Oxford Kevin

When Labour finally started making some tentative noises about the banks, bank bonuses and opposition to the Tories inheritance tax plans they were attacked for starting a class war. But rather than address the issues that were raised Labour was slammed for starting a class war because Brown made a quip about a tax policy devised in the playground of Eton. Talk about being oversensitive.

But the class war planned and publicised by the Tories is not shown for what it is. The Tories consideration of prison ships, the reduction in the level at which the inheritance tax cuts in, the Tories willingness to lie about the crime statistics, Ian Duncan Smith’s regressive marriage tax proposals which gives the biggest benefit to those who are in the top 10% of taxpayers not to mention the inequities of deciding on whether someone is deserving depends upon whether they are a married or not.

Thatcher’s class war clearly resulted in a huge increase in both income and wealth inequalities in this country, Labour has clearly not been fighting a class war otherwise inequality would have fallen rather than become a bit worse during their 13 years in office.

Yet there is no mention of the Tories class war, their preparedness to lie about the crime statistics to provide a backdrop for their broken society meme, and a justification for stricter sentencing which will result in criminalizing of the poor.

The Tories proposals can only result in a further rapid rise in inequalities. So I ask you, who is fighting a class war and who has waved the white flag?

By using facebook as a tool for political campaigning you will end up excluding people you are hoping to attract, people who don’t want to have a facebook identity or just aren’t interested in social networking can’t be involved in your campaign. I think I’ve shown previously why a lot of people who are active campaigners and politically engaged in issues from human rights, social justice, equality, environmental issues and climate change will not be part of your campaign.

Politically, we need to be more than virtually engaged, the facebook page for no shock doctrine for Haiti had an impact but by making facebook the tool of choice it makes it more difficult for others to also be engaged. I’m not sure what the solution is but there has to be a better way.

Why do people who are not that different politically to me seem so comfortable with using facebook as a political networking and campaigning tool?

One of the early investors and one of the three board members with a 7% stake in Facebook Peter Thiel is someone who I think they would be unhappy about supporting. Thiel has demonstrated that he is comfortable being sexist and wants the borders of the USA closed to new immigrants. Thiel has also made donations to the Republicans during the last US presidential elections.

Facebook might not yet be making a profit, but anything that brings that day closer or that increases facebook’s revenue through advertizing in the end can only be of benefit to Thiel, increasing both facebook’s revenue potential and market capitalization.

Do we really want to be adding to the wealth of someone who has political views almost diametrically opposed to everything we stand for?

Zuckerberg reveals little about his own personal details, demonstrating his own personal need for privacy whilst promoting the idea that “Privacy no longer a social norm” which of course justifies in his own mind the recent privacy changes for facebook users.

Somehow the news from the US just keeps getting worse. Teddy Kennedy’s seat has been taken by a anti universal health care republican at a time when the Democrats need a super majority to pass anything. The Republican’s have made a joke of the use of the fillibuster, a self imposed rule on the operation of the senate. The Democrats should point this out over and over again, and then just use the nuclear option. The Democrats have the majority why should they need a super majority when implementing policies that where major parts of their election manifesto.

To make matters worse the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) has voted 5 to 4 in a very contentious decision to overthrow laws restricting spending by Corporations in candidate elections because those laws are unconstitutional. SCOTUS stretched the principle to the limit that Corporations are legal entities with the same rights as people. Therefore laws that restrict campaign spending of these corporations restrict their rights to free speech.

Corporations have as a result of their money and influence far more freedom of speech and the ability to project their interests than nearly all the people of the world, they don’t need anymore. Expect an obscene amount of money spent on promoting or opposing particular candidates in upcoming elections in the US. The US needs finance reform to restrict the influence of big business on elections, but what they have got is exactly the opposite.

And then I find out that the US restricted distribution of anaesthetic to Cuban doctors working in Haiti because of the stupid trade embargo laws applying to Cuba.

Depressed.

Caroline Lucas

Caroline Lucas leads the candidates in Brighton with 35% of the vote according to an icm pole reported by the independent.