I know it is difficult, I know that in the heat of a keenly contested by-election it is natural to attack ones opponents, but Labour and the Greens must call a truce in Brighton and Hove.
Tomorrow we are likely to see unprecedented attacks on benefits, local government, essential services. But in the St Peter’s and North Laine by-election the candidates are making claim and counter claim that is so very off-putting for those of us who might be sympathetic to both parties.
Take the Greens. Lizzie Deane in one of her leaflets says “Only a Green vote will stop the Tories from re-gaining a City Council majority”. Nonsense. In St Peter’s and North Laine a vote for either the Greens or Labour will prevent a Tory gain. It was this kind of nonsense that I criticised after the general election, except on that occasion it was Labour making false claims. Lizzie Deane should clarify this point if she is to be taken seriously as an ethical politician.
Tom French, who I must say is growing on me every time I have contact with him, is in danger of getting above and beyond himself with some of his statements. Today he dismisses the role of the Greens in the Lewes Road Community Garden. Again, this is nonsense. The Greens have been involved in this project from the outset.
Those of us not engaged in sectarian politics would want to wish both Labour and the Greens well. Attacking each other – as if there ConDemNation coaltion was a mere sideshow – is a complete turnoff at this time. To both Tom and Lizzie, please tell us about your plans and policies, and please refrain from commenting about each other, or their prospects in this by-election. Do so, and I will wish you both well.
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: Brighton, Greens, Hove, Labour, Lizzie Deane, St Peters and North Laine, Tom French |
Brighton Politics Blog 
The problem with your analysis is that Labour are working with the Tories – not the Greens – on the city council, with the only exception being the Core Strategy vote last year.
The council budget is an example where Labour spurned offers to work with the Greens in return for a deal with the Tories to enable them to keep their (paid) opposition status.
Labour in Brighton and Hove seem to have few principles, sadly. A legacy of what happened to them in the Bassam years.
I very much think that the Tories will implode by their arrogance. Look at how they “answered” my Question about music libraries by challenging me to a duel. People keep talking about that. And I do not see how the Tories have the campaign forces.
I think it is a bit rich that you claim not to be engaged with ‘sectarian politics’.
You are clearly anti-conservative, and just float between the anti conservative sects a bit…
Labour have stolen our wealth and that (yet to be earned/created) of our children (and grandchildren) and the Greens want to steal from our great-grandchildren and beyond.
Lumbering children with debt before they are even of age is absolutely disgusting – its virtually slavery – but this is what Labour and the Greens actually *want* to do – Labour at least have the grace to deny it, but the Greens rejoice in it.
Quite the opposite: rather than put poor kids in debt, Greens would rejoice in taxing the undeserving wealthy, many of whom, as City banking gurus, contributed to the current economic mess.
Financially balanced budgets and socially balanced budgets are not mutually exclusive if the rich are made to pay proportionately their fair share.
Greens are right to rejoice at that idea.
Greens may ‘wish’ for everyone to have unlimited free money – but they haven’t actually worked out where it really comes from.
Stealing is unsustainable – once you have stolen there is nothing left to steal… UK’s finances have to be sustainable – people need to create at least as much wealth as is consumed… ‘Taxing the Rich’ is like scratching the last drop of fossil fuel from the deepest off shore well – nothing to build a long term future on.
What the banks did was irrelevant – until Brown and Labour decided (for their own bizarre reasons) to give them our money — they didn’t have to, they chose to, the bankers (and their shareholders) couldn’t beleive their luck. Brown is just plain bonkers, the Greens haven’t realised this yet they just think he was a *bit* wrong.
Some private businesses lost money – big deal… Brown got the tax payer involved WTF?!?!?
Far from being a fan of Caroline or her party, I think the Greens’ programme hits on the real need for some redistribution of wealth, which has tended to remain with the wealthiest 1-5% of the population. This fuels a decadent form of (rentier) capitalism whereby the rich get richer without actually being productive. In turn, that leads to greater and more exaggerated fluctuations in the business cycle, thereby affecting consumption, investments and growth in the long-term. And that is unsustainable.
Complex financial instruments have failed to provide an adequate solution for businesses. As this crisis has shown entrepreneurs can no longer depend on false cash created by bankers.
But we cannot afford a situation wherby viable businesses cannot emerge due to a lack of capital. One solution worth some thought is to allow the state a greater role in enabling private sector potential through redistribution measures.
A few points:
1) Rentiers can’t be accurately targeted with taxation – if you are serious about redistribution of their wealth you need to Mugabe style asset grab. (At least be honest about it).
2) I don’t see common or garden entrepreneurs flocking to the green party for their financial policies. (Some greens may be entrepreneurs, but that is not the same).
3) You don’t trust bankers et al, but you trust politicians… Is Blair in that top few % yet ? How about his cronies who run the quangos etc ?
If I were faced with the chairman of a ftse 100 company and an MP – I’d trust the chairman first…
Some interesting points.
I agree on the point that entrepreneurs – or anyone at all – would be unwise to seek advice from the Greens. That just goes without saying.
However, on taxation, the evidence shows that 1) taxes on immobile resources can yield results, 2) levels of tax are comparatively lower in the UK and that 3) all other European economies are more activist in terms of their relations with business.
I have no problems with bankers themselves but I think wealth creation should involve a lot more than debt. That aside, when capital requirements are forced up later in this parliament, and it will happen, then it is vital to find new systems to realise that otherwise priced-out business potential.