What Do You Want Your Local Councillor To Fight For?

[NLWK110710]

Jobs, Affordable Housing, affordable healthcare, more bike paths, less bureaucracy, affordable education, healthy environment and economy.

[GDGL6]

I say the word FIGHT(ing) needs to be banned from green speak!

All it does is perpetuate the notion that progress or prevention is associated with battling instead of persuation which feeds into the hands of the more extreme politics.

Def. fighting , fights . v.intr. To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons

[therealcaldini]

I want Dutch-style cycling infrastructure. Search "markenlei" on You Tube to see what I mean.

[SophiaChrstinaBotha]

@DeanoProductionsTM Put down the Ayn Rand & go see how the other half live, because you might just fin that there's a world beyond two inches in front of your nose

[0alifish0]

This is the first year I'll be able to vote, and it's Green Party all the way. The government at the moment is oblivious to solving unemployment problems and making this country more eco-friendly.

[PhantaJisto]

The only party in Britain that isn't besotted by neo-liberalism.

[BeAFreePerson]

Great video. Bring on a Green Party controlled council in May.

[FrankThePidgeon]

I'd like to know where the money to fund all these lovely things is going to come from. If you wouldn't support a person overspending, you shouldn't support government overspending even if it is to provide services for the needy. Until you can offer human solutions for political problems you still maintain your part in the political crisis!

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@FrankThePidgeon "Government overspending" is subjective to what political ideology you support. To a neo-liberal capitalist, relatively small amounts public spending is government over spending. To a communist, total public spending isn't over spending. Tax's should get money from society >to fund societies needs<. It's logical. Atm the government doesn't care about peoples needs, just corporate needs (which aren't the same as peoples needs may I add) which gives tax a bad name.

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM 'Tax's should get money from society >to fund societies needs<' actually tax is taken illegally from individuals & is used to pay the overblown wages of those who dont have to account for their worth to society.

Government has no innate right to take personal wealth, income or property, it does so against the human right of each born person.

It's time to allow society to decide who & what we want to pay for, no more taxes, but accountable proposals, & no illegal theft tax.

[stainlesssteelprat]

@scoocheeful My god!That would be utopian!Can you really see the corrupt Swine allowing us to have money?We wouldn't need to work as much as we do.That cannot be allowed!!

[scoocheeful]

@stainlesssteelprat lol...aye the free lunch featherbedded pigs would be lost without their trough full of other people's money/hard work.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful Don't use law as a reason. Law's can be wrong you know? It was legal to rape your wife until 1991.

"Rights to personal property" is something made up by capitalism. It's not an entity. Something should only be "someones" when they are using it. Like a house, when you live it it, it's yours. But when you move, it's not yours. When you are using a tool, it's yours - because you are using it - but when you aren't using it, other people in teh community can use it. Efficiency.

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM There's a blueprint for a communist society , collectivist ownership, and that's been tried & the 150 million slaughtered for failure to conform sort of disproves the concept.

You make the assumption that it's reasonable to impose you view, or that you have a right to determine who 'owns' someone's labour.

If someone slaves to plant a field & grows food it isn't yours or society's or the governments, it is the fruit of THEIR labour, & tax/redistribution is just theft.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful Well communism has never been successful because it's never been done in the true form. There have been loads of variations of it (which really were state socialist etc), not really communist. China, for instance, says it's communist, although it clearly isn't.

You're right about the labour thing. No one should own someone elses labour. It's THEIR labour. A boss shouldn't be rewarded for workers. They, and the community they are part of, should benefit from it. Why shouldn't it?

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM I constantly hear that communism has never been done in its true form, but I disagree. Communism is based on the premise that individuals are greedy and the individual is to be subsumed with the collective, but communism always fails because the 'collective' is subject to human nature,state power or collective power always creates corruption, theft and greed. Every aspect of collectivist socialism in our society breeds overblown wages, corrupt government & theft(taxes).

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful No system should be implementd with a heavy hand. The people should want it. Direct democracy needs to take away power from the centre. We now have the technology to do it. This among other things. Don't just look at Russia or China and say omg they call themselves communist and look everyone dies! Communism is bad! There are other variables too. They may have been said to be done under the name of communism, but it doesn't mean it was the ideology advocating the suffering.

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM If people want to live under a velvet glove version of communism that's fine, it's their born right to do so, but for those that dont it is also their born right to be free of collectivism and it's tax slavery.

You say that society should benefit as if 'society' is an individual, society has no more right to steal a persons labours than a boss, we are not born slaves to society. we have laws to protect workers from corporate slavery, but not from society/government taxes.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful Yea people shouldn't be forced to be there if they don't want to be. The communism idea in my head is of freedom, not authoritarian oppression.

Well.. since the money would go back into society, they would be stealing from themselves? So it's not really stealing (if done properly!)

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM The proplems I see with that are who lives of those taxes & who decides how taxes are spent. Those who want to live on other people's labour will include those who have no reason to & are parasites, plus those on overblown wages, & those who decide how it gets spent will include the corrupt & deliberately wasteful, just as it is now.

Isn't real freedom the freedom to decide who and what you pay for, tax is a feudaloppressive idea, a way of disempowering the working masses.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful I agree with with most of what you say. Those contributing should get a say on what it's spent on (as long as it isn't something which will remove the freedoms of innocent people). Power needs to be decentralised for that to happen. I was thinking this morning and thought maybe a system where tax's go into a local pot so that the local area will benefit from the tax. Things like public transport, schools, healthcare etc. Woulndt work and be fair atm though due to the class structure

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM Well in days past there taxation system existed to tax the working classes & give it to the Lords & church, they prevented free trade & used tax to keep people enslaved in their system.

Today we have government & its enormous retinue which it uses to justify taxes designed to keep the masses enslaved to the system.

If by class you mean the workers & 'lords' of government then yes it wouldn't work. The rich dont live off the poor, the government/its retinue does

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM You say that the financial class division would prevent it & maybe in areas like healthcare it would, after all the poor suffer more sickness & I doubt they'd be happy to fund dismissive doctors taking 200K per year, but things find their level. Instead of career parasites we might find doctors working in poor areas who care about patients :o, police answering to the pubic & stopping crimes!! school heads who worked for the good not for up to 20 times the min wage.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful Yea they should always care about their patients and school heads (shouldn't exist really lol but that'd take a total reform to change such ingrown ideas that there needs to be someone at the top to make decisions because obv. people can't think what is best for all themselves..) and school heads shouldn't get 20x minimum wage, you're right.

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM What you say there hits the nail on the head in that to a great extent people in power doesn't equal a better school or society. It's partly why I think we need to abolish the top down state, which is corrupt & sees individuals as born slaves to a system that claims the right to take your creativity, effort, imagination, in the form of tax & steal it / squander it. The individual people should decide what they want to fund, not some dictatorial kabal of career tax leeches.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful Ovviously. But taxing isn't their method of doing that. It's what they do with the tax. Like if someone owns a weapon, they may or may not do good with it. What is done with the tax is what matters. I hate the current government and system etc atm like it seem you do too. Where there is no power centre, tax is still possible. The tax won't go to the power body to distribute as it see's fit. The people in the community who's money it is IS the power body (ideally). £ -> where needed.

[scoocheeful]

@DeanoProductionsTM I take your point about tax technically being a double sided concept, I think we've spent so long as slaves tho that we cant imagine a world working without puntive tax.

If tax was by consent /use then it wouldn't be tax, those who would take the role of organisers would have to make proposals, government by permission & we would or would not fund their ideas.

Community tax spending powers could work if everyone agreed, as people disagree it would be forced & unfair for some

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@scoocheeful Like you said before, those who disagree shouldn't be forced to stay. Although if they too benefit from the system, which in the system I'm thinking of everyone would have what they need and there would be no poverty etc and no room for greed, hopefully they wouldn't feel the need to disagree.

[FrankThePidgeon]

@DeanoProductionsTM Government overspending is having a budget deficit. There's finite taxation ability; £42bn is dead money due to debt, more as the government pay it off. What are society's 'needs'? To a utilitarian hiding the poor could be acceptable, to a communist liquidising the bourgeoisie. Democracy is short-term, and only needs electorate support. I'm pro-democracy, but one must evaluate their argument, the government is neither pro-individual or pro corporation.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@FrankThePidgeon Well seeing as the corporations are allowed to have such large roles in decision making processes to do with trade etc I could quite confidently say they are pro-corporation. They are the neo-liberal capitalists obsessed with free trade at the expense of people and environment.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@FrankThePidgeon Sorry, but the "democracy" we have atm is in the most part illusionary. If it was actually going to make a difference for the better, they wouldn't allow it at all. They don't allow direct democracy despite us having the technology to do so. That's rather more democratic than the "representative" democracy we supposedly have. Although, they are not representative anymore. :( More than 80 MP's are millionaires. Not very representative.

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@FrankThePidgeon Sorry, but the "democracy" we have atm is in the most part illusionary. If it was actually going to make a difference for the better, they wouldn't allow it at all. They don't allow direct democracy despite us having the technology to do so. That's rather more democratic than the "representative" democracy we supposedly have. Although, they are not representative anymore. :( More than 80 MP's are millionaires. Not very representative.

[FrankThePidgeon]

@DeanoProductionsTM It's most part illusionary? Sounds to me that you're into conspiracy! :P I agree, we need reform, some sort of PR (but not strict PR, as it's flawed very badly)... Direct democracy is a stupid idea. If we vote on every piece of legislation we would spend little time doing anything besides voting. Not all MPs vote on everything, so getting people to would have an effect of too much democracy like in US Primaries, with 20% turnout and powerful extreme groups, like the Tea Party

[DeanoProductionsTM]

@FrankThePidgeon Lol, well I'm not a conspiricy theorist :S I gave my reasons for beliving it's not as strong as it should be.

[FrankThePidgeon]

@DeanoProductionsTM A strong government is needed to get through such reforms as the Green Party supports, and believe it or not, through all of the hate about the coalition's cuts, or Tony Blair's hand in Iraq, a lot of reform has gone on. But also strong opposition is needed, and quite depressingly, with Labour not having policies until their review is over and most other opposition MPs being region-specific, Caroline Lucas is the only real opposition! So, yeah, democracy could be stronger.

[greenpartyew]

@Junkhead1988 Can we try not to encourage trolls who want to compare us to fascists? (Scott, GP Press Office)

[edlpirateradio]

@greenpartyew Well you trolls are doing a very good job of comparing others to fascists.

[samtheman152009]

The only upside to the lib dems being complete plonkers is there will now be more green councillors. I'll be campaigning.