Green Party National Conference 2005

[parallelepipete]

'kinell, gurrier. That sunflower don't shine so brightly now...

*looks dolefully at membership card*

but thanks for the time and effort there Much appreciated. Got a few questions though:

The green party has an electoral focus and focusing on elections means that you might as well try to win them.
[...]

Of course, this is equally valid criticism of any political party which participates in the electoral process, is it not? So how do socialists, e.g the SSP, who similarly work within the parliamentary system justify it?

Along the way, with small successes they will increasingly meet the problem of forming local coalitions with the pro-capitalist parties and forming policies that are less likely to make the tabloid media start rabid scare campaigns about them. In keeping with the analysis above, by the time that this is a real problem, the wing of the party which has always advocated a more liberal line will be in control and there won't be much to stop the party following the line of electoral reasoning.

Of course, a Green criticism of socialist parties is that their hard line against coalitions often leads to inability to co-operate inter se due to differences apparently minute to an outsider, thus erring on the other side. Is that correct, and if so, what chance of a dialogue between Green and Left politics to try and push socialism and ecological justice?

This will lead to compromises with the right-wing parties which amount to introducing a lot of 'consumer' focused flat rate taxes. For example, the bin tax,
[...]
Eventually the logic of coalition and elections will make the green party drop all their 'idealistic' policies (cf german greens and war in Serbia) in favour of 'pragmatic' solutions. Pragmatic solutions, in this neo-liberal world, include the rule that taxes on business will 'damage the economy' and so all the taxes are on a 'polluter pays' principle, except that it is the poor consumer who is defined as being the sole polluter.

Hmm, granted many of the 'achievements' of green politicians have been such initiatives. My own preference (and I think that of many Greens) would be resource taxation at the point of extraction (e.g. the ridiculous state of affairs that North Sea oil companies pay nothing to the state for the oil they extract).

The problem with this from an environmentalist point of view is that it's pretty pointless trying to solve environmental problems anywhere but at the point of production. From a left point of view, it's just a small step in the process of shifting taxation burdens from rich to poor (by replacing progressive taxes like income tax with regressive flat rate taxes as per the EU's strategy of the lisbon agenda) which is why the right wing parties love it, they get to wear a green fig leaf while implementing their ceaseless struggle to accumulate more wealth for the elite.

I don't quite follow. Are you saying here that from a left point of view, solving environmental problems at the point of production helps to shift taxation burdens onto the poor?

The net result of all this is that the green party achieves nothing except salving the consciousness of their increasingly well-to-do voter base. The notion of environmentalism gets closely associated with unjust taxation by the less well off among the working class (who are the very people who should be most concerned by environmental problems).

Well, everyone should be concerned - but I think I understand you in that the working class don't have the resources to be able to ditch jobs with poor health and safety/live in unpolluted surroundings/buy safe food etc. But last time I looked, both GPEW and SGP were definitely in favour of higher income tax of high earners, and what about the Citizens' Income proposals? Along with high income taxation, that's hardly regressive, as it would help lower earners to. for instance, ditch gruelling long shifts on minimum wage and choose a shorter working week giving them more time for social/family/learning activity. Or sheer lazing though I know no good socialist would approve of that, what with the 'obligation to work' and all that.

Many of them [Greens] end up in environmental NGOs as well as remaining in the party but I'd consider that a similar slippery slope into uselessness and inevitable self-inflicted defeat.

In which case, who's going to keep environmental issues on the agenda?

 

[Matt S]

I've been searching around to try to find a post I wrote before on these issues, because I find it hard to keep having the same discussion on electoral/non-electoral routes to change - but unfortunately I can't find it anywhere.

Wish I had more time to write a long post again about my views on this, but I guess this will have to suffice: I know, without a shadow of doubt, that the scene of Oxford local politics is far better, more progressive, more open and more participatory because the Green Party has a strong group of councillors. I know that, whatever might happen in the future, the stuff that we are pushing through the Council now is making a difference, and will continue to do so. Thats all I really need to be honest - when/if my involvement in the Greens starts to have a negative rather than a positive effect, then I'll be depressed - but I'll still look back at the stuff I'm achieving now, and be glad I did it....

Thats my outlook, anyway, in a nutshell.

Matt

 

[sihhi]

How would you tackle congestion?

Free public transport,
Opportunities for job swapping,
Graded taxation according to income/ ownership of propoerty,
Free bicycles,

In fact just about anything is preferable to a flat tax.

 

[audiotech]

How would you tackle congestion?

Vicks Vaposyrup for Chesty Coughs

 

[parallelepipete]

Free public transport,
Opportunities for job swapping,
Graded taxation according to income/ ownership of propoerty,
Free bicycles,

In fact just about anything is preferable to a flat tax.

I'd agree with that. Think you'll find both job-swapping and graded taxation are popular with Greens.

The 'free public transport' thing is something often scoffed at, but probably far cheaper than all the current bureacracy of subsidies/settlement plans and ticket checks and barriers.

Free bicycles - slobber

I feel good about this thread.

 

[TeeJay]

the congestion charge, like all flat taxes is an attack on the working class

So taking oney away from *relatively* richer motorists and putting it into the bus network - which is used far more heavily by poorer people - is "an attack on the working class" then is it? Rubbish!

 

[parallelepipete]

So taking oney away from *relatively* richer motorists and putting it into the bus network - which is used far more heavily by poorer people - is "an attack on the working class" then is it? Rubbish!

I think the point is that the congestion charge is the same for a hatchback loaded with belongings helping a mate move house, and some plonker on his own in a huge SUV who thinks that catching the bus with the Great Unwashed is beneath them.

 

[TeeJay]

My own preference (and I think that of many Greens) would be resource taxation at the point of extraction (e.g. the ridiculous state of affairs that North Sea oil companies pay nothing to the state for the oil they extract).

Is this actually true tho'?

The North Sea oil industry has reacted with alarm to Chancellor Gordon Brown's decision to slap a 10% surcharge on profits. ... In his budget speech earlier on Wednesday, Mr Brown said he would abolish the "royalty" payment on North Sea Oil. He also announced plans to improve capital allowances for oil companies. But he spoiled the party for oil producers by slapping an extra 10% tax on UK oil production, taking it to 40% to "raise revenue". The net result of these changes to the complex North Sea tax regime is likely be a greater share of oil income going to the government. ...

The industry has a labyrinthine tax structure, with different developments supplying varying levels of revenue to the chancellor depending on their age. Some fields going back 20 years or more can pay as much as 70% in various levies, while modern developments are taxed at a lower rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1936279.stm

 

[TeeJay]

I think the point is that the congestion charge is the same for a hatchback loaded with belongings helping a mate move house, and some plonker on his own in a huge SUV who thinks that catching the bus with the Great Unwashed is beneath them.

If someone is that hard up can't they just wait till after 7pm to move the stuff? Surely in both cases people have to decide how much they value "convenience" - for one the value of being able to use his air-con, listen to his Dire Straits CD and not having to walk a mile or so to/from/within the tube and for the other person - having to eat into their leisure time in the evening.

Free public transport wouldn't impact on certain drivers - for example driving through London or people carrying loads/kids etc. Also, the tube, overland tarins and buses are already massively packed during large parts of the day, and making them free would make this even worse - I don't they could cope immediately, and only over time if given a lot of investment. Unless you want to put up taxes massively (both on people who use it and people who don't) the idea that you should take away all revenue raised by fares is a bit crazy IMO.

For example in 1998 "Passenger fare revenue including concessionary support accounts for 90% of total cash in-flow in London." Since the total was £1.8bn, scrapping fares would cost about £1.62 bn - and you'd have even more passengers (and therefore costs) than this due to free travel.

I'm not against giving poor people more money in benefits and through taxes, but they should then be able to make sensible decisions about how much they travel and what they spend their money on. Making public transport free would simply remove any sensible decision making about how much of it to 'consume' - people would make far more pointless and trivial journeys, the system would be far more congested, there would be less money to invest in the system (unless raised elsewhere in taxes that would also fall on people who didn't even use the system much or at all). All in all I don't think it is a good idea.