Comments on: The cuts won’t work – time for a Green New Deal

By: me

me — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:44:07 +0000

Anon E Mouse – I’m intrigued as to why you are anonymous in your ‘mousing’ of Rupert around the net. Your comments would have more interest and be more meaningful perhaps if you weren’t.

By: Rupert Read

Rupert Read — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:53:42 +0000

Thanks David. Let’s get the LibDems signed up to the GND, then; and let’s have no more LibDem talk of large-scale public spending cuts.

By: David

David — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:10:32 +0000

“…use Gordon Brown’s wasted billions to create thousands of jobs
today by investing in homes, hospitals, schools and public
transport to build the green economy of tomorrow…” Nick Clegg
Sounds like green Keynesianism to me.
There are many areas of agreement in Lib Dem policy
http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/Pocket%20Guide%20July%202009.pdf and the core principles of the Green New Deal. http://www.greennewdealgroup.org/?page_id=88
I see David Boyle of the Lib Dem Fed Policy Committee edited the GDN.

By: Rupert Read

Rupert Read — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:04:30 +0000

Anon: _As explained above_, Green Keynesianism = The Green New Deal.
IN FACT, you more or less use the term yourself on your first comment in this string!! Go back and look.
So: there is little possibiity of concluding anything other than that you are merely stirring / creating flak. I shan’t trouble to respond to comments that are MERELY trouble-making in this way, in future.

By: Anon E Mouse

Anon E Mouse — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:55:22 +0000

Rupert Read – Not even 9 O’Clock and you’ve obviously been on the coffee already – start the week the way you mean to go on I say.

Your three point are YOUR points Rupert Read, just because you say it does not make them so – they simply do not stand.

A rejection of Green Keynesianism? What a meaningless comment and Nick Clegg shows more leadership than anyone in the Green Party where your comments in this blog make it clear you’ll say anything just to make yourself more popular – but what you never do is address the pressing issues on Climate Change.

The way around it Rupert, as you’ll discover next year, is the election of a new government. Although presently they share your blind belief in this Climate Change nonsense, one can only hope that once this waste of time and taxes in Copenhagen is over people will realise the handshakes and grins are as worthless as the last ones.

Then whole world can set up a genuine and radical means of reducing CO2 and saving the planet unlike the frankly delusional strategies you advocate.

By: Rupert Read

Rupert Read — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:59:02 +0000

Thanks, David.
Look, the question you have to ask is WHY Clegg thought the stunt one that he wanted to undertake in the first place. And the answer is this: That he wanted to be seen to be going along with the public mood in favour of substantial cuts to the government’s budget. That is (1) an abnegation of leadership, (2) a rejection of Green Keynesianism, (3) a right-wing quasi-Hooverist stance. There’s no way around this.
You are quite right that elements of the LibDems’ fiscal programme are progressive (though I disagree with the LibDems’ movement away from universal provision, a movement which in the long run will undermine the welfare state, as the rich will not see themselves getting ANY benefits from it). But points (1) thru (3) above stand, no matter how progressive they are.
p.s. Purely fyi, on Ireland, this is an interesting (!) clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8TRXJ0SHm4

By: David

David — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:38:11 +0000

Rupert I agree, Nick Clegg probably regrets using the word “savage” it was a stunt that went wrong, most media just reported the “savage cuts” as if the Liberal Democrats were joining the cutting consciences, without looking at the substance. Look at what Nick said at the time, it was about protecting the vulnerable. “If ending tax credits for high earners is the price we pay for cutting class sizes and investing in disadvantaged pupils, so be it. We need to tell the highest paid public sector staff they won’t get an increase in their pensions, so that we can afford to keep teachers, nurses, policemen and women in their jobs, so be it.” The very opposite of the Fianna Fail/Green Party cuts across the Irish Sea.

By: Anon E Mouse

Anon E Mouse — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:02:40 +0000

Rupert Read – You are off again making outlandish claims to inflate your ego further (should that be possible). If you answer post an article then at least have the courtesy to defend it or don’t post it I say.

You will not answer any specific point put to you about your idea that Governments have the rights to oppress their peoples just because it suits your flawed science. It is a shameful position to adopt.

You know full well that I am far from a so called “Climate Change Denier” but that doesn’t suit your case so you ignore it and continue posting articles like the one here.

What I find disturbing is the fact you must now know the Hockey Stick graph used as an excuse to tax the poor is flawed you still defend it. Why?

You state the CRU email leaks: the ones showing how the (so called) scientists dishonestly altered the data to fake their case then destroyed the original data to prevent themselves being caught was not important – rubbish.

Explain exactly why posting questions to you, because of the deception you attempt to perpetrate, will hamper the wasted time and money spent on that farce over in Copenhagen? What important position do you hold at the talks?

Why not start by producing science that proves your case and work from there.

Why are you right and David Rind from Nasa wrong?
Why are you right and Keith Briffa from the CRU wrong?
Why are you right and Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT wrong?
Why are you right and Tom Segalstad, head of geology Oslo University wrong?

I suggest Rupert Read that since you have no academic scientific qualifications that they are right and you are wrong.

Stop advocating the taxing of decent hard working people using this nonsense and stop these silly, alarmist remarks. Why should the poor suffer for this drivel?

By: Rupert Read

Rupert Read — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:38:55 +0000

The excellent Mehdi Hasan over at _NS_ has this to say, which buttresses my argument in this piece:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/12/160-spending-credit-debt

By: Rupert Read

Rupert Read — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:32:28 +0000

The bottomline is this: There’s no room for ‘Skepticism’, no more time for it. Dangerous Climate Change is Here NOW – Urgent Climate Action is what’s Needed. The debate now needs to be about questions such as, how can we get behind the Tuvalu proposals and make them happen. If the debate with loons such as Monckton, Griffin, and Anon E Mouse goes on and on, then they will have won – because their only aim is to keep delaying action. It’s time to get a meaningful agreement at Copenhagen, or to build a movement that can produce such an agreement. Everything else is just a slow betrayal of our children.