No. I’m not supporting the Green Party. The UK election is an utter sham. About 30% of people (perhaps 50% in a hung Parliament) who vote in it WILL become accessories to the forthcoming global torture, genocide, anti-theistic, global poverty and usury racket. And NO party will stand up to that abomination, the 60+ year occupation of Palestine otherwise known as Israyhell. Not that the voters care about such things mind you.
Brave Green World refers to this Paxman interview with the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8656835.stm ).
On initial inspection, it seems like the Green Party has some ‘different’ ideas as to what should happen in the UK, a ‘radical’ party. But no. The appearance is a sham. The only ‘radical’ thing about this party is that it has found a new way of churning out the same old crap, while maintaining the existing framework.
That said, Ms. Lucas did quite well from an seemingly scornful Paxman, and an audience primed to snigger at Paxmans attempts to make the Greens look like a party full of nuts, albeit organically grown.
The points covered were:
Tax. Green policy 50% on incomes over 100,000 instead of 150,000. Spending pledges mean we will need Another 72 billion pounds. Did you spot that? ANOTHER. This means there is no fundamental restructuring planned – no radical overhaul in which the monetary figures would really be unknown. The Greens would keep this dreadful system going. Green my ass.
Limit on Incomes – The Wayne Rooney question. Highest paid position in a company can’t be >10x the lowest wage. What will happen to the Wayne Rooney’s in the Country (who would probably flee the Country). Oh dear. In a way it was a nice try but once again, utterly naieve and stupid. As the core systems would be maintained, all it would mean is that a series of companies would suddenly appear to service the rich people. Depending on current income, the rich would buy a current salary based % share of this company which would apportion profits according to the share allocations. To support this, MEGALITH companies would likely spring up which would subcontract out low paid jobs through micky-mouse labour companies. The whole economic system would be massively statified. OR some other massive ‘get-a-round’ would be established. You see Greenies? Any possible ‘radicalism’ you may have needs a clean break from the current system, but the interview showed that even pseudo-radicalism will NEVER be accepted by the estiblishment – including the British Government Propaganda machine that pays Jeremy to operate within the boundaries of ‘current norms’
Jez took aim at the Greens and didn’t really pull punches – not that you could pull a punch the rather silly Green stance of ‘radicalism within conventionalism’. Ho ho..!
Citizen Income – A SPECIFICALLY GREEN policy not actually for the coming Parliament. A very interesting idea which could actually clean up the benefit system. The citizens income is simply taxed back from the working population in proportion to their earnings. V V interesting, but it’s within the rotten Capitalist system.
Immigration – Jez didn’t address the EU open gate policy. update: Was it in this section that the ‘welcome aboard homosexuals’ got it’s mandatory look-in?. Pity there wasn’t more time, perhaps 6 million would have got a shout too.
Vegetarianism – A PERCIEVED DOMINANTLY GREEN policy.
Family Size / Population – A PERCIEVED DOMINANTLY GREEN policy. This can very quickly get into Eugenics. I might start paying attention in all this i.e. population control, IF the population control measures were top down, rather than bottom up, so the wealthiest people only allowed to have one child maximum. For say 20 generations. Forced sterilization after birth, If the child dies, no replacement, and on childbirth 20% of their total wealth must go a fund to the poorest people on the planet. Something along those lines would make me sut up and listen.
In the clip, Jez didn’t ask about the Army, Nuclear Weapons, Pollution control, water purification, Industrial and Iraq/Afghanistan/Palestine
Well, of course he didn’t ask about the latter three. who cares about genocide – it’s not happening in the UK, and the people are encouraed to think about genocide of Muslims even less.
The ‘Brave New Green World’ would be the old anti-green, crap, war loving disgusting world is has was before.
–
NEXT!
–
–
–
–
–
–
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
lwtc247, you make some good points here, but what’s your beef with capitalism? You do realise we don’t currently have free market capitalism in the UK, right? What we do have is akin to monopoly capitalism, cartels, hefty occupational licensing, a bloated government regulating in line with lobbyists, etc.
I’ve got nothing against earned wealth (not all wealthy people are elitist arseholes you know), the problem is when monopolies spring up. I’d suggest a land value tax instead to deal with the real problem holding most of us back, which is being rentiers because of artificially high land prices. If you want more info I suggest you read Henry George’s writings on the subject.
I think “That government is best which governs least,” sums it up pretty well.
“What we do have is akin to monopoly capitalism” – You are of course, absolutely right! I was refering to “capitalism” in the populist spun sense.
I too have nothing against being rich. What I do object to however, is when those riches were accumulated by illigitmate means or by exploitative means. Both of which, I would imagine, encompass a fair number. I also object to a society which encourages rich people to be even richer.
e.g. a 600g loaf of bread costing 60p, an 800g loaf costing 75p. The rich person can get more for their money by purchasing the 800g loaf, the poor person, more likely to buy the “cheaper” loaf and ends up paying more for the same number of grams. Poor people are also more likely to buy the less ‘healthy’ product etc.
I think there is something very wrong with that.
Defenders of this monstor of an economic system may say that problem is addressed by the tax system, but I would argue the tax system is so flawed that the imbalances never get corrected. Under NeoLabour (and all other regimes) the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer.
The tax system could I suppose redress the imbalances using systems like the land value tax you mentioned, but when the very basis of money is fradulent – Fiat currency, I think w range of problems automatically spawn from that. If you try to readdress the problems using the curreny money system, as has been the case for a long time already, some other problem would emerge. Thanks for letting me know about “Henry George”, although I’m guessing he operates with the realm of fiat. If I get a chance I’ll check it out.
So, a proper currency and then a good tax system is perhaps what’s necessary.
“That government is best which governs least,” -Iinteresting, but one could say the govt hasn’t governed very much at all w.r.t. the “financial” sector over the years, hence the massive Quadrillion level of derivatives (greater than the actual amount of ‘fiat’ currently in circulation, altho I read not so long ago the Fed had ‘quantitatively eased out over 1 trillion of late! so maybe the they are catching up to the 1 quad – LOL, lovely hyperinflation)
I think the whole system is diseased. Cut it out, make it anew – The radical image the Greens project has not been lived up to reforging a better OR a (much)greener world. Shame on them.
Yes, I was going to mention the currency system but it was getting late ;-) I’d suggest removing the monopoly on that too. Gold, silver, possibly other metals would be a good start, with less electronic credit.
Regarding the derivatives scam, well that is still going. I don’t see how it requires more laws though…isn’t *fraud* illegal in common law already? The difference you cite is in the selective application of laws because most of government is bought out by banksters and corporate interests.
Just like planning laws are selectively enforced so that tesco can smother my local independents everywhere, or MPs being allowed to commit fraud to profit off of the land\property boom. Meanwhile if I build so much as a new shroud the council will sending round the enforcement team…
What I imply pretty much necessitates a going back to basics anyway.
I’d call derivative trading fraud yes, and hence illegal, but there are no laws defining derivative trading and outlawing them and I’m not the one holding a gavel or wielding a truncheon, my opinion holds no sway.
Looks like we agree: A return to economic basics is much needed (shades of John ‘the grey’ Major creeping in)
There is a critical shortage of inmvfratioe articles like this.
Thanks for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbor were just preparing to do some research on this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such excellent info being shared freely out there.