When thinking back to a time not so long ago, when I was fighting the good fight at the General Election for a (at the time) underdog politcal party I look back to a funny and rather forthright conversation I had with a colleague. Around this time another colleague planted the seed in my brain of myself one day running for some kind of elected office. After this happened, in one lazy day in the office folding endless reems of leaflets with the candidate's grinning mug on I turned around and asked him if he ever aspired to run for a local council seat.
His reply in short was an emphatic "no".
"Why is that?" I asked, slightly disappointed that my attempt at small talk to rid us of office tedium had sank like the Lusitania.
My colleague's reply summed up in part what I saw as the possible negative parts of being a politician: "Because at the end of the day, everything that you do is wrong".
He couldn't really have put it better. People HATE politicians giving promises, people HATE politicians not making promises about things they care about, people HATE politicians who are know too much and are too academic, people HATE politicians who profess to be common with buttoned down shirts swapped in place of their suits (ala Clegg, Cameron etc) to appear less threatening.
On some days I can understand this public's mentality. On other days I feel like throwing a brick in the face of one of these whiners and patting myself on the back for a job well done. Not one of them stops to think that some of the reason these strange people are fusing more over "image" than making sense is that nowadays people are more likely to engage with what is "interesting" or "fun" as oppose to what is relevant. Why would they bother doing it, if it was just for show? But NOOO the public can't be blamed, the poor sweet innocent public. Give me a break.
Yet on another level I think this year has seen a few knockback lessons being taught to two particular public figures, both of whom have started out as hopeful underdogs and are now tainted by decisions in power (good and bad). I speak of Nick Clegg and Barack Obama. The latter of whom I believe has shown more humility, on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (a risky media spot as any) Obama endured ridicule to concede that the "hope" and "change" urgency message in campaign while not entirely wrong, certainly had a reality deficeit too great to withstand the rigours of the jungle of US politics. As a politician I think Obama is going to have to learn to grow up quickly, I imagine by now he has gauged the consequences of his decisions and where they have left him now. In particular with Afghanistan, at least I hope he has.
Now Obama faces a difficult game. Not an impossible one. Bill Clinton put through real (and very positive) changes with a hostile congress. As in the case of any struggle though, the game always depends on who your enemies are. And I must say we have some beauties in the rogues gallery of Republican presidential hopefuls, to compliment the incoming reds in Congress. All with real pros and cons. Mitt Romney (Massachussetts Mormon) is a possible. He has a smiley face, has mastered basic personal hygiene, speaks clearly and is a fiscal conservative (as is fashionable nowadays) and is already pretty rich so campaign funding is no biggy. The cons are that he has supported a version of Obama's evil Sovietised healthcare system in Massachussetts that senselessly allows universal access to healthcare. Oh and the religious tolerance of the Republicans cannot handle having a Mormon in their ranks.
Some of the new Red governors in the Mid West such as Mitch Daniels in Indiana have rising stars that may prove popular in this time of austerity, as the populace is looking for governors who can come up with workable budget squeezes.
And then there is Newt Gingrich who I understand is the Republican equivelant of a rockstar. That is a rockstar who's past times include throwing moral stones in glass houses and promoting religious agitation. He is certainly starting to bang the social conservative gong rather deafingly, but he may in the process scare away the moderates. To counter that he could burnish his fiscal conservative credentials.
And then there is who I am rooting for: Sarah Palin. I support her because I wholly believe she is a one woman political party shredding machine. I thoroughly support her fight for the common person, millionaire fortune in tow and all. Her "power to the people" type message in front of lefty central government-tendencies is looking evermore credible too. This shows every time she destroys a hapless hard working moderate Republicans career in the favour of some Tea Party blood-spitting non-moderate, like some kind of Caesar unleashing a proverbial tiger in the ampitheatre of US politics, and watching it tear apart moderate Republican scum. Hang those consensus builders and hang them high! Your not all suppost to agree with the other side dammit! Look angry! ANGRIER! That's better.
As for the politics in my country. What can I say? Well I can say one thing to my leadership which I feel needs saying. It's OK to be told by our colleagues in the Tory Party, to "shut up and enjoy being in government". I have been living with Tories not making sense for many years, and long may that traditon continue. But I have NO respect whatsoever for Nick Clegg sending that same message to his own grassroots activists. If he doesn't want to consul with us over our worries, TS I have a barrel full for him with his name on it. I am proud of many of our successes. But many things depress me. It depresses me when we drop one of our main reform ideas in favour of some half backed electoral system idea, that came out of the last and VERY desperate days of our adversaries, and parade it around like a badge of honour. As of now I openly admit, I am not convinced that the Alternative Vote is something we should throw ourselves behind. For me, right now it's Proportional Representation and failing that what we have now. That will probably upset some people I know in my party, but I cannot in good conscience support something I do not believe in.
For me though this year has been an especially eventful one in terms of my involvement in politics. At the start of this year I helped in the Parliamentary Election campaign of a good man who I am sorry to say did not make it into the job he thoroughly deserved. If I am still in this city when the next general election is up, you can bet your ass I will do everything I can to make sure that score is settled and the House of Commons becomes one seat less a cesspool of lies, narcissism and empty promises.
The other big event for me was putting my name in the hat for local candidacy. This was a big move for me, and one I made after considerable thought was given. Unfortunately I didn't quite make it, and was beaten at selection by some trully remarkable and hard working candidates. Towards the selections of the seats I was given much useful advice. And as time got closer to the decision times it became more clear to me that in some instances I was up against some candidates who in many cases had more connections in the particular areas I competed in. That in itself I believe is fair enough, if they have put the work in then I can only respect that. But that in itself leaves me in a somewhat difficult position. Having had most of my campaigning experience spread over several areas in the city (as oppose to one or a few), it could be harder to sell me as a local activist. My roots to a certain area can potentially be seen to be lacking. Be that as it may, I think this deserves to be looked at in context. I am committed to my party to the extent that I worked for it for 3 months full time without pay. So local campaigner in the traditional sense or not, I feel I have enough credentials to take my activism to the next level as an elected official. When? Who can say. Sometime.
I guess this is a "you haven't seen the last of me" in some ways, not in the megalomaniac Hitler Munich Beer hall way you understand, it is mean't in a kindly way. Getting rejected is not a nice experience, but getting motivated enough as I did and actually trying to go for something so important is something I feel proud of. I am not ashamed, and after learning from my mistakes I will try again. It may be a while, but till then I will keep myself busy somehow. I am determined the wait won't be my "lost years" in the Nixon sense. Watch this space.
I believe what politics in the UK and the US are both experiencing now is kind of the rollback of the "hope" and "change" tidal wave. Both of the making of the politicians and people in both countries. Obama and Clegg somewhat cynically and for the right reasons (in equal measure), started it and now both have to learn how to deal with the consequences. Because people become unpredictable and potentially aggressive when they realise their hopes and dreams are becoming unfulfilled. The higher the hope stakes gamble, potentially the higher the reward OR fall. Both now need to engage in dialogue with their respective public spheres to make the public and their grassroots know that they are talking on the same wavelength. On that level, something can be salvaged out of broken trust. And a more mature approach to one's enemies cannot hurt. As JFK said (or more accurately Ted Sorenson) "forgive one's enemies but NEVER forget their names".
Wednesday 29 December 2010
Wednesday 8 December 2010
You Know You are Doing Well When People Call You Evil
So, I have managed to to be called evil by two seperate people within a week. Albeit the first one more by implication. Yes I have been busy charming people.
I think in many ways certain people resorting to the whole 'good and evil' struggle are usually either desperate to win an argument, or have suddenly realised they have a good argument to begin with. Sometimes a combination of both.
So my good athiest self was enjoying a good carol service in Bristol Cathedral (yes I am an athiest, I can still appreciate a good choir through all the worship to the Sky God) in polite company. And then came the Christmas message. The usual talk about the real meaning of Christmas ("real" in terms of ignoring it's pagan roots) drifted on, I listened politely. And there came nice uplifting talk about the remarkableness of human endeavour through the curing of the terrible plague of Small Pox. This was oh-so cunningly crafted to the Christmas message (ie a miracle happening in a cowshed with the birth of Christ and the discovery of Small Pox, clever eh? The vicar should consider speech writing in politics). All was still well and good, thus far.
Then came the rude upset at the end. The Vicar sung his praises about the so called "Alpha Course". For those not in the know the Alpha Course is apparently a 'free discussion' group about the meaning of life. So free in fact that sources inform me that nearly everyone who attends walks out as a convert to Christianity. To highlight how great it is the Vicar told us a story about a young couple, one agnostic and an ardent athiest. Long story short both were having a crisis of faith due to the death of their baby. Both were turned into happy Christians. What got my blood boiling was how much the husband (the athiest) was described as confused and "cynical" repeatedly. Until he changed his evil ways. Reminds me of the Santana song of the same name "Evil Ways" (listen to it, Santana is a great band).
So there we have it a nice and otherwise inoffensive message ending with "by the way, do the right thing and don't be evil like he was". This isn't the first time I have been implied as evil by a Christian before. About two years ago I was talking on an online chatroom with an Evangelical minister (it's amazing what boredom can bring you to do). The battle to have me converted to the ranks of the righteous began very shortly after introductions. What ensued was a battle of words. Exasperrated I came down to the mainstay of my position: Why am I still a sinner if I look out for my friends and family? Then came the answer: Every kind action I perform is MEANINGLESS, not weak, MEANINGLESS until I surrender to "God's Will". And that is what slapped me in the face and made me decide that further debate was pointless. I congratulated him for his efforts, but politely let him know that he had lost this battle. After that we had a few laughs since he put my online avatar on a bonfire in a Witch burning scene, I congratulated him for his with. He departed on his Stairway to Heaven, I descended on my apparent crevice to hell.
So here's the deal. I am athiest, and I am avowed secularist and will be for the forseeable future. Maybe I'll one day change I don't know. What someone else believes in, insofar as it doesn't single out hategroups of people (ie various forms of extremism) I couldn't care less. It's quite literally your funeral guys. If I like what I see on the Christian side of the fence, rest assured I will come and ask what I need to ask and find out what I need to find out. Otherwise, please leave me alone. If I ask for your opinion, by all means give it. But I believe that so called "spreading the gospel" or "preaching" in contemporary Britain or anywhere else demeands religion, and makes it seem evermore suspicious and threatening to agnostics and athiests. I don't appreciate arrogance, and the deepest arrogance is to proclaim oneself eternally good over someone eternally bad. Are Christians that surprised at how much athiests relish in speaking about their ideas (to be sometimes dubbed militant) when instead of showing their views respect, they liken secularists to an evil Genghis Khan-like horde? In my book, the only time we should become such a threatening horde is when one of the believing camps tries to get more of a foothold than the other. Ideally one religion shouldn't have an an entrenched position more than the other. Yet the C of E does majorly. And yet certain people in the Christian hierarchy still have the nerve to talk about their faith being under threat. And it being the fault of us secularists. I suggest, people having differing opinons notwithstanding (heaven forbid they do), maybe the church would be more successful in maintaining it's appeal by looking at problems in it's OWN camp. No one is perfect, believers or non-believers included.
In large part what we have seen is not surprising. The US State Department and the Presidency writes Silvio Berlusconni off as a degenerate, corrupt, alcoholic sex maniac who is doing his best to keep his country more corrupt than Botswana (which is factually true by Transparency International Figures). That hardly surprises. Yet Prime Minister David Cameron is seen as at loggerheads with that unstable mafioso (called president in polite company) Hamid Kharzai chief in Afghanistan. This promptly lead to the two shaking hands and playing nice for the cameras. How sweet. All comments from Cameron about not being able to trust Kharzai, and Kharzai verbally urinating on the graves of British falled soldiers was quickly hushed up. More disturbing news has arrived though about Pakistan where the details of essentially a secret war in Pakistan, bordering on the scope of the pre-troop deployment stage in the Vietnam War is rearing it's ugly head. Among this, disconcerting noises are made by the US about it's confidence in the Pakistan Civilian Government being able to stave off threats by the military.
What is extraordinary is how the left and right on the political spectrum have already politicised the positions in this debate. For the right (sensible and otherwise) this is a case for law and order and protection of state secrets, Sarah Palin typically has called for Assange to be executed. The left consider the releases important, and potentially a powerful stick to wave at the blatant dishonesty of their governments. Perhaps unsurprisingly I stick to the latter camp. If respective governments are embarrassed at some of the things being revealed, perhaps they should start at their root causes. Going on about how the information got their in the first place is a blatantly cheap way of getting out of answering the difficult questions they bring up.
And now I hear Julian has been arrested for the rape of a few women in Sweden (2 I believe?). If he did it (in politics anything is possible) then he is a fool who has squandered his heroic deeds. But I can't help thinking how potentially convenient this is to those who wanted him locked away for a long time. Not to trivialise rape, like I said if he did it then he should be processed accordingly. But recently the prospect of him being shipped to the states to get a spanking on espionage charges, via extradition has raised it's head. Convenient for some no? Time will tell how true the rape allegations are. Despite this I stand by my line that the information he released is a vital jolt of honesty delivered to contemporary western societies that have had their fill of whitewash. More lies are not needed to make things right.
I think in many ways certain people resorting to the whole 'good and evil' struggle are usually either desperate to win an argument, or have suddenly realised they have a good argument to begin with. Sometimes a combination of both.
So my good athiest self was enjoying a good carol service in Bristol Cathedral (yes I am an athiest, I can still appreciate a good choir through all the worship to the Sky God) in polite company. And then came the Christmas message. The usual talk about the real meaning of Christmas ("real" in terms of ignoring it's pagan roots) drifted on, I listened politely. And there came nice uplifting talk about the remarkableness of human endeavour through the curing of the terrible plague of Small Pox. This was oh-so cunningly crafted to the Christmas message (ie a miracle happening in a cowshed with the birth of Christ and the discovery of Small Pox, clever eh? The vicar should consider speech writing in politics). All was still well and good, thus far.
Then came the rude upset at the end. The Vicar sung his praises about the so called "Alpha Course". For those not in the know the Alpha Course is apparently a 'free discussion' group about the meaning of life. So free in fact that sources inform me that nearly everyone who attends walks out as a convert to Christianity. To highlight how great it is the Vicar told us a story about a young couple, one agnostic and an ardent athiest. Long story short both were having a crisis of faith due to the death of their baby. Both were turned into happy Christians. What got my blood boiling was how much the husband (the athiest) was described as confused and "cynical" repeatedly. Until he changed his evil ways. Reminds me of the Santana song of the same name "Evil Ways" (listen to it, Santana is a great band).
So there we have it a nice and otherwise inoffensive message ending with "by the way, do the right thing and don't be evil like he was". This isn't the first time I have been implied as evil by a Christian before. About two years ago I was talking on an online chatroom with an Evangelical minister (it's amazing what boredom can bring you to do). The battle to have me converted to the ranks of the righteous began very shortly after introductions. What ensued was a battle of words. Exasperrated I came down to the mainstay of my position: Why am I still a sinner if I look out for my friends and family? Then came the answer: Every kind action I perform is MEANINGLESS, not weak, MEANINGLESS until I surrender to "God's Will". And that is what slapped me in the face and made me decide that further debate was pointless. I congratulated him for his efforts, but politely let him know that he had lost this battle. After that we had a few laughs since he put my online avatar on a bonfire in a Witch burning scene, I congratulated him for his with. He departed on his Stairway to Heaven, I descended on my apparent crevice to hell.
So here's the deal. I am athiest, and I am avowed secularist and will be for the forseeable future. Maybe I'll one day change I don't know. What someone else believes in, insofar as it doesn't single out hategroups of people (ie various forms of extremism) I couldn't care less. It's quite literally your funeral guys. If I like what I see on the Christian side of the fence, rest assured I will come and ask what I need to ask and find out what I need to find out. Otherwise, please leave me alone. If I ask for your opinion, by all means give it. But I believe that so called "spreading the gospel" or "preaching" in contemporary Britain or anywhere else demeands religion, and makes it seem evermore suspicious and threatening to agnostics and athiests. I don't appreciate arrogance, and the deepest arrogance is to proclaim oneself eternally good over someone eternally bad. Are Christians that surprised at how much athiests relish in speaking about their ideas (to be sometimes dubbed militant) when instead of showing their views respect, they liken secularists to an evil Genghis Khan-like horde? In my book, the only time we should become such a threatening horde is when one of the believing camps tries to get more of a foothold than the other. Ideally one religion shouldn't have an an entrenched position more than the other. Yet the C of E does majorly. And yet certain people in the Christian hierarchy still have the nerve to talk about their faith being under threat. And it being the fault of us secularists. I suggest, people having differing opinons notwithstanding (heaven forbid they do), maybe the church would be more successful in maintaining it's appeal by looking at problems in it's OWN camp. No one is perfect, believers or non-believers included.
In large part what we have seen is not surprising. The US State Department and the Presidency writes Silvio Berlusconni off as a degenerate, corrupt, alcoholic sex maniac who is doing his best to keep his country more corrupt than Botswana (which is factually true by Transparency International Figures). That hardly surprises. Yet Prime Minister David Cameron is seen as at loggerheads with that unstable mafioso (called president in polite company) Hamid Kharzai chief in Afghanistan. This promptly lead to the two shaking hands and playing nice for the cameras. How sweet. All comments from Cameron about not being able to trust Kharzai, and Kharzai verbally urinating on the graves of British falled soldiers was quickly hushed up. More disturbing news has arrived though about Pakistan where the details of essentially a secret war in Pakistan, bordering on the scope of the pre-troop deployment stage in the Vietnam War is rearing it's ugly head. Among this, disconcerting noises are made by the US about it's confidence in the Pakistan Civilian Government being able to stave off threats by the military.
What is extraordinary is how the left and right on the political spectrum have already politicised the positions in this debate. For the right (sensible and otherwise) this is a case for law and order and protection of state secrets, Sarah Palin typically has called for Assange to be executed. The left consider the releases important, and potentially a powerful stick to wave at the blatant dishonesty of their governments. Perhaps unsurprisingly I stick to the latter camp. If respective governments are embarrassed at some of the things being revealed, perhaps they should start at their root causes. Going on about how the information got their in the first place is a blatantly cheap way of getting out of answering the difficult questions they bring up.
And now I hear Julian has been arrested for the rape of a few women in Sweden (2 I believe?). If he did it (in politics anything is possible) then he is a fool who has squandered his heroic deeds. But I can't help thinking how potentially convenient this is to those who wanted him locked away for a long time. Not to trivialise rape, like I said if he did it then he should be processed accordingly. But recently the prospect of him being shipped to the states to get a spanking on espionage charges, via extradition has raised it's head. Convenient for some no? Time will tell how true the rape allegations are. Despite this I stand by my line that the information he released is a vital jolt of honesty delivered to contemporary western societies that have had their fill of whitewash. More lies are not needed to make things right.
Thursday 2 December 2010
Green Without Being Mean
First up welcome to my blog. This is the first one I have done away from Facebook in quite a while. I used to have a livejournal account but I quite frankly forgot my login and password, and beside from that I thought a change of scene was due. I have sent some of my previous blogs to some online magazines, all of whom rejected my offerings. Apparently my posts are too "personalised" and not "objective" enough. Well thank the Lord we have the BBC and Bristol's Evening Post to bring in balanced reporting and sent an example for all of us. And don't even get me started on Murdoch. Anyhoo, I decided to take some of my thoughts for the day and add them on here. Someone told me they may stand out from my Facebook Notes. I am more bothered about that damn man Zuckerberg changing the interface for it all the time anyway, but if this helps it exposure than so be it. Without further ado I will begin.
The first topic I would like to cover are my views on Environmentalism. To sum up my position. I believe that climate change is real and iminant. I believe that government can make a real and crucial difference in the battle against climate change. Having said that, I believe the fight has now become a split case: prevention against climate change and building defences against it's iminent effects. On the latter, ironically it is the third world predominantly that are going to need the most help. Indeed recently in the run up to the Mexico Climate Change summit small island nations such as Tuvalu and Nauru (in the Pacific) have formed a political alliance (the name of which escapes me) with the mission of pointing out the evidently obvious: rising sea levels will wipe out their respective nations. Do I think anything will come of the summit? Hell no. Mainly because I think at the moment developed countries and some developing ones (BRIC-Brazil, Russia, India and China) are at the moment within their comfort zones. In the comfort zones in terms of physical effects of global warming on their nations as well as energy prices. Some day I believe this may change, unfortunately not nearly soon enough.
Who's to blame for the world's slow U-turn towards taking environmentalism seriously? Well I have to say a large part has to do with the mindset of it's activists. Let me be clear (as clear as I can be after 4 pints of ale and walking for 4 miles in sub zero temperatures), in order to tackle climate change we need to engage AND respect those who may not necessarily have the near apocalyptic views of the problem as I and many green activists do. That means engaging with the right wing. Yes, yes I know they are scary and wierd and often have funny views about the free market solving everything. But they are a numerous breed and are not entirely unreasonable. And continously scaring them and making them look as evil as Genghis Khan just because they don't necessarily see the problem through our eyes will not help us. In fact it will shoot us in the foot.
Going back to basics, the question to ask is when will people change their lifestyles? The answer is when it is convenient AND advantageous for them to do so. They want their energy as cheap as they can get it, they HAVE to have it as cheap as they can get. They will recycle if such facilities are accessible AND will resent being sent a bill for their waste if other obligations (such as family) get in the way of it. Green TAXES I say is the wrong message to send. Tax INCENTIVES are the well forward. To my Conservative colleagues across the Commons floor in the future I would say, I will give companies their corporate tax back IF they earn it by doing their best to be sustainable AND prove it.
And what is this fools errand with the left wanting GOVERNMENT to be the main driver behind innovation in green technology and the right wanting the PRIVATE SECTOR to do the same? Why not both? I raise you better, why not both COMPETING against each other to drive down the price of the said technology and more importantly increase it's effectiveness?
Recently I stood for selection unsuccessfully for a council seat heavily contested by the Green Party. Long story short (which I cannot get into, nor do I really want to) I did not get in. But during my pitch (which exposed my weakness in public speaking) I expressed my heartfelt view that the UK Green Party are a threat to the politics of this country as well as the well being of it's population.
I believe that now and I believe that then. The Green Party are lead by a vanguard of inverted snobs and middle class hippies. They will huff at buying "processed foods" but will think nothing at paying a lot more for organic produce which is often developed through farming practices just as damaging as industrialised farming ones. They will turn their noses up at those who cannot be scared into accepting a smaller economy in place of the urgent change they advertise.
In sum the Green Party represent the following false argument: that tackling climate change must be met by a huge reduction in personal freedom, personal wealth and isolationist internal trade for food stuffs. I say no way honey: the free market's goalposts can be changed to make the necessary changes in peoples lives painless and common sense. The economy can carry on growing though innovation in obtaining new ideas to tackle this global problem. And REGIONAL trade is what we need. Food self sufficiency is a lie, unless we want to tear up a lot more forests and habitats that we are trying to preserve in the first place. In conclusion, don't be fooled.
The first topic I would like to cover are my views on Environmentalism. To sum up my position. I believe that climate change is real and iminant. I believe that government can make a real and crucial difference in the battle against climate change. Having said that, I believe the fight has now become a split case: prevention against climate change and building defences against it's iminent effects. On the latter, ironically it is the third world predominantly that are going to need the most help. Indeed recently in the run up to the Mexico Climate Change summit small island nations such as Tuvalu and Nauru (in the Pacific) have formed a political alliance (the name of which escapes me) with the mission of pointing out the evidently obvious: rising sea levels will wipe out their respective nations. Do I think anything will come of the summit? Hell no. Mainly because I think at the moment developed countries and some developing ones (BRIC-Brazil, Russia, India and China) are at the moment within their comfort zones. In the comfort zones in terms of physical effects of global warming on their nations as well as energy prices. Some day I believe this may change, unfortunately not nearly soon enough.
Who's to blame for the world's slow U-turn towards taking environmentalism seriously? Well I have to say a large part has to do with the mindset of it's activists. Let me be clear (as clear as I can be after 4 pints of ale and walking for 4 miles in sub zero temperatures), in order to tackle climate change we need to engage AND respect those who may not necessarily have the near apocalyptic views of the problem as I and many green activists do. That means engaging with the right wing. Yes, yes I know they are scary and wierd and often have funny views about the free market solving everything. But they are a numerous breed and are not entirely unreasonable. And continously scaring them and making them look as evil as Genghis Khan just because they don't necessarily see the problem through our eyes will not help us. In fact it will shoot us in the foot.
Going back to basics, the question to ask is when will people change their lifestyles? The answer is when it is convenient AND advantageous for them to do so. They want their energy as cheap as they can get it, they HAVE to have it as cheap as they can get. They will recycle if such facilities are accessible AND will resent being sent a bill for their waste if other obligations (such as family) get in the way of it. Green TAXES I say is the wrong message to send. Tax INCENTIVES are the well forward. To my Conservative colleagues across the Commons floor in the future I would say, I will give companies their corporate tax back IF they earn it by doing their best to be sustainable AND prove it.
And what is this fools errand with the left wanting GOVERNMENT to be the main driver behind innovation in green technology and the right wanting the PRIVATE SECTOR to do the same? Why not both? I raise you better, why not both COMPETING against each other to drive down the price of the said technology and more importantly increase it's effectiveness?
Recently I stood for selection unsuccessfully for a council seat heavily contested by the Green Party. Long story short (which I cannot get into, nor do I really want to) I did not get in. But during my pitch (which exposed my weakness in public speaking) I expressed my heartfelt view that the UK Green Party are a threat to the politics of this country as well as the well being of it's population.
I believe that now and I believe that then. The Green Party are lead by a vanguard of inverted snobs and middle class hippies. They will huff at buying "processed foods" but will think nothing at paying a lot more for organic produce which is often developed through farming practices just as damaging as industrialised farming ones. They will turn their noses up at those who cannot be scared into accepting a smaller economy in place of the urgent change they advertise.
In sum the Green Party represent the following false argument: that tackling climate change must be met by a huge reduction in personal freedom, personal wealth and isolationist internal trade for food stuffs. I say no way honey: the free market's goalposts can be changed to make the necessary changes in peoples lives painless and common sense. The economy can carry on growing though innovation in obtaining new ideas to tackle this global problem. And REGIONAL trade is what we need. Food self sufficiency is a lie, unless we want to tear up a lot more forests and habitats that we are trying to preserve in the first place. In conclusion, don't be fooled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)