Rosi has not responded to my advice that opposing Population Matters is both wrong in principle, and tactically unwise in a Conservative stronghold. I assume she got my message: I could only find an address apparently meant for offers to help with her campaign, so it may have got lost in the rush.
But another problem only dawned on me latterly: a tendency to block critics rather than enter into dialogue. This is not the way the Green Party has ever worked. John Maynard Keynes said “If the facts change, I change my mind”. the relevant facts may not have changed, but my knowledge of them has.
So Shahrar it is, despite his alienating a large section of the public who still think, as he does, along ‘haves versus have-nots’ lines. Unfortunately they are on the opposite side of that out of date divide..
If Shahrar wins, wlll it be possible to remove this millstone from his neck? I shall start by reminding him of Wolfgang Sach’s claim. I shall then point out that the universal basic income (UBI) combines the most important part of what he thinks of as offered by Socialism: financial security even if the economy contracts, and freedom of the (financially) weak from oppression by the strong.
The ‘haves’ will have to accept drastic redistribution, but we must approach the rich in sorrow, not anger, and part of Shahrar’s passionate ‘save the ecopshere’ message, can be that the threat is more serious than was that of Nazi domination in 1940. Tax will be less thanit was then, and Instead of rationing, the UBI will make it possible for a government to impose taxes necessary to stop climate breakdown which would be oppressive without a UBI. and the UBI will appeal to anyone who fancies themselves as a budding entrepreneur.
Shahrar does have that one outstandng positive: he want to save the planet for future generations.
I have given the Green Party too much of my life to see it become meaningless at this crucial juncture.