Sarkar's Social Cycle" compares the SPvision of the future with that of George Monbiot.This is the abstract:

"While a large body of work catalogues the problemsof economic globalisation, proposals for addressingglobal economic, environmental and social injusticeare notoriously limited. Two visions for the futureof globalisation that have emerged are GeorgeMonbiot's proposal for implementation of globaldemocracy detailed in The Age of Consent and JohnBunzl's Simultaneous Policy proposal, presentlybeing implemented by the InternationalSimultaneous Policy Organisation. These ideas are

critically examined from integral perspectives:briefly, using Ken Wilber's Integral Theory; and ingreater depth from the perspective of P.R. Sarkar'sProgressive Utilization Theory [PROUT]; with aparticular focus on his social cycle." (See:http://www2.tku.edu.tw/~tddx/jfs/pdf/JFS9-3/9-3-47-60.pdf.)

Blogging exchanges

• Chris Macrae has announced the setting up of a newweblog for Simpol-UK’s local group at Bristol athttp://clubofbristol.blogspot.com/. He writes:“The intention is to give a general start and then letany university student group that matches ourvalues to evolve its own.”

• Chris Macrae also reports on his participation asSimpol-UK’s representative in some recent Cafémeetings:

• 3 June, in the British Library: “Globalisation andYouth Film-making”, hosted by Juhi Shareef,Director, Student Affairs, New York Film Academy2001-24.• June, at Starbucks, London WC1: “Pensions forPeople”, in association with the Royal Society ofArts, Starbucks, and BBCican.

• Articles at http://mikebradybrazil.blogspot.com/link SP into events in Brazil. Mike Brady recentlyvisited São Lourenço with Brazilian campaigner,Franklin Fredrick (author of the It’s Simpol! Autumn2004 article on ‘Protecting the Right to Water’). On22 July 2005, the BBC Face the Facts programmereported on the damaging impact of Nestlé’s waterbottling activities in the town (link from the blog).

Links

• Simpol-UK became a member of the Tobin TaxNetwork in May 2005.

• Chris Anderson, Campaigns Officer, Animal Aid,based in Tonbridge, Kent, UK(www.animalaid.org.uk) has written to seek workinglinks with ISPO.

Public awareness survey

• “A communications strategy for SP”, a survey lastingseveral weeks among members of the public in theUK, has been undertaken on behalf of Simpol-UK.Internal assessment of the findings will extend intothe autumn, and consensus adoption ofrecommendations will be announced in these pages,or will become self-evident as new campaigningactivities are set in train.


How can we the people get our leaders to listen tous and not just to the rich and powerful? How canwe make our values their values, values like:

• fair trade and decent livelihoods• respect for life, health and environmentalsustainability• true democracy – not "corporatocracy"• freedom, security and equal opportunity for all• zero tolerance for terror of all kinds – state terrorand domestic tyranny included• unity in diversity among peoples, nations andcultures• an end to weapons of mass destruction and towar itself as an obsolete means of conflictresolution

If we the people had a say, would we vote for "moneytalks" and "might makes right" or for the rule of just laws andthe rights of individuals and communities? Would we vote toshare and conserve the planet’s resources, or to hoard andsquander them?

Why aren’t governments taking action?

Today, global markets and corporations so comprehensivelyoverpower individual nations that no politician or politicalparty dares make the first move to solve global problems forfear of putting their own nation at a significant economiccompetitive disadvantage. Though legislators know thatserious world problems such as global warming, monopolisticcorporate power, poverty and environmental destruction alldemand decisive action, they are loath to implement thepolicies needed to solve them. Theylegitimately fear that in today's liberalized globaleconomy, investors, corporations and jobs would simplypick up and leave for more congenial destinations.However good their intentions, governments feel bound toconform to a straitjacket of market– and business-friendlypolicies. That's why, whoever we vote for in the presentsystem, little, if anything, changes.


The Simultaneous Policy (SP) is our "people's globalisationpolicy": a work-in-progress that all citizens who "adopt" SPare designing with the help of independent expertpolicymakers.

SP is to be implemented when all or sufficientnations are ready to do likewise - simultaneously.Simultaneous implementation means no nation loses outand all the excuses for inaction evaporate.

Here’s how the SP strategy works

By adopting SP, we join with Adopters in our own and othercountries who undertake to vote in future elections forANY political party or candidate, within reason, that signsa pledge in principle to implement SP alongside othergovernments. Alternatively, if we still have a preferencefor a particular party, our adoption signifies our desire forour party to support SP.

For a politician, signing the pledge to implement SP doesnot require a change of policies until it is time toimplement SP, and so carries no risk. But by moving theworld a step nearer to implementation, the politicianhastens the day when global politics shifts fromcompetition to co-operation and global problems, aboutwhich many care deeply, can be addressed effectively. Onthe other hand, failure to sign the pledge could cost thepolitician their seat and hand it to someone who willsupport SP. With many seats decided by small majorities,the SP voting bloc could make all the difference.

SP is already gaining public and political support. It is notan alternative to other campaigns, but a parallel strategy,enabling us to look beyond fighting to change existingsystems to joining with people around the world andcollectively answering the question:

How do you want the world to be?


Imagine a worldWhere values matter – Where leaders listenWhere the strongest superpower is we the people

It’s free to Adopt!

I provisionally Adopt SP, and undertake to vote at elections (if I am eligible to vote) for any candidate, within reason, who pledges to implement SP alongside othergovernments when all, or sufficient, other governments have also pledged to do so. Alternatively, I will encourage politicians in my preferred party to make thepledge.

I apply for membership of Simpol-UK and enclose my first annual payment of £25 (£10 unwaged/low-waged). Please send me a membership pack and Simpol-UK’sFounding Declaration (UK residents or people registered to vote in the UK only - otherwise see the website for details of your National SP Organistion).

Please send me _____ copies of John Bunzl’s book: The Simultaneous Policy at £12.50 each and/or _____ copies of John Bunzl and James Robertson’s book:Monetary Reform - Making it Happen! at £6.00 each, including postage and packing (UK delivery – contact ISPO for prices outside the UK).

Please send me _____ copies of the Simultaneous Policy campaign packat £12.00 including postage and packing (UK delivery – contact ISPO for prices outside theUK).

Please send me _____ copies of the 55-minute film Campaigning for SP as a DVD/video (VHS PAL format) at £10.00 including postage and packing (UK delivery –contact ISPO for prices outside the UK).

Mr/Mrs/Ms:_________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________ Postcode: _____________Tel: _______________________________________ Email: ______________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________

Return form to: ISPO, PO Box 26547, London, SE3 7YT. Alternatively sign-up on-line.

simpol-05-summer

Documents

global justice page

g8 policies

simultaneous implementation

timethat problems

resolvesuch problems

simultaneous policyits

policies wouldensure

simultaneous policysp