12

next

back

Rich Man's Castle

Greens must not allow themselves to be used by the wealthy to shut out low cost homes.
George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 7th May 2002

There is an inverse relationship between the attractiveness of an English village and the attractiveness of the society which inhabits it. Those ancient mossy churches, those half-timbered pubs, those perfect rose gardens and sculpted yew trees are preserved not in aspic but in vinegar.

 

The conservation of the "character" of the classic English village is almost always double-edged. As landscape values become entangled with social values, the "best kept villages" appear to be those best kept away from the hoipolloi. As house prices have ensured that none but the wealthy can afford to buy into the English dream, the wealthy in many places are campaigning to ensure they stay that way.

They are not alone in opposing the construction of low-cost homes in beautiful places. No company wants to build six pounds70,000 starter homes if the same piece of land can be used to build one pounds700,000 manor. "Exclusive" developments of luxury homes are advertised everywhere, and exclusive is how both the builders and many of the neighbours want them to remain.

This is not to say that people should not campaign to protect beautiful places; simply that we must not conflate these campaigns with attempts to protect some very ugly ideals. It is perfectly possible, with sufficient government support, to build affordable housing which is every bit as attractive as expensive housing can be. But the economic cleansing in which both construction companies and some residents conspire is exacerbating Britain's housing crisis.

As the builders concentrate on providing expensive homes in both cities and the countryside, the rich have more choice than ever before, just as the poor are discovering that there is nowhere to turn. For the first

index

working for the rejuvenation of small farmers, defending small farmers and strengthening local markets. This is where trade justice will be achieved. Not in the timid echo of the World Bank, or in the "market access" chorus of the Zoellick -- Lamy -- Short choir which Oxfam has joined as the youngest choir boy. It talks of an "inclusive globalisation" but the project of economic globalisation is a project of economic and political exclusion. And it is this economic exclusion which is creating a politics of exclusion in Europe and in India. The genocide of Gujrat and the rise of LaPen in France are features of the politics shaped by economic globalisation that has destroyed livelihoods and jobs, resources and cultures. Oxfam, and other supporters of globalisation have called the building of strong resilient local and national economies "isolationist". But these are the foundation of economic security and hence the only antidote to Xenophobia and fundamentalism and forces of hatred and isolationism. The insecurities generated by globalisation are providing fertile ground for fascist isolationism to emerge. Globalisation thus feeds isolationism, exclusion and fragmentation of society. Strong local economies integrate communities by generating overall security and reinforcing inclusive cultures. The equations are clear:- Globalisation = insecurity and exclusion. Economic Democracy and localisation = security and inclusion.

Oxfam has a dream of building a movement for transforming the trade system just as powerful as the movement against apartheid in South Africa. For that Oxfam needs to walk with the movements of the people and drive its passion and power and legitimacy from them. Oxfam now has to make a choice -- will it stand for trade regulated by principles of peace, justice and sustainability or will it become a weak, coopted, voice of the dominant free trade interests?

Will it put peace and peoples security above commerce and trade?

Will it put people first or trade first?

Will it put food first or exports first?

Will it go all the way in the struggle for structural change and transformation of trade rules and the free trade paradigm?