The Leader of the Green Party daily Politics

[Brovion]

The best reason to vote Green in Brighton Pavilion is because of the bellends on this forum it will piss off

To say nothing of the commentators on the Argus web pages! Despite my sneering contempt for their infantile policies, their disorganised and incompetent councillors and the smug bell-ends who support them, like Buzzer I shall probably vote for Caroline Lucas as she's been an excellent MP. When I look at her voting record in the House of Commons I would have voted the same way as her on every issue.

 

[Buzzer]

One point I would make on this though: in 2010 (I don't have the data after this point, but I would hazard a guess that it hasn't changed much), 93% of increases in GNP in the US went to the top 1%. Therefore, growth can be seen to be increasing the inequality in society - there is perhaps something in this argument, if you believe that rising inequality in society is making more people's lives worse. If, however, you believe that this is a fair payment of rent to the super-rich, who are benefactors of society, who provide trickle-down benefits and are the fulcrum of entrepreneurial spirit in the world (as opposed to ultra conservative - fiscally and politically - hoarders of wealth, removing money from the system), then not allowing them to benefit even more is not a good thing. What would happen if this policy is applied to the UK only though? Would we see a huge transfer of business out of the UK? That would be a real risk, but I think, at the moment, voting Green is about making a statement rather than expecting them to form the next government.

I agree with some economists who say too big a deal might be being made about inequality. Of course it's not fair that a very small percentage of super-rich are becoming even richer at a faster rate than the people at the bottom but given the sheer number of people at the very bottom it's nigh on impossible to get both moving at the same rate. However, according to UN figures people in absolute poverty has dropped from something around 30% to 15% since 1990 and all the indicators longevity, deaths in childbirth, literacy etc all show massive favourable trends.

 

[beorhthelm]

...However, according to UN figures people in absolute poverty has dropped from something around 30% to 15% since 1990 and all the indicators longevity, deaths in childbirth, literacy etc all show massive favourable trends.

i've come to the conclusion that because absolute poverty has reduced across the world and non-existant in the developed world, along with relative poverty reducing here, those that want a cause have had to refocus on "inequality". but its meaningless. such a fuss last week about 1% will have 50% wealth by 2017... what the current % then? why wasnt it such a signficant issue when we hit 1.5% or 2%? we're not really told why this coalescing of wealth actually matters. if we consider most of that wealth is in the valuations of accumulated shares and other assets one has to wonder if it means anything at all. income and production matter for everyday living, but there little focus on these anymore, is this because they are doing ok?

 

[tinycowboy]

i've come to the conclusion that because absolute poverty has reduced across the world and non-existant in the developed world, along with relative poverty reducing here, those that want a cause have had to refocus on "inequality". but its meaningless. such a fuss last week about 1% will have 50% wealth by 2017... what the current % then? why wasnt it such a signficant issue when we hit 1.5% or 2%? we're not really told why this coalescing of wealth actually matters. if we consider most of that wealth is in the valuations of accumulated shares and other assets one has to wonder if it means anything at all. income and production matter for everyday living, but there little focus on these anymore, is this because they are doing ok?

I would guide you to "The Price of Inequality" by Stiglitz, but it's economics and politics, so, if someone doesn't agree with the message, there'll be a way to argue against it, although the stats are not in question. Interesting though.