Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Blogspot working again; Green Party Conference; time to mend the Broken Society

Hooray! I'm back in to Blogspot again. For the last 7 days I have been unable to open any URL with "blogspot" in it - including the blogspot help. I got some advice from a .blogger site, and it seems to be a known issue (not a Government hack on my site because it is so subversive, sadly); I cleared my cookie list as advised, but that did not help immediately. Anyway I'm back to being able to consume vast amounts of my time and yours in writing.

Main event last week was Green Party Conference. I put an account on my Facebook while the blog was down. 

The highlight of  Conference was the panel on Equality with Johan Hari and Kate Pickett. Kate works with Richard Wilkinson. Their book The Spirit Level should be required reading for all politicians and commentators, because it shows that the RPG (Rich-Poor Gap) lies at the root of our "Broken Society". So if Dave "I'm not Gordon" Cameron is really sincere about mending said Broken Society, he will aim to do what NuLabour has failed to do, i.e. reduce the RPG.
It would be churlish to add "Pigs might Fly".

The RPG is a lethal weapon aimed at the heart of society. There is good scientific evidence, chiefly from Richard Wilkinson et al.  to show that inequality causes unhappiness, ill-health, social breakdown, crime and stuff.

So what do we do about it? Here's what:

1 Citizen's Income, introduced by means of the Green Wage Subsidy.
2 Community spaces and community workers.
3 Government issued QE grants, zero- or low-interest loans to sound investment projects for the Green New Deal.
4 Progressive taxation
5 Robin Hood Transaction Taxes
6 Close tax loopholes used by rich individuals and corporations
7 Internalise all environmental and social costs caused by multinationals (that is, make them pay for the damage they cause)
8 End the monopoly of banks on money creation
I am probably going to blog obsessively on this over the next few weeks.

The other Green Party Conference highlight for me was getting an Emergency Motion on the
Dodgy Donations Disgrace.
Tories: "Lord" Ashcroft:
Labour: "Lord" Paul and Lakshmi Mittal;
LibDems: Convicted fraudster Michael Brown.

All 3 main Westminster Parties are up to their ears in doggy-doo, in terms of massive political donations. So it's up to the Green Party to kick up about the issue. Spent yesterday researching it.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry Doc, how could the Liberal Democrats know Michael Brown was a fraudster? It is the nature of fraudsters that they are expert at deceiving people. The courts and EC have cleared the party and the responsible officer of any wrong doing. Did the Green Party know Zac Goldsmith’s tax status when it accepted his cash?

Aren’t you playing the very same game as climate change deniers, ignoring the expert legal consensus.

DocRichard said...

Hi Anon
I assume the LibDems did not know he was a fraudster when they received his money. However, my research shows that his company, 5th Avenue Partners UK was set up on the day that he gave his first donation, which is highly unusual, and the Electoral Commission should have picked up on this. I am mystified why the LibDems did not have to pay back the money to the people that Brown defrauded.

I am about to research Ted (not Zac) Goldsmiths donations if any to the Green Party.

DocRichard said...

I doubt that there is an expert legal consensus that the dodgy donations are all clear of the legal hurdle. It is perfectly obvious to anyone outside of the Tory Party that he is not a UK taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

The Liberal Democrats checked with the Electoral Commission, before accepting the donation. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; I’m sure appointing David Ike a spokesman seemed like a good idea at the time.
According to the Electoral Commission (buried on a spreadsheet) both Zac and Ben Goldsmith gave substantial sums to the Green Party, before giving even larger sums to the Tories. The speculation is that helping the Green Party stand will split the progressive vote and help the Tories, as proportionally Greens take more votes off Labour and Liberals.)

DocRichard said...

Actually, David Icke was never an official Speaker for the Green Party. The media appointed him as such. It's not a good idea to believe everything in the papers.

Speculation is an even more wonderful thing than hindsight.

It remains curious that the LibDems were not required to reimburse those that Brown defrauded. It seems contrary to natural justice.

DocRichard said...

Anon
Thanks for the tip, I have found the page on the electoral Commission; brothers Zac and Ben Goldsmith gave sums totalling £55k in 2004 and 2009.

And your point is? Are you suggesting that there was any illegality involved? If not, there is no comparison with the ConLabLibDem situation regarding party finances, is there?

fasb rating system said...

I’m sure appointing David Ike a spokesman seemed like a good idea at the time. Before giving even larger sums to the Tories. The speculation is that helping the Green Party stand will split the progressive vote and help the Tories.

Anonymous said...

My point is you are being financed to help the Conservatives, a party that stands against everything you stand for. I’m not suggesting that there was anything illegal on the part of the Green Party, in accepting donations from millionaire Conservatives. There is no comparison with the Conservative and Labour situation regarding party finances, and the Liberal Democrats – the former two were/are complicit, the latter has been exonerated by due legal process

Anonymous said...

"It remains curious that the LibDems were not required to reimburse those that Brown defrauded. It seems contrary to natural justice."
In order to perpetrate his fraudulent activities, I guess MB carried out some legitimate business, it is impossible to know if the donation to the Lib Dems came from the fraudulent or legitimate activities.

I know an American lawyer Robert Mann is threatening to sue, but as he gave his money to MB after he had approached the party, I don’t think he is on strong ground. Mann is arguing that the Lib Dems should have realised MB was a fraudster, whilst it was quite reasonable for an experienced investor like himself to give money to MB with out any checks.
As I understand it Charles Kennedy, (who did not normally get involved in any direct discussions over donations) had serious doubts about accepting such a large donation, particularly from someone who did not have a long history with the Party. He therefore asked for the right of veto, which he would use if he was not happy with further checks that he asked to be carried out. These further checks included contacting MB/5th Avenue’s lawyers, one of the major City partnerships, who confirmed 5th Avenue were trading. The party also took advantage of the fact that as it was so close to the election CK had a Special Branch team assigned to him, and asked Special Branch to run a Security Check on Michael Brown. Special Branch have confirmed that they ran such a check and that whilst it was not their job to advise on the desirability of accepting such a large donation, they could see no reason on the basis of lack of funds/criminality/some other factor, not to accept the donation.

DocRichard said...

fastb: the only explanation for your post is that (a) you did not read my comment, or (b)you did not understand it.

DocRichard said...

You speculate that the Goldsmiths gave money to split the anti-Tory vote. Speculation is easy. Come back when you have done a bit of research, and have a case to put forward.

Your argument could be extended to say that the Lib Dems should give up and ask people to vote Labour to keep out the Tories. I'm sure Labour have said that to you already. The logical result of that is the US system, which is next to worthless, electorally.

Get used to the fact that political diversity exists, basically between the ConLabLibDem consensus that Profit is King, and the Green notion that economics should be nested in ecology.

DocRichard said...

Anon, this is useful, thanks. You say "due legal process" but was it tried in court, or just a decision by the Electoral Commission.

A few points: Special Branch do not have Fraud Squad skills.

There are 2 5th Avenue partners Ltd, one incorporated 15/03/2004, and one, 5th Avenue Partners (UK) Ltd, incorporated on 10/02/2005, the very day that the donation of £100,000 was made to the LibDems.

Make of that what you will.

It still seems contrary to natural justice that money received from a fraudster should not be returned to those he defrauded. The only explanation that I can think of is that all those defrauded are LibDem supporters, who wish their loss to be considered as a payment in kind.

Alex said...

"There are 2 5th Avenue partners Ltd, one incorporated 15/03/2004, and one, 5th Avenue Partners (UK) Ltd, incorporated on 10/02/2005, the very day that the donation of £100,000 was made to the LibDems. "

The first company was an "off-the-shelf" company set up and owned by a law firm until required by a client. I think you will find that the name was changed late in 2004, which is probably when it was acquired by Brown.