I will assume that all candidates have devoted time to making themselves familiar with the policies on the GPEW website which they will be representing in public.

This is the first step, and it would be very unwise to present yourself as a candidate without investing time in finding out what that actually means. Candidacy is a serious undertaking: it is not for the faint-hearted. I hope that these notes might support your confidence.

Talking to voters can be quite a challenge.  It’s very easy to be sidetracked by ill-informed people who have been exposed to too much neoliberal propaganda.  GPEW is explicit about its redistributive agenda – aiming to create a level playing field rather than the current system, which is biased in favour of the wealthy.

Doorstep Challenges

Why do I need to be informed about economics?

Doorstep challenges to Green proposals include the lie that the country cannot afford e.g. to care for the disadvantaged, to nationalise the water industry; that redistribution would be impossible without higher taxation.

Right-wing politicians constantly warn that this government debt is a burden on future generations. And their message is reinforced and formed by the billionaire press and media, which is the source of many people’s opinions. But who actually owns all this debt — and who benefits from it?

Every pound of national debt represents the currency a government has put into circulation and not yet taxed back. It is the foundation of the entire finance industry and the bedrock of private wealth. Without it, the economy could not function. The real problem isn’t the debt itself, it’s who owns it.

I recommend the following expert analysis of the facts. These come from the excellent website:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/ which I recommend wholeheartedly.

These are entitled “You’re paying the rich to save” (2025)

Depending on your preference,

  • The podcast is here
  • The Youtube video is here
  • A short (AI) summary is here, followed by the full transcript:

This offers a fascinating breakdown of a concept that often feels like a mathematical paradox: How can everyone be in debt at the same time? As the commentary suggests, the answer lies in shifting our perspective of “debt” from a burden to a financial asset. In the global economy, one person’s liability is almost always another person’s wealth.

Here is a concise summary and analysis of the points raised regarding the “who” and “why” of global national debt.


1. The “Who”: Who Owns the $100 Trillion?

While we often imagine countries owing money to each other (like the US owing China), the reality is much more domestic and private.

  • Private Citizens & Institutions: The vast majority of debt is held by “the public,” which includes individuals, banks, insurance companies, and pension funds.

  • Pension Funds: This is a crucial link. If you have a retirement account, you likely “own” government debt. These funds buy government bonds because they are considered the safest possible investment to ensure they can pay out your pension in 20 or 30 years.

  • Foreign Governments: Only a fraction (roughly 12–20% depending on the nation) is typically owned by foreign central banks.

  • The 1%: Because wealth is highly concentrated, the “interest” paid by governments on this debt acts as a massive transfer of wealth to the world’s top earners.

2. The “What”: Debt as Money Supply

The argument that National Debt = World Money Supply is a cornerstone of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

  • When a government spends more than it taxes, it leaves that “extra” money in the private sector.

  • If every country “paid off” its debt tomorrow, there would effectively be no currency left in circulation, and the bedrock of the global financial system (government bonds) would vanish.

3. The “Why”: Why Does This System Persist?

The commentary highlights a systemic “bias” toward the wealthy:

  • Guaranteed Returns: Governments (especially those that print their own currency, like the US, UK, and Japan) are seen as “risk-free” borrowers.

  • The Wealth Loop: The wealthy buy debt -> Governments pay interest using tax revenue -> The wealthy use that interest to buy more debt.

4. Proposed Solutions

To address the inequality built into this system, the speaker suggests:

  • Lower Interest Rates: Reducing the “yield” governments pay to bondholders.

  • Taxing Unearned Income: Closing the gap between how we tax labor (jobs) and how we tax capital (interest/dividends).

  • Progressive Taxation: Using the tax system to “reclaim” the money supply and prevent it from pooling at the very top.

  • Public Ownership (Quantitative Easing): Having central banks buy the debt so the interest stays within the government “family” rather than going to private billionaires.

A Touch of Perspective

It is worth noting that while “debt as money supply” is a powerful lens, mainstream economists often worry about the cost of servicing that debt. As interest rates rise, a larger chunk of a country’s budget goes toward paying interest rather than building schools or hospitals.

The core takeaway from your text is a powerful one: National debt isn’t a “loan” that needs to be “paid back” like a credit card; it is a permanent feature of how modern money is created and distributed.


The full transcript:

If all the world’s countries are in debt, and that’s pretty much true, then who do they owe the money to?

That’s a question that I heard asked recently on the radio, and the commentators on the programme in question did not know the answer. So let me explain.

There is roughly $100 trillion of national debt in the world at present. Now I say roughly because this figure is changing all the time, and the data is a little out of date. So take every number that I give in this video with a pinch of salt, because most will be 2023 or 2024 data, and, of course, we’re now in 2025.

But, give or take, the USA is the world’s biggest debtor by a long way. It had total debt in 2023 of $32.9 trillion, but which we now know is heading for something like $36 trillion. So roughly one-third of all the national debt in the world is owed by the USA.

I’ve made other videos on this subject, pointing out that actually the world can’t survive without the USA owing that debt because the money in question is the dollar, of course, and that is the world’s reserve currency. And so is that debt really debt? It’s a good question, but it still leaves well over $60 trillion of other debt in the world.

China is the next biggest debtor. It owes over $15 trillion.

Japan owes around $11 trillion.

In comparison, the UK comes in a very low fourth, at only a bit over $3 trillion, roughly the same as France, a bit ahead of Italy, somewhat above India, above Germany, and then Canada and Brazil and those countries between them make up the top 10 at present.

There are, however, a vast number of other countries with debt. In fact, almost every country in the world, except its ten or so failed states, have got data that show that they are in debt.

Being in debt is something that countries do as a matter of course, which is quite interesting in its own right, because why then do we obsess about the fact that national debt is such a bad thing when every country is in debt? Well, of course, the answer is very simple and it’s very straightforward. The national debt of a country represents the currency that it has effectively put into circulation in its jurisdiction, in its own domain, in its own legal tender, in a way that is essential if its local economy is to work, and, therefore, national debt is nothing more than the world money supply.

But who owns this supposed debt? That’s the question that was asked, and that’s the question that needs answering.

So I’ve had a look at this, and I’m quite surprised to find the answers.

First of all, I expected a very high part of that national debt to be owned by other countries.

So for example, in the case of the USA, I expected to find that a significant proportion of the total value of US national debt would be owned by the central banks of other countries. But in fact, only one eighth of the national debt, a bit over $4 trillion in the case of the USA, is actually owned by foreign governments, it would seem. The rest is in private circulation.

In the case of the UK, the figure in question appears to be one sixth of our total national debt is owned by foreign governments.

In the case of France, it’s a bit higher than that. The situation is confused there by the existence of the European Central Bank, but the figure might be creeping a bit above 20%, and that also appears to be the case in Germany.

In Japan, one of the biggest debtor nations in the world, there is almost no overseas ownership of the debt because whilst its debt is massive in proportion to the country’s gross domestic product at well over 200%, which puts it completely out of proportion with any other developed economy, almost all of it is domestically owned, either by the Japanese national government itself or by private individuals.

The point is very simple though, and it is quite straightforward. There is a massive amount of debt, which is in private ownership. Give or take, more than 80% of the world’s debt is likely to be owned privately. And if that’s the case, who are these private owners?

Well, you might be one of them.

I probably am as well.

And the reason why is you probably have a pension arrangement of some sort, as do I.

And pension funds are major holders of national debt. In the UK, a bit under 30% of all the UK’s national debt is owned by pension companies and life assurance companies. They need it to fund their operations, because the UK government is the only person in the UK who is guaranteed to never go bust and who will always pay their debts in the pounds that the government alone can create. And therefore, pension companies, who make very long-term promises to people like me, who might live a long time on the pension that they’ve earned, need that assurance to guarantee that they can fulfill the promise that they’ve made.

And this is true right around the world. In the USA vast quantities of the US national debt is owned by pension funds, and that’s true in Europe as well.

So the point is that this money, this national debt, about which the world obsesses as if it’s a great burden, is in fact the bedrock of the private sector finance industry.

You would  never imagine this from what is said, but there’s something even more important than that, because if it is the bedrock of the private sector finance industry, then it’s also the foundation of the private wealth which that industry manages. And the vast majority of the private wealth that is managed by the private sector finance industry is owned by a few per cent of the world’s population.

We know that the ownership of wealth around the world as a whole is massively skewed. If there are 8 billion people in the world, maybe 80 million of them might own a significant proportion of the wealth. In other words, there are 1% of the world’s population with ownership of most of the world’s assets. And if that’s true, and if they own these funds through their pension funds and other such arrangements, then the interest paid on this national debt, which might amount to something like 3.2 trillion dollars a year, might equate to something like $40,000 per head for the top 1% of wealth earners around the world.

Now think about that. $40,000 a year in interest being paid to 80 million people, but the other 99% between them have average income of only $13,500 a year.

So the wealthiest are earning potentially three times more per annum in interest then the rest of the world are earning as a result of their labour.

Now, these figures are simplistic. They are extrapolated, and they’re bound to be wrong to some degree. I make that very clear. I am working on the basis of simplified assumptions, but I’m doing so to make clear just how great the bias in this system is towards those with wealth.

It may be that the world’s wealthy claim government is spending recklessly in piling up debt, which is going to be a burden on future generations and all the other nonsense that you hear right-wing  politicians talk. But the truth is, when the government creates debt, somebody has to own it, and the only people who can own it are the wealthy.

And they get wealthier as a result of that debt being produced. Because, effectively, every time interest is paid on the national debt, their wealth goes up. They tend not to spend it. They, therefore, can pay for more government debt issues. And as a consequence, the ownership of wealth becomes ever more concentrated, and we get a more divided world.

What can we do about this? Well, I suggest there are a number of things we can do.

First of all, there needs to be a concerted effort, the world over, to reduce the interest rate on national debt. It is too high.

Secondly, around the world, we need concerted efforts to make sure that unearned income, which is, of course, what interest is, is taxed more fairly. At present, it tends to be taxed less than earnings from workers, and that is absurd. It should be taxed more, because quite clearly it’s unfair to tax unearned income at a lower rate than earned income.

And thirdly, around the world, we need more progressive tax systems. Why? Because we need to recover more of this money from the wealthy to make sure that governments are not burdened by this cost to the point where they cannot provide the services that people in their countries need. That’s a simple, straightforward fact.

But the ownership of this wealth also needs to be democratised, so we need to look at how we might bring it back under public control.

Japan has done this. It is possible. To some extent, this happened during Covid and during the crises after the 2008 financial crash.

Why did that happen then? Because of quantitative easing. And now the UK, in particular, is trying to reverse that through quantitative tightening. The public ownership of this debt, which has provided benefit to Japan, and does, I think, provide benefit in the UK, is being unwound.

We need to bring debt under control.

We need to bring the money supply under control.

We need to bring the benefit of the government being able to create money into the public domain and not into the private domain, which is where it is now.

So that question, who owns the debt? is very simply answered. The world’s wealthy people own it, and they win hands down by doing so.

If only we understood that, if only the radio commentators that I heard had understood why it is possible for all the world’s countries to be in debt simultaneously, and yet have somebody to own that debt, who are the world’s wealthy, then they too would’ve reached the conclusion that something needs to be done about this.

Now, you know. Now you know what is required.

Go and talk about it.

Go and tell the world that the national debt is not a problem because it is our money supply, but the ownership of our national debt and the fact that the income from it is undertaxed is a problem, and that’s what we have to address.

The Portugal Experiment (Or: What Happens When You Stop Pretending Prison Cures Addiction)
In 2001, Portugal did something radical.. they looked at their catastrophic drug problem (the highest rate of HIV among people who inject drugs in the EU, drug-related deaths spiralling, the courts clogged with possession cases) and decided that maybe arresting people for being unwell wasn’t working.
So they decriminalised all drugs. Possession for personal use became an administrative offence, not a criminal one. Instead of handcuffs, people got referred to “dissuasion commissions”.. panels of social workers, doctors, and legal advisors who could recommend treatment, issue fines, or simply send people on their way.
The predictions were apocalyptic. Portugal would become a drug tourism destination, a cautionary tale, a libertarian nightmare written in cheap heroin and shattered syringes.
Twenty-three years later, here are the actual numbers:
– Drug-related deaths dropped by 80%, from 80 per million in 2001 to 16 per million in 2019.
– HIV infections among people who inject drugs fell from over 50% to 6%.
– Problematic drug use declined across every metric.
– Overall drug use rates remained below the EU average.
Meanwhile, back in the UK, where we’re still Very Tough On Drugs™, we arrest 140,000 people per year for drug possession. Our drug-related death rate is three times higher than Portugal’s. HIV transmission continues, county lines gangs use children as drug mules, and we spend somewhere in the region of £16 billion annually maintaining this state of affairs.
Portugal decriminalised possession. You don’t get arrested for having drugs, but you still buy them from criminals. The illegal market stays intact.
The Green Party are proposing we go further: regulated supply through licensed centres. Pharmaceutical-grade substances, known dosages, medical supervision. The criminal supply chain doesn’t just get ignored.. it gets eliminated entirely.
This matters because Portugal’s model still leaves kids running county lines and dealers cutting heroin with whatever’s cheap. The Green Party proposal removes that infrastructure completely. No gang violence over territory, no contamination deaths, no 12-year-olds with wraps hidden in their socks.
Switzerland did this with heroin in the 1990s. Overdose deaths dropped, crime fell, employment rates improved. Canada’s doing similar things now with safer supply programs. It works, and it works better than just decriminalising possession.
So when we talk about saving £16 billion under Portugal’s model, that’s the baseline. Regulated supply saves more.. you eliminate the entire £5-9 billion criminal drug industry, the violence that comes with it, and the resources spent prosecuting dealers and suppliers on top of users.
Portugal took the first step. The Green Party are proposing we finish the job. Which brings us to the receipts (Or: Where Your Money Goes To Die)
Let’s break down that £16 billion, because frankly it’s difficult to conceptualise numbers that large without a visual aid or a minor stroke.
Law Enforcement: £3.4 billion
The police spend roughly £3.4 billion per year on drug-related law enforcement. That’s:
– Investigation costs
– Arrest processing
– Court time
– Officer hours that could be spent on literally anything else
To put this in perspective, that’s about three times the annual budget of MI5. We spend more hunting people with cannabis than we do hunting actual terrorists. The drugs, at time of writing, have yet to fly a plane into anything.
Incarceration: £5 billion in lost productivity
Around 70,000 people are in prison in England and Wales at any given time. Roughly 16% of them are there for drug offences. 11,200 people, each costing approximately £47,000 per year to keep locked up.
But the real cost isn’t the prison itself, it’s what economists cheerfully call “lost economic productivity,” which is a polite way of saying “people who aren’t working, aren’t paying taxes, and aren’t contributing to the economy because they’re in a cell.”
The average prisoner could in theory earn around £30k per year if they were, you know, not in prison. Instead, they earn nothing, pay no tax, acquire no skills (unless you count cigarette economics and the social dynamics of shared shower facilities), and emerge even less employable than before.
Do the maths: 11,200 prisoners × £30k = £336m in lost annual earnings. Over the average sentence length, you’re looking at over £5 billion in cumulative lost productivity.
Healthcare Costs: £2-3 billion
Because we criminalise drug use, people don’t seek treatment. They share needles, they overdose alone and then present at A&E in crisis rather than at a clinic on Tuesday.
The NHS spends an estimated £2-3b a year treating the consequences of untreated addiction and unsafe drug use:
– Overdoses
– Infections (HIV, Hepatitis C, abscesses, endocarditis)
– Mental health crises
– Emergency interventions that could have been routine appointments
In Portugal, these costs dropped dramatically – turns out people *will* seek help if you don’t threaten to arrest them first. Revolutionary stuff.
Housing and Social Costs: £1-2 billion
Drug-related convictions make people unemployable –> Unemployment makes people homeless –> Homelessness exacerbates addiction. And the cycle spins on, powered by nothing but policy inertia and the faint smell of burning money.
We spend £1-2b a year on emergency housing, temporary accommodation, and social services trying to catch people after they’ve already fallen. Portugal spends a fraction of that on preventing the fall in the first place.
Crime and Criminal Justice: £3-4 billion
Here’s a fun one: prohibition doesn’t reduce crime, it creates it.
Every unregulated drug market is, by definition, run by criminals. We’ve essentially handed a multi-billion-pound industry to organised crime, then act surprised when organised crime does organised crime things. County lines networks use *children as young as 12* to transport drugs. Gangs control territory and violence erupts over supply chains we could regulate out of existence tomorrow.
The cost:
– Prosecution of drug-related crimes: £1.5b
– Victim support services: £500m
– Lost economic activity in communities blighted by gang violence: £1-2b
Portugal, to absolutely no one’s surprise, saw huge drops in drug-related crime after decriminalisation. When you don’t criminalise users, you remove the bottom rung of the criminal ladder. Weird how that works.
Add it up:
– Law enforcement: £3.4b
– Lost productivity from incarceration: £5b
– Healthcare costs: £2.5b (splitting the difference)
– Housing and social costs: £1.5b
– Crime and criminal justice: £3.6b
Total: £16 billion per year
That’s not a typo. That’s what we spend, annually, on a policy that *makes every problem worse*.
Just for the sake of perspective, because humans are terrible at conceptualising large numbers without reference points, here’s so be of the things it could pay for:
– 40,000 additional nurses (at £40k per year)
– 320,000 social housing units (at £50k per unit)
– The entire annual budget of the Department for Education
– 64,000 new teachers, free prescriptions for everyone in England, the complete elimination of NHS waiting lists… Take your pick.
And remember, this is BEFORE you account for the £5-9 billion currently funding organised crime becoming taxable revenue instead!
Or, we could arrest another student with a spliff.
A reality check though: decriminalisation isn’t a magic wand. Portugal didn’t just remove criminal penalties and call it a day, they invested heavily in:
– Dissuasion commissions (social workers, doctors, legal advisors)
– Free, accessible treatment on demand
– Harm reduction services (needle exchanges, supervised consumption rooms, naloxone distribution)
– Housing and employment support for people in recovery
The decriminalisation was the foundation, the support infrastructure was the house. You need both.
Portugal’s entire drug policy budget is somewhere around £10-15 per capita. Ours is closer to £250 per capita, and we’re getting worse outcomes. So it’s not a resource problem, it’s a priority problem. Every time decriminalisation comes up, someone (usually someone who last bought weed in 1987 and still calls it “dope”) insists that decriminalisation “sends the wrong message.”
To which one must ask: what message are we sending *now*? That addiction is a moral failing? That people in crisis deserve punishment rather than help? That we’d rather spend £16 billion maintaining a failed system than admit we were wrong?
The message Portugal sent is: drug use is a health issue, not a criminal one.
Drug tourism didn’t explode, society didn’t collapse, people stopped dying quite so much, HIV rates dropped, and the criminal justice system stopped haemorrhaging money on theatrical arrests.
If that’s the “wrong message,” I’d hate to see the right one.
The full Green Party policy is: licensed shops for cannabis, pharmacists for harder stuff, and supervised centres where people already using can do so without dying alone somewhere unpleasant. Nothing’s free.. it’s all regulated, taxed, and monitored, like alcohol but without pretending it’s harmless. The point is that what we’re currently doing.. buying from criminals, using alone, and occasionally ending up in A&E at significant public expense.. isn’t working, hasn’t worked since 1971, and the only people genuinely benefiting from keeping it illegal are the dealers, who don’t pay tax and have terrible customer service.