# Why the Green Party is shit



## SpineyNorman (Jun 16, 2013)

Inspired by the legendary 'why the Lib Dems are shit' thread and prompted by the Green led council strikebreaking in Brighton, this is your opportunity to give examples of their shitness and prove that those of us who think they'd genocide the working class to save the Bolivian arse wasp are right. As with the why the lib dems are shit thread, this could be policies, personalities or anything else - provided it's evidence of Green shitness it needs to go in here.

I'll start us off with the aforementioned strike breaking in Brighton, details of which can be found in this thread.


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2013)

Another Brighton example - despite "no eviction as a result of Bedroom Tax" policy, this is what they appear to have done to a bedroom tax campaigner: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10438021.Bedroom_tax_campaigner_threatened_with_eviction/


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

(((Bolivian arse wasp)))


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 16, 2013)

Green party members are shit if they live in a 4 bedroom detatched house with 3 cars in the drive with a sign saying 'No free newspapers please, I care about trees'.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 16, 2013)

Before Wednesday were taken over by Mandaric we were on the brink of financial oblivion and it seemed that selling the training ground for redevelopment was the only thing that could save the club. The green party campaigned against it getting planning permission because it was a green site.

Didn't propose any kind of alternative strategy to save the club - they couldn't give a flying fuck that one of the oldest football clubs in the world, and just about the only escape a lot of working class Sheffielders have from the tedium of everyday working life could go out of existence just like that.

They actually seemed genuinely shocked that their intervention didn't go down well.

Also, one of their councilors made this speech at a rally outside the town hall. The points she makes about austerity hitting women harder are perfectly valid but what got me was that she wants an 'emasculated capitalism' - because after all it would be fine if capitalism was managed by women ((Thatcher)):


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Before Wednesday were taken over by Mandaric we were on the brink of financial oblivion and it seemed that selling the training ground for redevelopment was the only thing that could save the club. The green party campaigned against it getting planning permission because it was a green site.
> 
> Didn't propose any kind of alternative strategy to save the club - they couldn't give a flying fuck that one of the oldest football clubs in the world, and just about the only escape a lot of working class Sheffielders have from the tedium of everyday working life could go out of existence just like that.
> 
> ...




Dickheads like that are worse than Thatcher.

E2a - Did you hear the slight change of pitch in her voice when she talked about emasculation/castration? She got a bit excited. Some issues there I reckon.

No, capitalism's not a problem, men having cocks and ballsacks on the other hand....

Where do they get these clowns from? And she's a woman in her fifties - What has fifty odd years taught her? Fuck all it seems.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

The Green party is almost as full of flakes as the Tories.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 16, 2013)

In Shrewsbury where I'm from employees at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital were told that they were going to have to start paying to park at the hospital. This would have cost them up to £60 a week, which amounted to a serious pay cut, particularly for low paid cleaners, porters etc. The union (Unite if I remember correctly) got a campaign going supported by the local trades council, the SWP and the SP. The Green's, who had been trying to big-up their pro-working people credentials at the time, were asked to support. They told us they fully supported the charges as it would encourage staff to use the (utterly shite Arriva-run) local bus service. Seemed genuinely surprised that nobody was impressed.

Rob Murphy, Green councillor for Central Ward in Sheffield (my ward) gave a rousing speech earlier this year at a demonstration to stop the closure of 19 children's centres in Sheffield. I caught him afterwards to congratulate him on finally growing a pair, and asked what he was going to do in the Council Chamber. Would he oppose the move? "Um...haven't decided yet" was his reply.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 16, 2013)

I have voted Green in the past - this Brighton shit will put a stop to that - first time they have a sniff of power and this is how they behave? I would have expected this off the Tories, and the Lib Dems.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 16, 2013)

Sandals.


----------



## oryx (Jun 16, 2013)

marty21 said:


> I have voted Green in the past - this Brighton shit will put a stop to that - first time they have a sniff of power and this is how they behave? I would have expected this off the Tories, and the Lib Dems.


 
Same here. They are actually quite strong in my area but after the Brighton episode I don't intend to vote for them.

The Greens seem to me to have no interaction with working class voters or to have their interests at heart.


----------



## stavros (Jun 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Sandals.


 
I fucking swear by my flip-flops.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2013)

http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2012/08/pippa-barolottis-anti-semitic-comments/

Pippa Barolotti who was running for a leadership position in the Greens



> “When she [Pippa] was arrested during the “flytilla” demonstration against Israel’s blockade of Gaza, she questioned Mr Gould’s [the UK Ambassador to Israel] independence and objected to being represented by a member of the UK diplomatic staff with a Jewish name.
> “She told this paper last December: “I questioned the wisdom of having a Jewish Zionist ambassador in Israel and stated that their loyalty was a matter for the FCO to investigate.”
> “She added: “The vice -consul was called Levi. From the university of life I have learned that Jews often have a conflict of interest in matters relating to Palestine.”


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 16, 2013)

Natalie Bennett's in Brighton today - wading through the shit. No a peep from her regarding the rouge half man-half biscuit.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 16, 2013)

stavros said:


> I fucking swear by my flip-flops.


What as in 'I swear by my flip-flops i'll ...'


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2012/08/pippa-barolottis-anti-semitic-comments/
> 
> Pippa Barolotti who was running for a leadership position in the Greens


 
Also, David Icke used to be their media representative.

And is that openly antisemitic conspiraloon cunt Tony Gosling still a member?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Also, David Icke used to be their media representative.


 
If you can still get a copy of his book "It doesn't have to be like this", it's one of the best introductions to Green politics I've seen.

EDIT; yes you can -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doesnt-Have...ds=it+doesn't+have+to+be+like+this+david+icke


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 16, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> If you can still get a copy of his book "It doesn't have to be like this", it's one of the best introductions to Green politics I've seen.
> 
> EDIT; yes you can -
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doesnt-Have-Like-This-Explained/dp/1854250337/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371410590&sr=8-1&keywords=it doesn't have to be like this david icke


 
If it doesn't feature lizards and power hungry jooz I'm not interested


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

Had a quick look on Amazon - he's written a _lot _of books.

And in the 'if you liked that you might like this' section...

edit: Once I look at the numbers, it's 16 books over 23 years, which isn't a lot when you don't have to research anything or worry about anything like veracity, plausibility or consistency.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 16, 2013)

These links suggest the issue of antisemitism in the Green party wasn't solved when Icke got the boot.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2013)

What do people think about the Green Party opposition to GM crops? The Green Party members take part in sabotage of publicly funded GM wheat trials and their opposition seems to me to be based on ideology rather than science.

Speaking of that ideology, I've met a few Green voters and self-proclaimed environmentalists who absolutely delight in what seems to me to be classist conspicuous consumption by bragging about how they only eat organic food. I even met one 'environmentalist' (also a yoga instructor lol) once who told me that she thought it was absolutely immoral to eat meat that you haven't bought, raised organically and slaughtered yourself.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Speaking of that ideology, I've met a few Green voters and self-proclaimed environmentalists who absolutely delight in what seems to me to be classist conspicuous consumption by bragging about how they only eat organic food.


 
Tell them that Fortnum & Mason's Himalayan Pink Rock Salt is inorganic - should shut 'em up. 

edit: in fact, not only is it inorganic - it's _chemical_!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 17, 2013)

The Irish Green Party pretty much committed suicide by going into a right wing government as junior partners, and supporting every insane measure to prop up the banks. And then, after an economic catastrophe they shared responsibility for, they then became gung ho supporters of austerity. They even sold out on most of their environmental policies. Then they were surprised when they were completely wiped out at the last election.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Irish Green Party pretty much committed suicide by going into a right wing government as junior partners, and supporting every insane measure to prop up the banks. And then, after an economic catastrophe they shared responsibility for, they then became gung ho supporters of austerity. They even sold out on most of their environmental policies. Then they were surprised when they were completely wiped out at the last election.


 

never gets old  :


----------



## classicdish (Jun 17, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Natalie Bennett's in Brighton today - wading through the shit. No a peep from her regarding the *rouge* half man-half biscuit.









[


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> These links suggest the issue of antisemitism in the Green party wasn't solved when Icke got the boot.


 

not surprising when you consider their natural constituency and how some of their members want "the die-off"


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 17, 2013)

I read a book once about the role of environmentalists and conservationists in the NSDAP, it was dead good but I can't remember what it was called - I'll try and dig it out later.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> never gets old  :


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 17, 2013)

_Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience_ by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier. You can read extracts here but if anyone's arsed about reading it all I can stick it online somewhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

It is online somewhere. In fact, your link is to the whole book.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I read a book once about the role of environmentalists and conservationists in the NSDAP, it was dead good but I can't remember what it was called - I'll try and dig it out later.


http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Brown-Conservation-Environment/dp/0521612772
This?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 17, 2013)

Bristol doubled its Green quotient at the May elections to 4, though most of the idiot factor is supplied by the Ashley ward double act of Augustus Hoyt and Rob Telford.

Telford is a political anorak, essentially a Lib Dem with a high fibre diet. Gaffe-prone Hoyt is a muppet, and so a logical choice for a Cabinet seat under 'independent' Mayor George Ferguson.







There's also Daniella Radice and Tess Green, each of whom has a much lower prat profile, but of whom we shall no doubt hear more of in the future, especially as they tie themselves in knots over the Resident Parking Zone/Scheme issue.

One prominent former Bristol Green was noted disruptor, crank and all-round wacky anti-semite, Tony Gosling, until even the local Steiner-supporting sandal-wearers decided his brand of racial superiority was beyond the (ahem) pale, and booted him out.

Meanwhile, there's a whole established layer of professional green here, with the likes of Sustrans, Better Food Company, Ethical Property Company, Essential Food Co-op, Triodos Bank and many others, which intersect with the self-facilitating media node variety of consulterati and freelance laptoperatives. Fertile ground, in other words, for facilitating both the all-talk-no-action and the top-down types of 'environmentalism': big ideas + minimal direct democratic engagement + funding streams = policy clusterfuck.

Oh, and only the other day Bristol 'won' the right to brand itself the European Green Capital 2015. Yay! And George Ferguson obviously had to go to Nantes to hear the decision in person, a sojourn which - along with his trip to Barcelona shortly beforehand - means that he has now clocked up more than 5,000 air miles in overseas travel since being made Mayor of a provincial English city. Still, it's all offset by the amount of shit he talks which acts as a policy fertiliser.

Coming soon: Bristol as the UK's 'Solar City'! Bristol's quango-driven, big business-subsidising 'Temple Quarter' to become Britain's 'Circus Capital'!!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Brown-Conservation-Environment/dp/0521612772
> This?


 
No but I want to read that one too now


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 17, 2013)

Oh, I nearly forgot - taffboy.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> never gets old  :




He did this on purpose, in the hope that he would be thrown out of the Dail, and would therefore not have to vote for whatever obnoxious piece of austerity legislation he was being whipped on that day.

But the Irish Greens were always eejits: I remember one of their first TDs, back in the late 80s, saying that he was "always aware of the trouble caused by strikes".

Nigel Irritable - I seem to recall reading that when the PDs called it quits, some of their membership joined up with the Greens. Any truth in that one?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No but I want to read that one too now


 
Here you go.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

Here's Blood and soil: Richard Walther Darré and Hitler's "Green Party" whilst i'm at it (not a good copy but readable - obvious nazi sympathies from the green Bramwell).


----------



## likesfish (Jun 17, 2013)

Thing is once the greens lose it will be buggins turn again in brighton not like any of the other councils have been brilliant
 All either  fucked off the binmen or fudged this decision.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Where do they get these clowns from?


 
The middle-classes, mostly.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 17, 2013)

Is there anyone i can vote for now?


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

dylanredefined said:


> Is there anyone i can vote for now?


Welcome to the world of actively not voting.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> _Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience_ by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier. You can read extracts here but if anyone's arsed about reading it all I can stick it online somewhere.


 
Basck in the late 1980, Searchlight had an issue with the frontpage header 'The greening of the brownshirts'. Was part of a wider look at the 'blood and soil' politics of the far-right being moved into the green movement. There are some 'Green Right' groups in Euro trying to link the blood' weith 'soil' in a 'different' way.


----------



## chilango (Jun 17, 2013)

...also back in the 90s there were a number of attempts by the fash to "go green" iirc some ITP types set up some animal rights group and there was at least one attempt to set up a dummy EF! group in Yorkshire o the Midlands I forget exactly where. It got sussed pretty quickly. Plus Alternative Green "split" from Green Anarchist. Stewart Home et al. Made much of this.  I guess his stuff on this is still up on the web if you can be arsed with it. It's not really worth the trouble.

Though when EF! first came to the UK I heard rumours that AFA planned to no platform them!


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...also back in the 90s there were a number of attempts by the fash to "go green" iirc some ITP types set up some animal rights group and there was at least one attempt to set up a dummy EF! group in Yorkshire o the Midlands I forget exactly where. It got sussed pretty quickly. Plus Alternative Green "split" from Green Anarchist. Stewart Home et al. Made much of this.  I guess his stuff on this is still up on the web if you can be arsed with it. It's not really worth the trouble.
> 
> Though when EF! first came to the UK I heard rumours that AFA planned to no platform them!


Alternative Green search brings up an interview with P H


----------



## chilango (Jun 17, 2013)

...it's a murky world, the fringe.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 17, 2013)

there's this bloke in Scotland

*



			Independent Green Voice
		
Click to expand...

*


> is a minor environmentalist political party in Scotland. First registered with the Electoral Commission in 2003, it is led by Alistair McConnachie.
> The party has a broadly environmentalist platform and campaigns for localism, including leaving the European Union and opposing immigration. It also
> opposed debt slavery and calls for the establishment of a not-for-profit "Public Investment Bank" to replace the "debt-based money system".[1] The party is also opposed to Public Private Partnerships, and would restore the link between pensions and average earnings.
> In the 2003 Scottish Parliament election, McConnachie stood in Glasgow Kelvin and received 1,300 votes (5.9%). In the 2005 UK general election, he stood in Glasgow South West, and received 379 votes (1.2%).
> McConnachie is also the party's treasurer and nominating officer.[2] Prior to establishing the party, he was the Scottish organiser for the United Kingdom Independence Party but his membership was not renewed in the summer of 2001 amid allegations that he was a holocaust denier.[3] McConnachie responded to these allegations at the time of the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary election[4] when the party stood in the Glasgow Region constituency.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Green_Voice


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2013)

MacConnachie has been hanging about the the BNP on occasion. At one election count he was with the BNP and was photographing anti-fascists.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 17, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Basck in the late 1980, Searchlight had an issue with the frontpage header 'The greening of the brownshirts'. Was part of a wider look at the 'blood and soil' politics of the far-right being moved into the green movement. There are some 'Green Right' groups in Euro trying to link the blood' weith 'soil' in a 'different' way.


 
Didn't Troy Southgate either write for or come heavily under the influence of Green Anarchist magazine?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 17, 2013)

Not the green party specifically but there's some fucking mental deep green misanthropy in this 'documentary':


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


>


wtf was he tying to write?  He can't have actually meant aborigines, can he?  Blaming auto-correct when he tried to type 'aubergines'??


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Didn't Troy Southgate either write for or come heavily under the influence of Green Anarchist magazine?


 
Not really/sort of - one of the founders of GA moved hard(er) right in the early 90s and was kicked off the mag as result and then disappeared into the vortex of all those new-age crap mags where he encountered TS - in Alternative Green specifically.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> wtf was he tying to write? He can't have actually meant aborigines, can he? Blaming auto-correct when he tried to type 'aubergines'??


 
He did try to clarify what he meant, but then it was pointed out to him that 'eggplant' is a racial slur - certainly in the United States, where he in part grew up and whose passport he carries alongside that issued him by Her Britannic Majesty.

As alluded to, not the deepest Green in the ecosystem.


----------



## chilango (Jun 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not really/sort of - one of the founders of GA moved hard(er) right in the early 90s and was kicked off the mag as result and then disappeared into the vortex of all those new-age crap mags where he encountered TS - in Alternative Green specifically.



Probably worth mentioning the story of Tim Heppe at this point SpineyNorman. 

http://www.spunk.org/texts/antifasc/sp000525.html as written by our very own Larry O'Hara.

As the green movement got more militant in the 90s and started to head somewhere useful all kinds of shenanigans ensued.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 17, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> MacConnachie has been hanging about the the BNP on occasion. At one election count he was with the BNP and was photographing anti-fascists.


 
And now he is campaigning against independence with "A Force for Good" lol


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> MacConnachie has been hanging about the the BNP on occasion. At one election count he was with the BNP and was photographing anti-fascists.


 
Pretty clear from the letters that kicked off the holocaust denial stuff that he was been hanging around with/immersing himself in some nasty stuff. You don't just drop Fred Leuchter into a conversation by accident - you only get the stage of recommending him after reading a hole load of holocaust denial stuff.


----------



## Sue (Jun 17, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> He did try to clarify what he meant, but then it was pointed out to him that *'eggplant' is a racial slur* - certainly in the United States, where he in part grew up and whose passport he carries alongside that issued him by Her Britannic Majesty.
> 
> As alluded to, not the deepest Green in the ecosystem.


 
Really? Against purple-skinned people..?


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2013)

Sue said:


> Really? Against purple-skinned people..?


a quick google shows that americans of italian descent seem to believe they are black skinned, oddly


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 17, 2013)

Sue said:


> Really? Against purple-skinned people..?


 

Yes, it was a racist slur used by Italians in the USA in reference to black people. It became a wider used slur however.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> wtf was he tying to write? He can't have actually meant aborigines, can he? Blaming auto-correct when he tried to type 'aubergines'??


 
I never knew that mushrooms hated aborigines - I thought they liked damp, dark places and avoided arid, dry areas for biologial reasons, not racist ones.


----------



## Sue (Jun 17, 2013)

How bizarre, never heard this before.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> I never knew that mushrooms hated aborigines - I thought they liked damp, dark places and avoided arid, dry areas for biologial reasons, not racist ones.


I dont know about that, but they do go beautifully with aubergines in a veggie moussaka


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Yes, it was a racist slur used by Italians in the USA in reference to black people. It became a wider used slur however.


 
Only time I've ever heard the term used:



(apols for aspect ratio - also, racial slurs are used aplenty in this clip)


----------



## rekil (Jun 17, 2013)

Caroline Lucas is doing a bit of scabbing.

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/346727750104662017

Ah, weepiper posted it on the other thread already. This then.

Pippa Bartolotti


> From the age of 2 all children would go to small neighbourhood pre schools at no charge - with no get-out clause for anyone rich or poor. They would get 3 meals a day plus a snack to take home. Parents would then be free to work, the resultant tax income contributing to the cost of extra schooling. If parents chose to fulfil the prophesy of multi generational laziness their benefits would be replaced by vouchers which could only be spent in one place. Training for parents would be available.
> 
> Simultaneously, older children missing the initial introduction to greater equality and wider socialisation would be filtered into age groups, and at key teenage years boys and girls would be educated separately to save them from their own silliness. There would be a progressive and staged education system delivered by hands-on experienced trainers, quite possibly from the armed forces - who are exemplary trainers, but who currently train for the wrong thing - but also from all walks of life.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 17, 2013)

jesus


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 18, 2013)

copliker said:


> Caroline Lucas is doing a bit of scabbing.
> 
> https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/346727750104662017
> 
> ...



The FUCK? Even IDS would balk at this.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 18, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> The FUCK? Even IDS would balk at this.



Not the bit about getting armed forces to teach kids, obvs.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> What do people think about the Green Party opposition to GM crops? The Green Party members take part in sabotage of publicly funded GM wheat trials and their opposition seems to me to be based on ideology rather than science.


I think there are real issue's with GM crops (more around the intellectual property than any health issues) and they were/are been pushed in order to generate even more obscene profits for business, as such I don't have any problem with people sabotaging the trials. I do think some of the stuff they come out with on the issue is crap though, most of the crops we already grow have been "genetically modified" in some manner.


----------



## JimW (Jun 18, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> I think there are real issue's with GM crops (more around the intellectual property than any health issues) and they were/are been pushed in order to generate even more obscene profits for business, as such I don't have any problem with people sabotaging the trials. I do think some of the stuff they come out with on the issue is crap though, most of the crops we already grow have been "genetically modified" in some manner.


 
Similar with me - it's been a massive issue on the Chinese left in recent years and also a mix of sensible objections to agribusiness multinationals undermining local farmers, controlling through packaged seeds/agrochemicals that have to be used in combination and IPR for indigenous knowledge etc then some more nutbar "diluting our precious bodily fluids" stuff which while sort of understandable from one angle is clearly wrongheaded.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Inspired by the legendary 'why the Lib Dems are shit' thread and prompted by the Green led council strikebreaking in Brighton, this is your opportunity to give examples of their shitness and prove that those of us who think they'd genocide the working class to save the Bolivian arse wasp are right. As with the why the lib dems are shit thread, this could be policies, personalities or anything else - provided it's evidence of Green shitness it needs to go in here.
> 
> I'll start us off with the aforementioned strike breaking in Brighton, details of which can be found in this thread.


 
This thread is basically one long diatribe against the Greens without a single word anywhere about what they stand for and why. It's as though Urban is completely blind to these issues.

Spiney, you told me on a different thread that I should try some critical thinking. Well, here's one for you; if sea levels rise worldwide as they're predicted to do because of global warming (assuming you're not a climate change denier?) then who's going to suffer most? Answer; the class which disproportionately lives in the world's low-lying areas - i.e. the working class.

I get that a lot of people here don't like the way Green politicians and councillors are behaving, but the answer to that is not to pretend that we don't face massive environmental problems (of which global warming is only one) or that the many committed Green activists throughout the country (of which I used to be one) are doing it purely because they care about the sodding Bolivian arse wasp.

If you don't like the way the Green party is carrying on, there's a simple answer; start your own. There used to be a group called SERA (the Socialist Environmental Research Association) of which the late Robin Cook was a leading member, but I don't know if they're still going.

Also, accusing the Green movement of anti-semitism is a bit rich to put it mildly when some of the movement's leading lights and prophets (such as Paul Ehrlich) are and have been Jewish;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_environmentalism


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 18, 2013)

the green party isn't the same as the environmentalist movement


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

copliker said:


> Pippa Bartolotti


 
Oh fatherland, fatherland, give us a sign, your children are longing to see.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Where the hell did anyone write off environmental issues meltingpot? That post is a disgrace and a smear.


----------



## rekil (Jun 18, 2013)

The Greens wrote off environmental issues fairly handsomely once they got into government in Ireland. Then lost all their seats and over half their 96000 first preference votes,


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where the hell did anyone write off environmental issues meltingpot? That post is a disgrace and a smear.


 
I've gone back and read the thread again to see if I was being unfair, and only redsquirrel mentions environmental issues at all. My post stands, sorry.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I've gone back and read the thread again to see if I was being unfair, and only redsquirrel mentions environmental issues at all. My post stands, sorry.


 
That's not answering butchers' post at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I've gone back and read the thread again to see if I was being unfair, and only redsquirrel mentions environmental issues at all. My post stands, sorry.


 
What? You say people on this thread dismiss environmental issues - and that _these issues belong to the green party_ - by dismissing the latter you dismiss the former. Then you can't find anyone doing any such thing - mainly because the thread is about green party behaviour and policy - and you think that no one doing what you said they were doing _makes your smear substantive? _Get lost.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the green party isn't the same as the environmentalist movement


 
True, but if you read this thread and didn't know any better, you would never think anyone posting in it had any awareness at all of environmental issues - as I've just said.

If you were attacking the Green party for being insufficiently Green in practice, in addition to everything else, if would be different because at least then there'd be some attempt at balance (and in fact a lot of Greens would probably agree with you). But almost no one in this thread is paying any attention at all about environmental issues.

The Greens are being attacked _purely _on grounds other than what they stand for, and that's what has got my back up about this thread. It's just one long hatchet job against the party and as such hurts the issues the party concerns itself with. If someone did that to your political party, you wouldn't be impressed either.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 18, 2013)

this thread was started because of the greens' treatment of council workers in brighton, not as a hatchet job against the greens. 

and i'm not in a political party. i left it a few months ago.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What? You say people on this thread dismiss environmental issues - and that _these issues belong to the green party_ - by dismissing the latter you dismiss the former. Then you can't find anyone doing any such thing - mainly because the thread is about green party behaviour and policy - and you think that no one doing what you said they were doing _makes your smear substantive? _Get lost.


 
Of course these issues don;t belong to the Green party alone, but the Green party is the only one with any prominence which prioritises them or at least attempts to.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 18, 2013)

And Idris mentioned an example of the greens reneging on all their promises about the environment in Ireland.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> True, but if you read this thread and didn't know any better, you would never think anyone posting in it had any awareness at all of environmental issues - as I've just said.
> 
> If you were attacking the Green party for being insufficiently Green in practice, in addition to everything else, if would be different because at least then there'd be some attempt at balance (and in fact a lot of Greens would probably agree with you). But almost no one in this thread is paying any attention at all about environmental issues.
> 
> The Greens are being attacked _purely _on grounds other than what they stand for, and that's what has got my back up about this thread. It's just one long hatchet job against the party and as such hurts the issues the party concerns itself with. If someone did that to your political party, you wouldn't be impressed either.


The Greens are being attacked purely on grounds of what they are doing, and how those actions are in conflict with the way they set their stall out. This thread is not about environmental issues - it's about the actions of a political party that call themselves the Green Party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Amazing - you attack people for not attacking greens on green issues. Which is, to you, evidence of their dismissal and belittling of green issues. Which belong to the greens.

As for this:



> The Greens are being attacked purely on grounds other than what they stand for


 
they're being attacked for a)* what they do* and b) who their sort of politics attracts.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this thread was started because of the greens' treatment of council workers in brighton, not as a hatchet job against the greens.


 
Take a look at the title; "Why the Green party is shit", not "why the Greens in Brighton are shit". I rest my case.



frogwoman said:


> and i'm not in a political party. i left it a few months ago.


 
Oh, in that case I stand corrected, sorry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Of course these issues don;t belong to the Green party alone, but the Green party is the only one with any prominence which prioritises them or at least attempts to.


 
Which makes it ok for you smear people who criticise the green party for what they actually do as not caring about environmental issues in your world?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Take a lok at the title; "Why the Green party is shit", not "why the Greens in Brighton are shit". I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, in that case I stand corrected, sorry.


 
This is hari #2 for you isn't it?

You are actually saying that it is a smear to criticise the green party - astonishing in itself - but at the same time, you smear people who make those criticisms as not giving a shit about green issues- if they did, why would they criticise THE GREEN PARTY!!!! I do hope this is just a dozy day, because this is flocking pathetic.


----------



## chilango (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot. I'm a little confused about what you're saying tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

I think we just found another reason.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is hari #2 for you isn't it?


 
Yeah, pretty much if I'm honest although Hari raises other issues I'd rather not go into here.



butchersapron said:


> You are actually saying that it is a smear to criticise the green party - astonishing in itself


 
It would be if I was doing that, but as I said I have no problem with criticism which is fair and balanced and takes what the party stands for into account. This thread is more than criticism - it's a hatchet job (not an exaggeration) - An attempt to dig up all the dirt you can about a party without any attempt at balance or sense of what they stand for.

Spiney made it clear in the OP that he was only interested in negative stuff about the Party, and as if to underline the point he made it clear that he thought the main point of contention for the party was the fate of the Bolivian arse wasp - a clear attempt at sarcasm and to demean the party's overall position as being not worth serious notice. Fine; that's what you've got.



butchersapron said:


> - but at the same time, you smear people who make those criticisms as not giving a shit about green issues- if they did, why would they criticise THE GREEN PARTY!!!!


 
There are plenty of reasons why people would attack the Party, not all of them honourable. The Greens have a lot of enemies in both politics and industry (not to mention right wing journalists like James Delingpole). That's why I think people who criticise the Party for more noble reasons should take pains in their posts to distinguish themselves from those enemies.



butchersapron said:


> I do hope this is just a dozy day, because this is flocking pathetic.


 
Me too, because if I start doing better you've got something to worry about.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Meltingpot. I'm a little confused about what you're saying tbf.


 
Sorry, but maybe the post I've just made will make it clearer.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Also, accusing the Green movement of anti-semitism is a bit rich to put it mildly when some of the movement's leading lights and prophets (such as Paul Ehrlich) are and have been Jewish;
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_environmentalism


 
Rude. What a nonsense. Paul Ehrlich is still a patron of Britain's Population Matters, formerly Optimum Population Trust, despite him getting every single one of his predictions wrong again and again. Only a clown would see him as a prophet his Jewishness has nothing to do with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry, but maybe the post I've just made will make it clearer.


Likely. It's an utter mess.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Astounding isn't it, that a thread called "Why the Green Party is shit" would contain negative sentiments about the GP. Meltingpot, why not start a thread about all the great things they (possibly) do?


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Many people don't give the Green Party any time of day and treat them like a smaller preachier version of the Labour Party. These people are not anti-environmentalists.



Meltingpot said:


> Sorry, but maybe the post I've just made will make it clearer.


 
What are the Hari issues?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Astounding isn't it, that a thread called "Why the Green Party is shit" would contain negative sentiments about the GP. Meltingpot, why not start a thread about all the great things they (possibly) do?


And you can't call it why the GP are great. You can only call it something neutral. And then only allow pro-green stuff. You don't half waffle on about free speech and why you love debating on stormfront, but a hint of criticism of the greens and we get this drivel.


----------



## chilango (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry, but maybe the post I've just made will make it clearer.



A bit. Ta.

On two points I'd agree with you.

One, SpineyNorman's "Bolivian Arse Wasp" dig. Not up to his usual standards IMO, but in fairness it's a throwaway jibe.

Two, yes it is a hatchet job. That's the point of thread. Like the Lib Dem one. It's not intended as a constructive critique. That the Green Party are now getting the same treatment as the Lib Dems speaks volumes about where they're headed.

But, to suggest that people who "care about environmental issues" shouldn't/wouldn't criticise the Green Party...seriously? Do you actually mean that?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> why you love debating on stormfront


 
At least on Stormfront I get alerts when posters quote me


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> At least on Stormfront I get alerts when posters quote me


 
I don't know why this keeps happening - i'm not on my phone and am just doing what i normally do.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know why this keeps happening - i'm not on my phone and am just doing what i normally do.


Fuck knows! It only started the other day wrt me watching Hara-kiri (the time before that it was me not paying attention).

Anyways, back to the Green Party being shit.

e2a - now it comes up? i am officially confuzzled.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Fuck knows! It only started the other day wrt me watching Hara-kiri (the time before that it was me not paying attention).
> 
> Anyways, back to the Green Party being shit.


 
(Nah, you had this problem before that and i had to explain i was just doing normal stuff)


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (Nah, you had this problem before that and i had to explain i was just doing normal stuff)


I'm sure we can find a way to blame the Greens.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Rude. What a nonsense. Paul Ehrlich is still a patron of Britain's Population Matters, formerly Optimum Population Trust, despite him getting every single one of his predictions wrong again and again. Only a clown would see him as a prophet his Jewishness has nothing to do with it.


 
Ehrlich was raising concerns about global population before almost anyone else was. And population IS an issue - it governs how many people a polity has to cater for, as well as how much land and water they're going to need. I know it's considered an ugly issue because of the nature of some of the efforts which have been made about it in the past, but that doesn't mean it can be ducked.

Trying to feed and provide water etc. for seven billion people is a VERY serious challenge, let alone for the nine and a half billion we're supposed to have within a matter of a few decades (I think I heard 2050 on the radio). And that's even before you factor in the ever rising costs of energy and other essential raw materials.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I have no problem with criticism which is fair and balanced and takes what the party stands for into account. This thread is more than criticism - it's a hatchet job (not an exaggeration) - An attempt to dig up all the dirt you can about a party without any attempt at balance or sense of what they stand for.


 

Why do want spurious 'balance' for pro-EU capitalist parties? 



> The Greens have a lot of enemies in both politics and industry (not to mention right wing journalists like James Delingpole). That's why I think people who criticise the Party for more noble reasons should take pains in their posts to distinguish themselves from those enemies.


 
Similar nonsense on this thread below when Green councillor and MP hopeful Matt Sellwood finally left u75?

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-coalition-with-yellow-tories-lib-dems.250807

Finding it, reminded of this nugget - the Green Party leader in Norfolk going Tory.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-16251655

What kind of political education does the Party provide that its leaders can just jump ship? Or rather what does it say about the type of people placed as candidates by the Green Party into being group leaders, when other more honest environmentalists exist within its party?
(Same criticism as for RESPECT ( the S for Socialism, C for Communities and T for Trade Unionism) councillors switching straight to Tories and Labour.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Ehrlich was raising concerns about global population before almost anyone else was. And population IS an issue - it governs how many people a polity has to cater for, as well as how much land and water they're going to need. I know it's considered an ugly issue because of the nature of some of the efforts which have been made about it in the past, but that doesn't mean it can be ducked.
> 
> Trying to feed and provide water etc. for seven billion people is a VERY serious challenge, let alone for the nine and a half billion we're supposed to have within a matter of a few decades (I think I heard 2050 on the radio). And that's even before you factor in the ever rising costs of energy and other essential raw materials.


 
Note the assumption that global population is a problem. To disagree would be a smear and to dismiss green issues i suppose. You've fucked this up even worse than hari. And this time you've done it in such a way as to smear every other poster on the thread.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Ehrlich was raising concerns about global population before almost anyone else was.


 
1. He wasn't. Thomas Malthus was centuries ahead of him.

2. He was doing so by over-egging the pudding with wild nonsense of mass _food shortages_
in the 1980s in the West, (not just class-based starvation/poor nutrition).
Ever think that maybe your liberal Green prophets are the reason journalists treat environmentalist ideas with scepticism?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why do want spurious 'balance' for pro-EU capitalist parties?


 
Because the issues matter, and without the Green Party putting pressure on the other parties in the EU none of those other parties would pay as much attention to them, given the other problems Europe now faces.

The Greens in the UK did great (by their standards) in 1989 before the Europe-wide recession kicked in post-German reunification, picking up 15% of the vote, and then fell back as people had more immediate concerns to worry about. I think (and fear) the same could happen again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Is this really the thread for you meltingpot?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. He wasn't. Thomas Malthus was centuries ahead of him.
> 
> 2. He was doing so by over-egging the pudding with wild nonsense of mass _food shortages_
> in the 1980s in the West, (not just class-based starvation/poor nutrition).
> Ever think that maybe your liberal Green prophets are the reason journalists treat environmentalist ideas with scepticism?


 

There's an Arthur C. Clarke novel which tries to chill the reader's blood by saying that "by the 1990s, even Europe had meatless days". Didn't turn out like that for some reason.

And have you ever tried reading Malthus? It's pretty thin stuff - largely a provincial twat venting his spleen at the essential awfulness (as he sees it) of the lower orders.


----------



## chilango (Jun 18, 2013)

I'm still awaiting clarification about whether I "care about environmental issues" or not.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. He wasn't. Thomas Malthus was centuries ahead of him.


 
I said "almost anyone", but you're right; I wasn't thinking of Malthus when I posted that.



sihhi said:


> 2. He was doing so by over-egging the pudding with wild nonsense of mass _food shortages _in the 1980s in the West, (not just class-based starvation/poor nutrition). Ever think that maybe your liberal Green prophets are the reason journalists treat environmentalist ideas with scepticism?


 
Our modern intensive agriculture relies heavily on oil, and cheap oil at that. Many of us believe the era of cheap oil is over (though that's a separate issue from Green politics, it's a more immediately pressing one). Take a look at James Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" for more on this.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> I'm still awaiting clarification about whether I "care about environmental issues" or not.


 
But if you don't say it, how am I supposed to know? There's always been a section of the left which is resolutely un-green and thinks that unchecked industrialisation is the way to raise the standards of living of working people, though I thought their numbers had declined of late.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Because the issues matter, and without the Green Party putting pressure on the other parties in the EU none of those other parties would pay as much attention to them, given the other problems Europe now faces.


 
Yes, had the Greens in the EU not stood behind NATO bombing Serbia, it's true that the other parties from elsewhere would not have supported it as much.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> But if you don't say it, how am I supposed to know? There's always been a section of the left which is resolutely un-green and thinks that unchecked industrialisation is the way to raise the standards of living of working people, though I thought their numbers had declined of late.


 
Much better to assume that it's the case by people not talking about it and criticising the green party for its actions. That's not a smear in any way.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Many people don't give the Green Party any time of day and treat them like a smaller preachier version of the Labour Party. These people are not anti-environmentalists.
> 
> What are the Hari issues?


 
OK, but I need a break for a mug of tea. Two of them;

1 / Does Hari's dishonesty (he's admitted that he played fast and loose with the truth when interviewing people) negate the good journalism he's done elsewhere, for example in reporting from the Congo and revealing that the war was largely driven by the wish to control sources of that material which goes into mobile phones (the name of which escapes me at the moment)?

2 / More general, and a different thread; are ad homs ever acceptable on Urban? I posted a thread a while back based on a post of Johann Hari's, and got one reply to the effect that "Hari's s a tosser", and not even looking at what he'd said.


----------



## chilango (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> But if you don't say it, how am I supposed to know? There's always been a section of the left which is resolutely un-green and thinks that unchecked industrialisation is the way to raise the standards of living of working people, though I thought their numbers had declined of late.



You're assuming I'm of "the left" though? On what grounds?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

The hari problem.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The hari problem.


Fucking hell, hadn't seen that one


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

So basically Meltingpot's an Eco-racist who also an apologist for plagiarism? That fair?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Not sure if's he an eco-racist. He's too old to be acting silly as he does though.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Wow.



Meltingpot said:


> I've rarely been so angry reading a thread on here, or anywhere else, as I have reading this.


 
Do you stand by this?




> A guy who, apart from many other scandals he's reported on over the years, has been out to the Congo reporting on the war fought over that material they put in mobile 'phones, which everyone else wants to try and forget about?
> 
> What have you, any of you, done with your lives to put against that?
> 
> ...


Haris is apt on this thread though Caroline Lucas is brilliant:
https://twitter.com/johannhari101/status/337555658947821568



> The brilliant @CarolineLucas has launched petition for gvnt to conduct study of effects of drug laws http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45969  Who cld object?


 
Many object to demands for the government studying their own laws, because they will only produce improvements to their governing.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure if's he an eco-racist. He's too old to be acting silly as he does though.


So it may not be fair, but in the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary (which so far hasn't been forthcoming) it seems a reasonable working assumption.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Whatever did happen to Hari anyways?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Whatever did happen to Hari anyways?


 
We got him.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> But if you don't say it, how am I supposed to know? There's always been a section of the left which is resolutely un-green and thinks that unchecked industrialisation is the way to raise the standards of living of working people, though I thought their numbers had declined of late.


 
This is nonsense incidentally, I don't know a single leftist now who is in favour of unchecked industrialisation - most want, in some fashion or other, a socially-planned economy.

Are you sure you're not attacking Khrushchev by mistake?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> We got him.


He's in your basement?


----------



## chilango (Jun 18, 2013)

Anyway. I'm off out for a walk with my baby shortly, so I'll stop teasing and put you out of your misery Meltingpot.

I do "care about environmental issues". My record of activism (and academic research fwiw) in this area is proven. Anyone paying attention to my posts here over the years would know that. Even stuff I've posted in the last few days should be enough of an indicator. I won't be boorish enough to whip out my Eco-warrior CV. However its worth noting in passing that my short stint in the Green Party was the LEAST of my contributions.

....but it's important to note that aside from showing your assumptions to be misguided at best, I don't consider that these credentials are important in this debate. People don't have to earn the right to criticise the Green Party. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's in your basement?


 
You wanted to let him go. Someone had to step up.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

> Hari's better than most journalists out there.


 
Hahahaha. Did you write that before or after he had to hand back his Orwell trophy?

(I swear posts are vanishing)


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You wanted to let him go. Someone had to step up.


I blame the drugs.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Essentially the Greens in Britain are deluded moralist do-gooders.

It is disaster-ism (but stay capitalist) analysis wrapped in new language



> Added together, these different footprints add up to our total ecological impact – and it mustn’t be bigger than the planet we live on. Today, though, the scale of economic activity has taken us dangerously beyond what the planet can bear if it is to continue to support flourishing human and other life, and population growth only makes things worse.


 
It is also a charter for bureaucratism.



> Carbon quotas would work like this
> 
> Each year a carbon budget would be set for the UK. The budget would define the total amount of carbon dioxide that can legally be emitted, and thus the total number of carbon quota units available.
> 
> ...


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

I do think the proper left needs a better and clearer environmental politics, but that's surely for another thread.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Who wants this kind of world:

Various private companies endlessly bickering over the carbon units of baby food in plastic jars or the tungsten in MRI machines - probably all in the High Court, concealing their carbon content and evading responsibilities in a hundred ways - ready for a New Class of civil servants to oversee all this stuff?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 18, 2013)

I'm perfectly aware of the dangers of environmental destruction Meltingpot. But sensible people, me included, approach environmental questions from the perspective of 'we need to protect the environment because we need it in good health to live decent lives and a healthy environment is a necessary condition for a just and equitable society.'

There are some in the Green Party who look at it the other way around so you get (this is another caricature but there's still something to it) 'there are too many people and if we allow it to continue the Bolivian arse wasp will be wiped out - let's gas the proles.'

It's about what the primary motive of your politics is - for me it's the best possible life for ordinary people, and the environment is one part of that. For some it's about preserving wildlife and if people need to die to do it so be it. And if you don't believe this thinking exist check out the video I posted upthread.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 18, 2013)

Oh, and LOL



Meltingpot said:


> This thread is basically one long diatribe against the Greens without a single word anywhere about what they stand for and why. It's as though Urban is completely blind to these issues.
> 
> Spiney, you told me on a different thread that I should try some critical thinking. Well, here's one for you; if sea levels rise worldwide as they're predicted to do because of global warming (assuming you're not a climate change denier?) then who's going to suffer most? Answer; the class which disproportionately lives in the world's low-lying areas - i.e. the working class.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Essentially the Greens in Britain are deluded moralist do-gooders.
> 
> It is disaster-ism (but stay capitalist) analysis wrapped in new language
> 
> ...


 
Great stuff - I was hoping you'd turn up on this thread


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm perfectly aware of the dangers of environmental destruction Meltingpot. But sensible people, me included, approach environmental questions from the perspective of 'we need to protect the environment because we need it in good health to live decent lives and a healthy environment is a necessary condition for a just and equitable society.'
> 
> There are some in the Green Party who look at it the other way around so you get (this is another caricature but there's still something to it) 'there are too many people and if we allow it to continue the Bolivian arse wasp will be wiped out - let's gas the proles.'
> 
> It's about what the primary motive of your politics is - for me it's the best possible life for ordinary people, and the environment is one part of that. For some it's about preserving wildlife and if people need to die to do it so be it. And if you don't believe this thinking exist check out the video I posted upthread.


 
You're right; those are two different strands of Green opinion and I've come across them both, although in my admittedly brief experience most if not all people who actually get involved in Green politics do care about the lives of ordinary people. However, both are so far away from where we are right now that the schism is irrelevant in practice.

We're increasingly getting the worst of both worlds. Standards of living for ordinary people in the UK and elsewhere are getting worse and worse (I never thought when I was younger that we'd see food banks in the UK, for example), and such jobs as exist are becoming grimmer and increasingly precarious, _and _the environment is deteriorating savagely, not least the marine environment. I read recently for example that there's an island of discarded plastic somewhere at sea which is the size of Texas.

It's not an either-or; we need to address both sides of this. TBH I fear it's already too late and we may be screwed whatever we do, not least because we're facing the prospect of calamitous resource scarcity without any idea as how to cope with it (peak oil alone is a much bigger threat than most people seem to realise), but we'll never know unless we make the effort.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is nonsense incidentally, I don't know a single leftist now who is in favour of unchecked industrialisation - most want, in some fashion or other, a socially-planned economy.


 
If that's true I'm glad to hear it. Back when I was campaigning for the Ecology Party (as it then was), I was told there were local Labour Party members who voted for us although they kept it quiet from their other constituency party members.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> You're right; those are two different strands of Green opinion and I've come across them both, although in my admittedly brief experience most if not all people who actually get involved in Green politics do care about the lives of ordinary people. However, both are so far away from where we are right now that the schism is irrelevant in practice.


 
How is it irrelevant? Brighton's Green Council cares more about the environment - being a green ecological council - than it does about imposing a £4,000 pa pay cut and mass flexibilisation on its own council workers. That's where this thread started from.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> If that's true I'm glad to hear it. Back when I was campaigning for the Ecology Party (as it then was), I was told there were local Labour Party members who voted for us although they kept it quiet from their other constituency party members.


 
What is the relevance of this second-hand anecdote from the pre-1985 era?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Wow.
> 
> Do you stand by this?


 
Pretty much, yes, to be honest.

That Hari thread really fired me up, and I was in high dudgeon there. I know it would look better if I said I was embarrassed for that post as I'm usually a lot less confrontational than that, but I have to admit I was laughing reading it again (I've never called Urbs "self-righteous fuckers" before ). Guess that's my funeral on here, but still.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

In 1984 the Ecology party was all out in support of the NUM, when the general mood was supportive of the miners.

By 1988, the Green Party had effectively christened the defeat of the NUM as a success since non-coal energy production had less CO2 than the inefficient mines that were closed down under MacGregor in 1985-1986.



> In fact in an article in the New Statesmen some three years after the defeat of the miners claimed it was necessary to defeat the miners in the interests of a safe renewable energy and the need to meet the EEC's planned reductions in CO2 emissions. In order to understand this surprising u-turn we need only run through the other energy options to see why.


 
http://www.dialecticalbutterflies.c...rgy-a-extinction&option=com_content&Itemid=53


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> In 1984 the Ecology party was all out in support of the NUM, when the general mood was supportive of the miners.
> 
> By 1988, the Green Party had effectively christened the defeat of the NUM as a success since non-coal energy production had less CO2 than the inefficient mines that were closed down under MacGregor in 1985-1986.
> 
> http://www.dialecticalbutterflies.com/index.php?view=article&id=53:energy-a-extinction&option=com_content&Itemid=53


 
Coal's a difficult issue for Greens, not least because there's as yet no satisfactory way of cleaning the emissions from coal-fired power stations. If you think that's a cop out I can only agree with you.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Pretty much, yes, to be honest.


 
Why? Hari is not honest - he fabricated quotes and exchanges in at least thirteen articles.
He only switched to become anti-war when it came crashing down against the West in the form of a generalised civilian non-cooperation and a multi-origin insurgency.
This characterisation is a mile off: "A guy who's at least honest about the mistake he made in supporting the Iraq war?"


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why? Hari is not honest - he fabricated quotes and exchanges in at least thirteen articles.
> He only switched to become anti-war when it came crashing down against the West in the form of a generalised civilian non-cooperation and a multi-origin insurgency.
> This characterisation is a mile off: "A guy who's at least honest about the mistake he made in supporting the Iraq war?"



Here's what he said three years later. This does look to me like someone regretting a past misjudgement;

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-should-have-been-clear-all-along-470638.html


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Here's what he said three years later. This does look to me like someone regretting a past misjudgement;
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-should-have-been-clear-all-along-470638.html


 
It's someone trying to curry favour with his public critics, acknowledging he has been schooled by them:

"The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster. Who would have thought that they would unleash widespread torture, with over 10,000 people disappearing without trial into Iraq's secret prisons? Anybody who followed the record of the very same people - from Rumsfeld to Negroponte - in Central America in the 1980s, actually. Who would have thought they would use chemical weapons in a civilian city, Fallujah? Anybody who looked up Bush's stance on chemical weapons treaties or Rumsfeld's record of flogging them to tyrants."

It also suggests

1. that had the motives been pure with a liberal administration the occupation would not have been warped.

2. that most Iraqis supported military assault on the country, and hence were incapable of seeing things for themselves:

"I, like most Iraqis, failed to see that the Bush administration's warped motives would lead to a warped occupation."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why? Hari is not honest - he fabricated quotes and exchanges in at least thirteen articles.
> He only switched to become anti-war when it came crashing down against the West in the form of a generalised civilian non-cooperation and a multi-origin insurgency.
> This characterisation is a mile off: "A guy who's at least honest about the mistake he made in supporting the Iraq war?"


 
Meltingpot hangs out with racists on Phora though don't forget - his political and personal judgements are fucked


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Pretty much, yes, to be honest.
> 
> That Hari thread really fired me up, and I was in high dudgeon there. I know it would look better if I said I was embarrassed for that post as I'm usually a lot less confrontational than that, but I have to admit I was laughing reading it again (I've never called Urbs "self-righteous fuckers" before ). Guess that's my funeral on here, but still.


 
You think everything is your funeral on here and you've never been banned.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 18, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> You're right; those are two different strands of Green opinion and I've come across them both, although in my admittedly brief experience most if not all people who actually get involved in Green politics do care about the lives of ordinary people. However, both are so far away from where we are right now that the schism is irrelevant in practice.
> 
> We're increasingly getting the worst of both worlds. Standards of living for ordinary people in the UK and elsewhere are getting worse and worse (I never thought when I was younger that we'd see food banks in the UK, for example), and such jobs as exist are becoming grimmer and increasingly precarious, _and _the environment is deteriorating savagely, not least the marine environment. I read recently for example that there's an island of discarded plastic somewhere at sea which is the size of Texas.
> 
> It's not an either-or; we need to address both sides of this. TBH I fear it's already too late and we may be screwed whatever we do, not least because we're facing the prospect of calamitous resource scarcity without any idea as how to cope with it (peak oil alone is a much bigger threat than most people seem to realise), but we'll never know unless we make the effort.


 
I know. But the stuff in the middle para is inevitable under capitalism and since the greens are wedded to that system they won't and can't do anything about the worst of both worlds other than perpetuate it whilst painting on a green gloss.

This thread is about why the Green Party is shit, not why people who care about the environment are shit - if it was about the latter I'd be calling myself shit.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where the hell did anyone write off environmental issues meltingpot? That post is a disgrace and a smear.


Typical of MPs liberal stupidity though.

For me "environmental issues" are immensely important but they only worthwhile (not really that right word but I guess people know what I mean) when viewed through a class based analysis.


----------



## classicdish (Jun 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I read a book once about the role of environmentalists and conservationists in the NSDAP, it was dead good but I can't remember what it was called - I'll try and dig it out later.


What has this got to do with the Green Party being shit or otherwise?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2013)

classicdish said:


> What has this got to do with the Green Party being shit or otherwise?


 
Nothing really, just sort of followed on from the Icke antisemitism stuff as an interesting aside. Plus guilt by association is perfectly valid.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nothing really, just sort of followed on from the Icke antisemitism stuff as an interesting aside. Plus guilt by association is perfectly valid.


 

 Nazis are all so known to like cake and kittens. Does that mean anything Nazis are in favour of is now beyond the veil?


----------



## belboid (Jun 19, 2013)

The following was posted on libcom, as the first response to the Brighton bin workers 'statement on community cleanups.'  I have no evidence it is written by a GP member, but I'll give you damned good odds that is is:

"Maybe those 'scabs' who you think are purposely trying to undermine you are taking action to prevent wildlife from being harmed by your reckless action.
But yes of course, humans are the MOST important species, right?"


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> The following was posted on libcom, as the first response to the Brighton bin workers 'statement on community cleanups.' I have no evidence it is written by a GP member, but I'll give you damned good odds that is is:
> 
> "Maybe those 'scabs' who you think are purposely trying to undermine you are taking action to prevent wildlife from being harmed by your reckless action.
> But yes of course, humans are the MOST important species, right?"


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 19, 2013)

thats whats so fucking crap about the green party. their biocentricness should take them in the direction of total misanthrope zerzan type shit, but they are too lukewarm and respectable and too guardian readerish to go the whole hog. So you end up with this wooley 'all things to all men' type of 'progressiveness' (cause thats nice right) which ends up with the glaring contradictions that appears through the cracks.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2013)

dylanredefined said:


> Nazis are all so known to like cake and kittens. Does that mean anything Nazis are in favour of is now beyond the veil?


 
Kittens: yes. Cake: depends what kind.

Beyond the veil lol


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Coal's a difficult issue for Greens, not least because there's as yet no satisfactory way of cleaning the emissions from coal-fired power stations. If you think that's a cop out I can only agree with you.


 

It shouldn't be a difficult one. You need coal to make solar panels.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 19, 2013)

Natalie Bennett is speaking at Glastonbury apparently. There's no decent bands on at the same time as her, is it worth heckling her?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> This thread is basically one long diatribe against the Greens without a single word anywhere about what they stand for and why. It's as though Urban is completely blind to these issues.


 
I see you're indulging in selective reading again.
This thread is pointing up where Green policy is suspect/why the Green party is shit. It's not a thread about what the Green party stands for, and why it stands for those things. It doesn't pretend to be.



> Spiney, you told me on a different thread that I should try some critical thinking. Well, here's one for you; if sea levels rise worldwide as they're predicted to do because of global warming (assuming you're not a climate change denier?) then who's going to suffer most? Answer; the class which disproportionately lives in the world's low-lying areas - i.e. the working class.
> 
> I get that a lot of people here don't like the way Green politicians and councillors are behaving, but the answer to that is not to pretend that we don't face massive environmental problems (of which global warming is only one) or that the many committed Green activists throughout the country (of which I used to be one) are doing it purely because they care about the sodding Bolivian arse wasp.


 
No-one is pretending that we don't face massive environmental problems. No-one has pretended that we don't face massive environmental problems. People enter politics, and absorb political ideologies for different reasons. That's as true for Greens as it is for anyone, including, sometimes, through hard-right ideologies.  That's a traceable current in European Green politics, including the UK.



> If you don't like the way the Green party is carrying on, there's a simple answer; start your own. There used to be a group called SERA (the Socialist Environmental Research Association) of which the late Robin Cook was a leading member, but I don't know if they're still going.
> 
> Also, accusing the Green movement of anti-semitism is a bit rich to put it mildly when some of the movement's leading lights and prophets (such as Paul Ehrlich) are and have been Jewish;
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_environmentalism


 
Who's accused "the Green movement" of anti-Semitism?  Attention has *rightly* been drawn to the anti-Semitism and quasi-fascism of *some* Greens, but no-one is attributing those opinions to the entire movement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And you can't call it why the GP are great. You can only call it something neutral. And then only allow pro-green stuff. You don't half waffle on about free speech and why you love debating on stormfront, but a hint of criticism of the greens and we get this drivel.


 
Not that such hypocrisy reflects in any way on his "commitment" to "free speech". Absolutely not!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. He wasn't. Thomas Malthus was centuries ahead of him.


 
Galton was a century ahead too, and tied in the "dilution" of human bloodstock and expanding population of "inferior types" with pressure on resources.
We're all aware of where the ideas of Galton and his contemporaries led, and of the pseudosciences created to justify and support the "rightness" of such an approach.
Read your headlumps, Mr. sihhi, sir? My, I see from the set of your eyes, and the large bump at the back of your head that you're a criminal of the politically-dissenting type. Off with your knackers!


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

what do you know, you live in the west so your genes have deteriorated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> OK, but I need a break for a mug of tea. Two of them;
> 
> 1 / Does Hari's dishonesty (he's admitted that he played fast and loose with the truth when interviewing people) negate the good journalism he's done elsewhere, for example in reporting from the Congo and revealing that the war was largely driven by the wish to control sources of that material which goes into mobile phones (the name of which escapes me at the moment)?


 
Coltan (raw material from which tantalum, an essential element in some types of resistors, is derived)? That was fairly widely-known before Hari "revealed it". Since Mobutu's time at the least.  It's also a fairly pathetic analysis in terms of addressing the issue: It's accurate to say that continuing combat in eastern central DRC is due to coltan, but the continuing strife in the DRC _per se_ is attributable to *many* divergent factors, from vying for other resources (gold, diamonds, copper, platinum, uranium) to religious strife and "tribal" issues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What is the relevance of this second-hand anecdote from the pre-1985 era?


 
Perhaps he's telling us he's a big fan of Goldsmith?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Kittens: yes. Cake: depends what kind.
> 
> Beyond the veil lol


 
Nazis love lardy cake. They know that the high lard content deters most Jews.  Truly, lardy cake is a decent Aryan cake!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what do you know, you live in the west so your genes have deteriorated.


 
Here, is your work colleague a Green, by any chance? 

She's certainly misanthropic-sounding enough!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Natalie Bennett is speaking at Glastonbury apparently. There's no decent bands on at the same time as her, is it worth heckling her?


 
Yes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Coltan (raw material from which tantalum, an essential element in some types of resistors, is derived)? That was fairly widely-known before Hari "revealed it". Since Mobutu's time at the least. It's also a fairly pathetic analysis in terms of addressing the issue: It's accurate to say that continuing combat in eastern central DRC is due to coltan, but the continuing strife in the DRC _per se_ is attributable to *many* divergent factors, from vying for other resources (gold, diamonds, copper, platinum, uranium) to religious strife and "tribal" issues.


 
The most interesting analysis of civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa I've seen is by a bloke called Christopher Cramer, who places it within the context of capitalist development - rather than being separate periods of war and peace, he claims it's a single violent process of class formation, primitive accumulation, state formation, institutional development etc that is punctuated by periods of extreme violence (civil war), and that the violence is a kind of war of position over who will control the surplus. Interesting because it directly contradicts what the world bank and IMF, along with the academic mainstream, have been saying - that civil war is development in reverse - if what he says about conflict and capitalist development is true it would be better characterised as development on steroids.

Makes some interesting comparisons with 'developed' countries - the US civil war, the world wars, etc - basically asserts (a bit like Tilly) that states and their institutions are almost without exception the product of war of one form or another. I've not read enough of the counter-arguments to make a properly informed judgement but it does make a lot more sense than the simplistic resource curse and greed vs grievance arguments - in this analysis the ethnic and religious conflicts, coercive appropriation of resources etc all definitely do play a role in shaping events but are in a sense themselves products of this wider process.

/derail


----------



## chilango (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>





belboid said:


> The following was posted on libcom, as the first response to the Brighton bin workers 'statement on community cleanups.'  I have no evidence it is written by a GP member, but I'll give you damned good odds that is is:
> 
> "Maybe those 'scabs' who you think are purposely trying to undermine you are taking action to prevent wildlife from being harmed by your reckless action.
> But yes of course, humans are the MOST important species, right?"



Facepalm indeed Froggie.

Wild Animals don't need such paternalistic "white knighting". True biocentrists would not be arguing for human intervention. 

Fucking anthrocentric arrogance. Thin end of the wedge innit. Zoos and gardens. Every piece of litter on the streets is a piece less in landfill!

Trendy metropolitan suburbs are not bioregions. Uh humansplaining dickwads!

Live Wild or Die! Etc.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

Jonathan Porritt is still a member and supporter.

Porritt, Chancellor of Keele University imposing massive fee increases, management board member of Wessex Water Major £ from Major's privatisation, also on the board of blacklist-using Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd the massive contractors firm, advisor to Prince Charles and also strategy adviser to anti-union heroes Marks & Spencer; President of Sustainability South West, former chair of Blair's Sustainable Development Commission, still patron of Population Matters/Optimum Population Trust and author of the dystopic fantasy _Capitalism: As if the World Matters_.

In 2009 he called for Brown to issue government restrictions on families having more than 2 children, where the Times reported him as saying: “I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate”
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the ‘p’ word.”
"UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably."

He supported the Green Euro Election campaign with this gem: "If you dithered about voting for the Green Party before, what can possibly be stopping you this time round? Our two MEPs are the best in the European Parliament, and make a real and lasting difference. We've been proved right on every major issue over the last 20 years or more"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 19, 2013)

The Transition Town movement is a Green thing isn't it, even if not (or maybe it is) GP policy?

Here's a comment from the Bad Science forums:



> Floppy anarcho toff nonsense. I went to a community garden run by a transition town group. They seemed surprised that we actually wanted to do gardening instead of just chatting. It was populated by families with offspring named things like Tabitha and Rupert. We did not go back. It was a real shame, as they'd been given a really good plot with wonderfully nice soil, but they were just wasting it. Of course maybe not all transition town groups are like that, but I'm now biased against the idea.


 
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34271

Remember, this is a normal person talking, not just someone off Urban75.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 19, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> It shouldn't be a difficult one. You need coal to make solar panels.


 
Good point.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not that such hypocrisy reflects in any way on his "commitment" to "free speech". Absolutely not!


 
Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit." And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.

What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context.



ViolentPanda said:


> I see you're indulging in selective reading again.


 
I don't think so, but will let that pass.



ViolentPanda said:


> This thread is pointing up where Green policy is suspect/why the Green party is shit. It's not a thread about what the Green party stands for, and why it stands for those things.


 
True, but my point is that it _should _be, along with all the negative stuff. A beat-up thread doing nothing but dishing the dirt on the Greens isn't good enough for me and IMO it shouldn't be good enough for Urban. You're free to disagree, just as I'm free to protest if I don't like what I see here.

And if I was trying to restrict free speech on here, I'd be contacting the mods and asking them to bin the thread, not just complaining about it.



ViolentPanda said:


> It doesn't pretend to be.


 
Sure, but so what? Just to take an admittedly unlikely example, what if you went up to IDS in the street and told him he wasn't a very nice person, and he turned around and said, "I don't pretend to be." Would that settle the matter?

I like to think I'd say something like, "My friend, you bloody well should be. You're responsible for the welfare of a lot of vulnerable people, etc." (Assuming I could even get near the bloke). The same with Urban; we should be aspiring to something better than this.



ViolentPanda said:


> No-one is pretending that we don't face massive environmental problems. No-one has pretended that we don't face massive environmental problems.


 
Up until I raised the subject, no one was saying that though. It was all implied implicitly, if at all, by people who presumably knew each other well enough to know where the fault lines are drawn in discussions between them, but that would not be obvious to those who didn't.

Furthermore, I'm sorry but I haven't got the time or inclination to read through any significant fraction of 11 million + posts here to find out where everyone stands on what. It's easy to forget how huge this place is, or how anonymous many if not most of us are to each other.



ViolentPanda said:


> People enter politics, and absorb political ideologies for different reasons. That's as true for Greens as it is for anyone, including, sometimes, through hard-right ideologies. That's a traceable current in European Green politics, including the UK.


 
Sure, but on balance I believe the Greens have always been amongst the nicer of the parties, one reason being that there simply isn't anything like as much to be gained personally from being in the Greens as there is from, say, being a Tory and making business contacts through the Conservative party. Our first parliamentary candidate after I joined was a vicar.



ViolentPanda said:


> Who's accused "the Green movement" of anti-Semitism? Attention has *rightly* been drawn to the anti-Semitism and quasi-fascism of *some* Greens, but no-one is attributing those opinions to the entire movement.


 
Fair enough, but again it's about balance. On the first page, there was a link to a thread called "Greens and eco-fascism." When I pointed out to Spiney that David Icke had written a book about Green politics, he said that he wasn't interested unless it was about lizards and power-hungry Jooz. Even if he was joking (and he might well have been), that doesn't exactly make for good discussion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2013)

Hasn't all this whataboutery already been done ad nauseam on the Guardian thread?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And you can't call it why the GP are great. You can only call it something neutral. And then only allow pro-green stuff.


 
But no one would start a thread on here saying why the Greens are great (at least not a serious one), and not expect anyone to say anything negative about them, so the problem wouldn't arise; and even if it did, again it would be unbalanced, although in the other direction. No political party is perfect and they shouldn't claim to be.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...it's a murky world, the fringe.


 
It's not so much murky but you just can't see with all that hair in your eyes.

*massive gamble no-ones already said that over four pages*


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> But no one would start a thread on here saying why the Greens are great (at least not a serious one), and not expect anyone to say anything negative about them, so the problem wouldn't arise; and even if it did, again it would be unbalanced, although in the other direction. No political party is perfect and they shouldn't claim to be.


 
Shocking imbalance. Where on earth will capitalists put forward unsullied ideas about how great pro-EU capitalist parties are, how they still look after people's interests in spite of hard times? There must be some sort of medium for this...


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

I find it odd and honestly bewildering MeltingPot that a thread about the Green Party being shit (they are), and a thread about Johann Hari being a fraud (he is) on urban should seemingly raise your ire so much, when you've also freely admitted to posting/discussing with the assorted fascist scum over on the Shitfront board?


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> I find it odd and honestly bewildering MeltingPot that a thread about the Green Party being shit (they are), and a thread about Johann Hari being a fraud (he is) on urban should seemingly raise your ire so much, when you've also freely admitted to posting/discussing with the assorted fascist scum over on the Shitfront board?


 
My suspicion: Easy thrill of contrarianism.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Am not arsesd either way, but just so I know, does MeltingPot (he's not MP, MP's Miles Platting), post on Stormfront as what? An anti? Or a closet anti/shitstirrer/troll? Or just a regular poster?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit." And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.
> 
> What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context


I'm a long time environmentalist, and can't help but agree with the general synopsis of this thread - ie that the green party are generally pretty shit, with a couple of notable exceptions.

They're so shit even about their only decent asset couldn't be arsed to lead them any more, preferring to focus on being a decent MP instead of having to actually try to get some semblance of coherence from the rest of the dippy hippy infused rabble that makes up much of the party around the country.

I'd love nothing more than to have a decent left wing environmentalist party in government, but let's face it, the green party aren't ever going to get to that point - even on the environment their policies simply aren't credible, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, reducing carbon by 10% a year every year is the stuff of ignorant fairy tales, it simply couldn't be done without rolling blackouts or similar, so why pledge something that any expert will tell you is impossible (and I am pretty much an expert in that field).

Just to give the thread some balance like


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 19, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I'm a long time environmentalist, and can't help but agree with the general synopsis of this thread - ie that the green party are generally pretty shit, with a couple of notable exceptions.
> 
> They're so shit even about their only decent asset couldn't be arsed to lead them any more, preferring to focus on being a decent MP instead of having to actually try to get some semblance of coherence from the rest of the dippy hippy infused rabble that makes up much of the party around the country.
> 
> ...


 
But if it is true that we're facing the prospect of a six degree increase in global mean temperature if we don't do it, with all that entails, will 10% a year seem like _that _big a sacrifice? Or will we not do it and wish we had?

Believe me, I'd love to think it wasn't necessary and we could go on with business as usual for as long as we need to, but from what I've read so far I just can't believe it. I also think the era of cheap energy is drawing to a close and we're about to hit peak oil, if we haven't already (I've read James Kunstler's "The Long Emergency"), but that's a topic for a different thread.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> But if it is true that we're facing the prospect of a six degree increase in global mean temperature if we don't do it, with all that entails, will 10% a year seem like that big a sacrifice? Or will we not do it and wish we had?


it's just pie in the sky bullshit, it will never / could never happen no matter what a government decreed.

I prefer challenging but actually vaguely possible targets over aspirational but impossible targets from clueless idiots who want us to elect them to power.



Meltingpot said:


> Believe me, I'd love to think it wasn't necessary and we could go on with business as usual for as long as we need to, but from I've read so far I just can't believe it. I also think the era of cheap energy is drawing to a close and we're about to hit peak oil (I've read Kunstler's The Long Emergency), but that's a topic for a different thread.


fuck me, an expert then?

Personally I've only worked / studied / volunteered in the field for most of  2 decades, so I'm glad to be on the receiving end of a lecture from someone who's read a half arsed book on the subject.


I'm in no way denying the importance of tackling climate change, far from it, I'm just asking that the greens actually put some realism into their policies instead of just coming up with random evidence free aspirational targets that make for a good sound bite. Getting someone involved in drawing up these policies who actually has half a clue about the subject would be a decent starting point, rather than just assuming that a government can just announce a target and make it happen through sheer force of willing it to be so.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 19, 2013)

Anyway, as for the Green's most decent asset ever; I agree that Caroline's great, but what's wrong with Sian Berry?

(Second thoughts, don't answer that; I don't want my illusions shattered )


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit."


 
No, it's a thread entitled "Why the Green Party are shit".
If you can't even get the basics right...



> And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.


 
You're projecting. I haven't said anything to imply that free speech should be untrammelled. I've made clear that I believe you to be a hypocrite.



> What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context.


 
No, all you're after is a reflection of your own views. Not balance, but a thread that reflects your own beliefs. It's what you're always after - some form of validation of your political opinions and choices.
What part




> I don't think so, but will let that pass.


 
No, please *don't* let it pass.



> True, but my point is that it _should _be, along with all the negative stuff. A beat-up thread doing nothing but dishing the dirt on the Greens isn't good enough for me and IMO it shouldn't be good enough for Urban. You're free to disagree, just as I'm free to protest if I don't like what I see here.


 
It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that for some people, political parties *are* an overwhelmingly negative experience, and that a "beat-up thread" is all any of them deserve.



> And if I was trying to restrict free speech on here, I'd be contacting the mods and asking them to bin the thread, not just complaining about it.


 
What else are you doing, with your efforts to direct what the thread might or might not speak of? Chopping liver?




> Sure, but so what? Just to take an admittedly unlikely example, what if you went up to IDS in the street and told him he wasn't a very nice person, and he turned around and said, "I don't pretend to be." Would that settle the matter?


 
If I were able to get close enough to him to speak, I wouldn't be speaking. My teeth would be in his throat.



> I like to think I'd say something like, "My friend, you bloody well should be. You're responsible for the welfare of a lot of vulnerable people, etc." (Assuming I could even get near the bloke). The same with Urban; we should be aspiring to something better than this.


 
You keep making these pronouncements about Urban, and yet they all seem to be based on what *you* want, not on any wishes the majority of posters have expressed.




> Up until I raised the subject, no one was saying that though. It was all implied implicitly, if at all, by people who presumably knew each other well enough to know where the fault lines are drawn in discussions between them, but that would not be obvious to those who didn't.


 
And the dozens of other threads where people have expressed such opinions about environmental catastrophe? Don't they count, or are you conveniently eliding them?



> Furthermore, I'm sorry but I haven't got the time or inclination to read through any significant fraction of 11 million + posts here to find out where everyone stands on what. It's easy to forget how huge this place is, or how anonymous many if not most of us are to each other.


 
That's a very convenient disclaimer for you, allowing you to project your views onto others, with no comeback when you get it wrong.




> Sure, but on balance I believe the Greens have always been amongst the nicer of the parties, one reason being that there simply isn't anything like as much to be gained personally from being in the Greens as there is from, say, being a Tory and making business contacts through the Conservative party. Our first parliamentary candidate after I joined was a vicar.


 
"Nicer" is meaningless in terms of electoral politics. Study the system some time, see what the constraints of parliamentary democracy do to "niceness", and how meaningless they make it.



> Fair enough, but again it's about balance. On the first page, there was a link to a thread called "Greens and eco-fascism." When I pointed out to Spiney that David Icke had written a book about Green politics, he said that he wasn't interested unless it was about lizards and power-hungry Jooz. Even if he was joking (and he might well have been), that doesn't exactly make for good discussion.


 
Perhaps some of us, who've seen the work of elements of the Green movement in other states, and who know the history of ecological/environmental politics, are aware of how such politics have historically provided a convenient route into domestic politics for (variously) corporate interests, racists, ultra-nationalists and dietary cranks, and we actually care that that is the case, when Green politics provide such a good shelter from criticism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> It's not so much murky but you just can't see with all that hair in your eyes.
> 
> *massive gamble no-ones already said that over four pages*


 
You're safe, Frances. Your gamble paid off.

No-one else was crass enough to go there.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're safe, Frances. Your gamble paid off.
> 
> No-one else was crass enough to go there.


 
I plumb the depths - So you don't have to


----------



## free spirit (Jun 19, 2013)

Nowt against her personally, I was probably overstating the case when calling lucas their only decent asset - there a probably are a few, I gave up following the green party internal stuff closely a long time ago tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2013)

This is the lucas scabbing down in brighton yesterday right?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2013)

Rubber gloves  = evidence of pre-planned organised scabbing and malice aforethought.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

But you should say something nice about the greens now for "balance".


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's a thread entitled "Why the Green Party are shit".
> 
> If you can't even get the basics right...


 
Point taken, except that it's actually "Why the Green Party _is _ shit." I hope you can allow me that one.



ViolentPanda said:


> You're projecting. I haven't said anything to imply that free speech should be untrammelled. *I've made clear that I believe you to be a hypocrite.*


 
OK, that's a serious charge. If you answer nothing else I'm saying here, why?



ViolentPanda said:


> No, all you're after is a reflection of your own views. Not balance, but a thread that reflects your own beliefs. It's what you're always after - some form of validation of your political opinions and choices.


 
That does hit a nerve somewhere, agreed, but I'm the one who posts on boards where I'm in the minority - in fact I do it all the time - whereas a lot of people only post amongst others who essentially agree with them. So why do I get all the stick for it?



ViolentPanda said:


> No, please *don't* let it pass.


 
OK.



ViolentPanda said:


> It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that for some people, political parties *are* an overwhelmingly negative experience, and that a "beat-up thread" is all any of them deserve.


 
Fair enough, and I'd have less of a problem with a thread that general than I would with one singling out the Greens for censure - because it could go on to a discussion about the way we actually do politics, which we maybe need to have.



ViolentPanda said:


> What else are you doing, with your efforts to direct what the thread might or might not speak of? Chopping liver?


 
No, I'm aiming for balance; what should also be said here *in addition to* the negative.



ViolentPanda said:


> If I were able to get close enough to him to speak, I wouldn't be speaking. My teeth would be in his throat.


 
OK, sorry I raised that particular example and I'm sure you speak for a lot of people.



ViolentPanda said:


> You keep making these pronouncements about Urban, and yet they all seem to be based on what *you* want, not on any wishes the majority of posters have expressed.


 
Fair point, but it's easy to say that when the majority of posters accord with your wishes; you just let them get on with it. When you appear to be in a permanent minority and the matter sufficiently bothers you, if you don't do that you either suffer in silence or leave. There aren't any other options.



ViolentPanda said:


> And the dozens of other threads where people have expressed such opinions about environmental catastrophe? Don't they count, or are you conveniently eliding them?


 
I haven't seen any recently, but OK I'll take your word for it.



ViolentPanda said:


> That's a very convenient disclaimer for you, allowing you to project your views onto others, with no comeback when you get it wrong.


 
Ok again, but a / it's true, and b / It cuts both ways. I constantly get assumptions made about where _I _post, and who I hang out with there, and again I have no comeback because I can't prove anything about what I say.
.


ViolentPanda said:


> "Nicer" is meaningless in terms of electoral politics. Study the system some time, see what the constraints of parliamentary democracy do to "niceness", and how meaningless they make it.


 
Have to say I agree. The one genuinely nice person I've ever seen as a PM was - believe it or not - John Major, and he was not a great success. Michael Foot was also a very nice man IMO, but he didn't make a success of his job (leading the Labour party) either. As you say nice people are a rarity at the top.



ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps some of us, who've seen the work of elements of the Green movement in other states, and who know the history of ecological/environmental politics, are aware of how such politics have historically* provided a convenient route into domestic politics for (variously) corporate interests, racists, ultra-nationalists*[ and dietary cranks, and we actually care that that is the case, when Green politics provide such a good shelter from criticism.


 
Sure, and I do think that point needs to be made. But balance again - most Greens are horrified when that happens (I don't know about the dietary cranks tbh), and that should be made clear too.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Fair enough, and I'd have less of a problem with a thread that general than I would with one singling out the Greens for censure- because it could go on to a discussion about the way we actually do politics, which we maybe need to have.


 
What?! We've had the same threads for the Dems and Labour, we've had multitude of critical threads over the SWP and assorted parties on the left (and right). Not sure why the Green Party (and that's 'Party') are somehow exempt from criticism?

Oh, and Major whilst PM presided over the CJB and all manner of bollocks with road building programmes happened during his government (M11, Twyford, Newbury bypass), so he can fuck off too.


----------



## dominion (Jun 19, 2013)

Anne Marie Waters has this to say about Caroline Lucas and the Greens. (She's the one Andy Noman and Tony Collins are witchunting over at Stalinist Socialist Unity:


> Caroline Lucas’ hypocrisy on women and gay rights
> 
> When she’s not busy betraying her own party, and kicking it while it is down, it seems that Green MP Caroline Lucas is busy displaying spectacular ill-judgment elsewhere as well. It hasn’t occurred to Lucas that attacking her own party at their lowest ebb not only displays a casual betrayal and lack of integrity, but in publicly agreeing that the Greens are not worth supporting, Lucas forgets that she herself is a Green; I don’t think she has thought this through, but then I don’t think she has thought many other things through either.
> This week, I read a very interesting tweet from the journalist Julie Bindel. She wrote (among other things): “Caroline Lucas panders to extreme Islamists”. As someone who campaigns against Islamic extremism and the accompanying misogyny and brutal human rights abuses, this tweet very much caught my attention. Bindel did not expand on this, so I went looking for examples of Lucas pandering to Islamic extremism and I did not struggle to find them. Indeed, I found an article by Bindel herself, explaining why she believes Lucas to be so “overrated”. Some examples from the Bindel article:
> ...


 
Sounds fine to me.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> What?! We've had the same threads for the Dems and Labour, we've had multitude of critical threads over the SWP and assorted parties on the left (and right). *Not sure why the Green Party (and that's 'Party') are somehow exempt from criticism?*


 
They're not, and nor have I ever claimed they were. I've seen "the lib dems are shit" thread, which I should perhaps have acknowledged, but not the others.



steph said:


> Oh, and Major whilst PM presided over the CJB and all manner of bollocks with road building programmes happened during his government (M11, Twyford, Newbury bypass), so he can fuck off too.


 
Yeah I know about the road works too. I never said he was perfect.

Look, I'm tired, sod this for a game of soldiers. Sorry Steph you're probably a decent person but this REALLY isn't what I want to be doing with my spare time.

I need a long break from here at the very least.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

Coz I'm such a fucking meanie aren't I?!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit." And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.
> 
> What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context.
> 
> ...


 
Apart, that is, from a self-righteous ego boost. That's why poshos join the Greens - always and without exception - to feel superior to the CO2 emitting proles.





Meltingpot said:


> Fair enough, but again it's about balance. On the first page, there was a link to a thread called "Greens and eco-fascism." When I pointed out to Spiney that David Icke had written a book about Green politics, he said that he wasn't interested unless it was about lizards and power-hungry Jooz. Even if he was joking (and he might well have been), that doesn't exactly make for good discussion.


 
Of course I was fucking joking - and jokes aren't meant to facilitate discussion, they're just supposed to make you laugh. It's sort of the whole point of jokes.

Do you also demand that threads about the Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems and the BNP offer 'balance'? (Actually, forget I mentioned the BNP - you probably do want balance when we talk about them given past form).

If someone criticises Labour (without also saying some nice stuff about them) does that mean they think the working class doesn't deserve representation and that they hate the Labour movement? After all, they claim to be the party of the working class, just as the greens claim to be the party of the environment. If someone criticises the Lib Dems (without also saying something nice about them) does that mean they hate civil liberties? After all, they claim to be the party of civil liberties, just as the greens claim to be the party of the environment.

Only I didn't see you throwing a 4 year-old like strop on the 'Why the Lib Dems are shit' or 'why New Labour are scum' threads.

This isn't really about balance is it? You're not bothered about balance on those two threads. You just don't like people criticising a party you clearly have an irrational emotional attachment to.The free speech stuff is just a sanctimonious ego trip really isn't it? You want free speech for your Nazi mates - that's fine cos they don't talk about the Greens being shit, they just want to kill everyone on these boards. But the second anyone points out the shitness that goes right to the core of the Green party you can't handle it and want to censor people. You're a Strasserite Green aren't you?

This thread is about why the Greens are shit. If you want balance start a 'why the Greens are great' thread, as you are perfectly free to do. Then the cosmic harmony of Urban75 will be restored.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> Coz I'm such a fucking meanie aren't I?!


God, imagine saying John Major might have been just another Tory implementing Tory policies. You're _terrible_, Muriel.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2013)

Michael Foot stank of wee.

(runs away giggling)


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

what happened to free speech *cries*


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

If someone criticises the tories does it mean they hate hard work? because the tories claim to be the party of work


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If someone criticises the tories does it mean they hate hard work? because the tories claim to be the party of work


 

funny how they seem to preside over periods of mass unemployment and financial incompetence


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If someone criticises the tories does it mean they hate hard work? because the tories claim to be the party of work


 

It does for me. hard work is rubbish. they should ban it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> funny how they seem to preside over periods of mass unemployment and financial incompetence


 
Every time the tories get in there's an outbreak of laziness because people don't like work.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

> Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If someone criticises the tories does it mean they hate hard work? because the tories claim to be the party of work


 
Only the skivers post on those threads. The strivers are all on Stormfront empathising with people who believe there is an existential threat confronting the white race and a final solution is necessary.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Only the skivers post on those threads. The strivers are all on Stormfront empathising with people who believe there is an existential threat confronting the white race and a final solution is necessary.


 
Yeah.
Meltingpot you really need to have a word with yourself, you want us to tolerate people on here that would want to see half of the boards get killed, but throw a strop whenever someone criticises the green party (as opposed to the green movement) and say there's no balance, i mean really have a word, seriously.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> Oh, and Major whilst PM presided over the CJB and all manner of bollocks with road building programmes happened during his government (M11, Twyford, Newbury bypass), so he can fuck off too.


 
Under Major just as British mines were being closed down, British engineering firms were exporting old high-polluting power stations to India. Also privatised the water network, which lead to a massive rise in leaks and less stringent water quality control under OFWAT as compared with the nationalised system. Tried to block just about everything in Rio 92.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit." And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.
> 
> What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context.
> 
> ...



1) Spiney was joking. LAUGH YOU DICK.

2) The "nicest" party? Oh fuck off.

3) The thread is a resource, not a debate. Its a compilation of all the reasons the greens are shit, because its handy having it all in one place. And sometimes we might need it, cos when push comes to shove the Green Party (maybe not every member, but the Green Party as an organisation) is the sandal wearing, Rupert-spawning, basket weaving, population controlling scab fucking enemy. If you don't like that don't read it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

mind you they are being outperformed electorally by UKIP so I won't be quaking in my sandals just yet


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> mind you they are being outperformed electorally by UKIP so I won't be quaking in my sandals just yet



Do we have a "Why UKIP are shit"? Or is that just too easy?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I need a long break from here at the very least.


 
Go running back to Stormfront then


----------



## rekil (Jun 19, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> He did this on purpose, in the hope that he would be thrown out of the Dail, and would therefore not have to vote for whatever obnoxious piece of austerity legislation he was being whipped on that day.
> 
> But the Irish Greens were always eejits: I remember one of their first TDs, back in the late 80s, saying that he was "always aware of the trouble caused by strikes".
> 
> Nigel Irritable - I seem to recall reading that when the PDs called it quits, some of their membership joined up with the Greens. Any truth in that one?


From last year, no idea if he's followed it up.


> FORMER GREEN PARTY TD Paul Gogarty has said that that he is considering a move to Fianna Fail.
> 
> The former Dublin-Mid West TD is no longer a paid-up member of the Green Party and is considering the move following a conversation with a local Fianna Fáil supporter while taking part in RTE’s ‘Celebrity Bainisteoir’. The FF supporter told Gogarty that if he ran in the next General Election under Fianna Fáil that he would get elected.
> 
> The Lucan man also had some harsh words for the electorate, saying that some of them are “thick as hell”.


Also this



(Please watch this)

"But I'm not."


----------



## Riklet (Jun 20, 2013)

^ that's classic! Love the posters scene...

Meltingpot def wins the Loonspud of the week weird-thread-blathering award. 

 ..and the Greens are still weaving organic shit strings.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 20, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Fair enough, and I'd have less of a problem with a thread that general than I would with one singling out the Greens for censure - because it could go on to a discussion about the way we actually do politics, which we maybe need to have.


Do you actually read the same forum as everyone else here? The 'why the libdems are shit'/'post examples of tory stupidity here'/'why labour are scum'/'the <insert current swp slagfest here>' threads are rarely off page one of this forum and continually point out examples of prize cuntery from those parties. Your silence on those threads is deafening; why should the green party, with all their baggage, be exempt from scrutiny?

BTW, the clue is in the title with this thread. It's pretty safe to assume that a thread titled "Why 'x' is shit" is hardly going to be a balanced and nuanced debate about how, given a specific value of 'x', a countervailing value of 'y' will mitigate it's shitness -it's going to be a thread exploring and quantifying the specific and general shitness of 'x' as represented by the various powers and functions of 'x'...



Meltingpot said:


> Have to say I agree. The one genuinely nice person I've ever seen as a PM was - believe it or not - John Major, and he was not a great success. Michael Foot was also a very nice man IMO, but he didn't make a success of his job (leading the Labour party) either. As you say nice people are a rarity at the top.


 
John Major was a terrible person and a fucking disaster as PM; there is a special circle of hell reserved for him and his kind. The fact that you think he's 'nice' says an awful lot about you as well...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

I think the reason we don't have a dedicated tory shitness thread is because its fed directly into our eyeballs every day on bbc news


----------



## Nylock (Jun 20, 2013)

tbf, most of this section of U75 is, in one way or another, a vast exploration of "Why the Tories are shit". It's just that the enormity of their shitness and their sheer cuntitude is so overwhelmingly vast, so all-pervading, that we have to split it up into easily digestible chunks....


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> ...I won't be quakering in my sandals just yet


 
Fixed


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> The Transition Town movement is a Green thing isn't it, even if not (or maybe it is) GP policy?
> 
> Here's a comment from the Bad Science forums:
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure that the people on that forum are any more "normal" than those here, but

Floppy anarcho toff nonsense​ 
is a pretty good summary of my experience of Transition Towns. For all their much-vaunted rainbow localism, they also seem to have a certain cult-like tendency, following the guru Rob Hopkins


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 20, 2013)

wasn't our falcon involved with it? which would explain a lot


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2013)

> This is the centre of our home, really. We chose the house because it was incredibly welcoming - and the fact that, despite being a three-storey townhouse in the centre of Brussels, it had a garden. My husband, Richard, does most of the gardening, but I help out from time to time.
> One of the things I love most about this space is its warmth, the colours; it's very vibrant....
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/15/caroline-lucas-politician


 






Obviously, this could also have gone in the 'Why the Guardian..' thread, but I thought this one most appropriate.

I reckon the book on the stool might well be about how to live a green life, or somesuch.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Obviously, this could also have gone in the 'Why the Guardian..' thread, but I thought this one most appropriate.
> 
> I reckon the book on the stool might well be about how to live a green life, or somesuch.


Everything about this photo is clearly staged, including the 'casually' placed book. Which means that my some nefarious means, this so called green managed to get that cat to pose just how she wanted it to. I bet Lucas was just off to one side tapping a packet of fags or something.

Also, it actually looks pretty cold and uninviting to be, and it looks about the same size as our whole house.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Everything about this photo is clearly staged, including the 'casually' placed book. Which means that my some nefarious means, this so called green managed to get that cat to pose just how she wanted it to. I bet Lucas was just off to one side tapping a packet of fags or something.
> 
> Also, it actually looks pretty cold and uninviting to be, and it looks about the same size as our whole house.


 
Not sure about the cold and univiting...especially with all the lamps on.

La Lucas said...



> I do most of my writing in here, speeches mainly and a chapter that I contributed to a book on greener living called Do Good Lives Have to Cost the Earth? It discussed how dealing with climate change doesn't mean constantly "giving things up", it can actually be about enjoying a better quality of life.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 20, 2013)

From Iain Dale's Total Politics:




> InterContinental London – Westminster Hotel
> We were seated in a room rather appropriately called Emmeline’s – named after the iconic suffragette – at the heart of Westminster’s new favourite haunt; a spacious and lavish hotel.
> 
> The menu
> ...


 




> The cost
> £29 per person


----------



## snadge (Jun 20, 2013)

Not very fucking green, are they?


----------



## sihhi (Jun 20, 2013)

snadge said:


> Not very fucking green, are they?


 
She won the "Green Personality of the Year" in 2010 for her commitment to green principles.

She accepted the award at this private club (which also has an ultra members section as a polo club).





> Bordering the Thames in Fulham and set in *42 acres of magnificent grounds*, The Hurlingham Club is a *green oasis* of tradition and international renown. Recognised throughout the world as one of Britain’s *greatest private members’ clubs*, it retains its quintessentially English traditions and heritage, while providing modern facilities and services for its members. The Club continually looks at ways in which it can improve, for both current and future generations, the first-class social and sporting facilities within an elegant and congenial ambience.


 
No pictures but other events at the same private club venue:











Insides


----------



## free spirit (Jun 21, 2013)

far too much piss and wind involved for my liking.

I prefer to just get on with it - this was a 3kWp system we just installed on a stupidly difficult Yorkshire Stone roof, coz we wanted to prove that it could be done without ending up with something that would look completely out of place.






part of around 100kWp of solar PV systems our little team will have installed this month... oh, and we've just taken an apprentice on, who's gone from unemployed to earning a pretty decent amount of money with us so far this month as we're doing it without any of the government apprenticeship nonsense involved - fair days pay for a fair days work IMO, apprentice or not.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 21, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Not sure about the cold and univiting...especially with all the lamps on.
> 
> La Lucas said...


No way could I relax and feel comfortable in a room like that.


----------



## chilango (Jun 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No way could I relax and feel comfortable in a room like that.



I fucking could.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 21, 2013)

chilango said:


> I fucking could.


 
Me too - look how high the ceiling is - you could probably get a trampoline in and all kinds of other cool shit there


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Me too - look how high the ceiling is - you could probably get a trampoline in and all kinds of other cool shit there


----------



## rekil (Jun 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Me too - look how high the ceiling is - you could probably get a trampoline in and all kinds of other cool shit there


There's a piana and everything. Sea shanty singalongs every other night.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> They're not, and nor have I ever claimed they were. I've seen "the lib dems are shit" thread, which I should perhaps have acknowledged, but not the others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well done, Steph. Though I believe the twat is lying.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

You're entitled to your opinion, but we've spent wasted enough time discussing me already on this thread. Let's stick to the subject.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> She won the "Green Personality of the Year" in 2010 for her commitment to green principles.
> 
> She accepted the award at this private club (which also has an ultra members section as a polo club).
> 
> ...


 
TBF, the _schtick _about the Hurlingham Club being set in 42 acres is a bit misleading, because more than half of that is an athletics facility that's used by local state schools.
Club membership is fairly exclusive, though.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Let's stick to the subject.


 
That's what this thread was doing until you came on here bitching and trying to shift its emphasis, engaging in a disingenuous approach of conflating 'Green Party' with wider green issues to try and smear others (despite some of them having eco-activist/environmental pasts).

(I saw your other reply which you've since edited out, I can't believe you're trying to seriously paint me as being some sort of nasty person that 'broke the camels back' ffs).


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

steph said:


> That's what this thread was doing until you came on here bitching and trying to shift its emphasis, engaging in a disingenuous approach to try and smear others as being critical of green issues (despite some of them having eco-activist/environmental pasts), when it's about why the Green Party is shit.
> 
> (I saw your others reply which you've since edited out, I can't believe you're trying to seriously paint me as being some sort of nasty person that 'broke the camel back' ffs).


 
Here we go again. I'm trying to be civil about this and move on, but you're not letting me.

I edited that out because I didn't want the whole thread to be about me. If you want to discuss the comments I made about your response to me I'd rather it was by PM, but I'll reply here if you want. Your choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Here we go again. I'm trying to be civil about this and move on, but you're not letting me.
> 
> I edited that out because I didn't want the whole thread to be about me. If you want to discuss the comments I made about your response to me I'd rather it was by PM, but I'll reply here if you want. Your choice.


 
Leave the thread and stop making silly points about how the thread must be balanced by pro-green party views and smearing people who have criticisms of the green party as people unconcerned with gree issues then. You're nearly 70 ffs.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 21, 2013)

Sorry, but I took this as passive-aggressiveness 'blame':




			
				MeltingPot said:
			
		

> Look, I'm tired, sod this for a game of soldiers. Sorry Steph you're probably a decent person but this REALLY isn't what I want to be doing with my spare time.
> 
> I need a long break from here at the very least.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

It's classic, _you're being very unreasonable here and wasting my time. _Now we get pages of meltingman talking about himself, exactly as he didn't want.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

steph said:


> Sorry, but I took this as passive-aggressiveness 'blame':


 
I couldn't be passive aggressive if I tried. I was tired after a longish day on only 5 hours' sleep, and feeling sorry for myself after a long session's posting, feeling I was getting nowhere, and when I saw your post it was like the air going out of a balloon. It was a simple as that.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's classic, _you're being very unreasonable here and wasting my time. _Now we get pages of meltingman talking about himself, exactly as he didn't want.


 
Have to admit you have a point.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Have to admit you have a point.


 
I'm not really convinced you have one though. Here's a hint - a thread entitled 'why the green party is shit' will probably focus more on the negative side of the Green Party. If you wanted to talk about the positives you'd go and start a 'why the Green Party is great' thread. I'd be very surprised if it ended up being more than a 10th of the length of this one. That's how you get your much loved balance (though anyone who subscribes to anything like a decent set of political principles realises there are some subjects on which balance is not required, but you're beyond help on that one since you seriously think we should take the concerns of out and out fascists on board). In fact, that's precisely what I Lib Dem sympathiser did in response to their shit thread - so although they're a bunch of Quisling cunts they can at least take criticism without going off on a mad meltdown (meltdownpot lol).

If, on the other hand, you just wanted to ruin this thread and censor criticism of the Green Party you'd be better off whining about how everyone's being nasty to these nice wooly greens, conflating criticism with the Green Party with a dismissal of environmental concerns and just generally playing the victim.

With this taken in mind, I think the motives behind your intervention on this thread are perfectly clear Mr free speech for fascists but not for people who don't like the Green Party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

I thought you'd fucked off for a while Meltpot - why don't you keep that promise?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

As has happened before on this board, I'm caught between a rock and a hard place here. If I answer the personal comments in Spiney's post (meltdownpot was quite amusing though), Butch and maybe others will say I'm talking about myself again, but if I don't, the same people will think I've got no answer to said comments.

It seems I can't win - and if I say that, I get accused of whining. Grrrr!

I'm actually trying to be conciliatory at the moment (which is why I edited out my initial response to barney pig's insult on the last page). It seems that you, and others here, just don't want me to be though.

As for the "Green party is shit" thread, I have to admit I still don't particularly like the idea of a thread with only negative comments about the Greens but I've had my say now and calmed down enough that I think we should agree to differ.

 But please, everybody, let it drop. If you want to post negative stuff about the Greens, go ahead and do it and don't mention me at all for the rest of the thread (and I'd prefer it if no one replied to this post).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

bwah bwah don't look at me (look at me please)


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 21, 2013)

enough with the whining please, you're quite happy to take offence when people complain you're mates with scum, you defend scum, scum who would like to see me and everyone on this board dead, yet somehow when it's the green party being attacked it's like a personal slight against you and you try and stop everyone else talking about it. I thought you supported free speech, attacking the green party is free speech, get over it.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I thought you'd fucked off for a while Meltpot - why don't you keep that promise?


 
Because other people keep wanting to have the last word at my expense, as you did with that comment about me "going back to Stormfront" (as if I belonged there) and barney pig calling me a "lying twat" (which you liked).

Other people read those comments, so I feel I have to answer them, just as I imagine you would. It's that simple. If you want me to go from here, leave me in peace and it'll be a lot easier.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 21, 2013)

If he who does not wish to be named again on this thread is serious about his engagement with this thread being over that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned (though the apparent desperation to have the last word leaves me unconvinced).

So let's get back to what is clearly the most urgent and pressing task for all right minded people: giving as many examples as possible to back up the assertion that the Green Party is shit. (Although I think the evidence already presented is enough to turn assertion into fact you can never have too much dirt on your enemies).


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 21, 2013)

Can we get back to discussing the green party being shit please?


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bwah bwah don't look at me (look at me please)


 
No, just leave it. Simple.


----------



## andysays (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> No, just leave it. Simple.


 
It may be simple, but you seem to be finding it pretty bloody difficult.

Maybe it's time to reel off a load of vaguely connected puns to get the thread back on track. Shall I start?

Green with envy...

Environmentally sensitive...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> It may be simple, but you seem to be finding it pretty bloody difficult.
> 
> Maybe it's time to reel off a load of vaguely connected puns to get the thread back on track. Shall I start?
> 
> ...


 You're just re-cycling the same old shite.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 21, 2013)

environMENTALISTS


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

28 day cooling off period taken btw. Ridiculous.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

> "We have made significant progress over recent days. The proposal significantly reduces or in some cases eliminates the losses for individual staff members which arose under the previous offer, although there are still some areas that must be addressed.
> 
> "For their part, the council have committed to confirm to each staff member how the revised proposal will affect them on an individual basis. When this detailed information is received we will then conduct a postal ballot of our members to ask them whether they accept or reject the changes.
> 
> "In the interim I can confirm that we have suspended our industrial action, for a period of 28 days, to allow this process to take place."


 
Everyone gets a letter telling them what they already know and the union keeps it goodwill with the council. Fight the cuts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everyone gets a letter telling them what they already know and the union keeps it goodwill with the council. Fight the cuts.


 
Are they trying to split the strike by letting management tell staff on an individual level that they're not affected in the hopes that those people will vote those who are affected out of a job/worse conditions or am I being a little bit _too _cynical here?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are they trying to split the strike by letting management tell staff on an individual level that they're not affected in the hopes that those people will vote those who are affected out of a job/worse conditions or am I being a little bit _too _cynical here?


 
That's what they're doing with the union helping them to do.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2013)

Fucking sorry state of affairs!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's what they're doing with the union helping them to do.


 

I wouldn't go that far to suggest that just yet, but Ms Thompson's played a fucking blinder here. Proper Ace card.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

post deleted


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

stop derailing the thread you racist lying green loon


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Poor people stop breeding


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> stop derailing the thread you racist lying green loon


 
You're a nasty piece of work, IMO.

I'm telling the truth. Now go away.

And if you call me a loon again,. or anything similar, I'll report you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

You are a loon, you're a bit of of a weepy creepy waste of space. I don't want your pms, get back to your mates on stormfront. Conflicted dude.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> And if you call me a loon again,. or anything similar, I'll report you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> You really are a nasty swine, aren't you?
> 
> I'm telling the truth. Now go away.
> 
> And if you call me a loon again,. or anything similar, I'll report you.


 
you racist freespeech loon


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You are a loon, you're a bit of of a weepy creepy waste of space. I don't want your pms, get back to your mates on stormfront. Conflicted dude.


 
I haven't sent you any pms for over a year now. What are you talking about?

I had a rant just now and deleted it (understandable I thought, but still). Spanky saw it and responded to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I haven't sent you any pms for over a year now. What are you talking about?
> 
> I had a rant just now and deleted it (Understandable I thought, but still). Spanky saw it and responded to it.


 
Go away.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> I haven't sent you any pms for over a year now. What are you talking about?
> 
> I had a rant just now and deleted it (Understandable I thought, but still). Spanky saw it and responded to it.


 
loon


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2013)

Meltingpot _is_ Christopher Hawtree, & I claim my quid!


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 21, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Meltingpot _is_ Christopher Hawtree, & I claim my quid!


 
Nope. Thanks for injecting some humour into this anyway.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 21, 2013)

With the prospect of being fucked over by a Green bastard council, what have we got left...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 22, 2013)

You really are totally incapable of backing away from the keyboard aren't you meltdownpot? Just stop looking at the thread and it can't offend you any more.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 22, 2013)

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/n...g-green-councillor-rob-white-fills-420-forms/
I was going to put this in the isn't the Green Party great, rob green working his way through a couple of trees.
 He once had a story about going an entire year without filling more than a single bin full. After a fanfare of publicity, this vanished without trace.
 Interesting that while rob ravages the reams, his fellow greens a far less active
  "Cllr White, who works as a gardener, said: "I am very active in Park ward, I think it's really important to represent the voice of my constituents. It is my duty, so when people raise issues with me I am happy to take things further and get them logged with the council. That is how I got elected, that is how all the Green party councillors got elected."

His Green colleagues in Park ward, Melanie Eastwood and Jamie Whitham, logged 54 and 17 items respectively."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 23, 2013)

Wasn't there something about the Greens and all kinds of snakeoil alternative medicines at one point? Sure I remember Bernie Gunther or someone talking about it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wasn't there something about the Greens and all kinds of snakeoil alternative medicines at one point? Sure I remember Bernie Gunther or someone talking about it?


 
I don't recall anything like that, although you're correct to think that I'd be annoyed at anyone promoting snakeoil alternatives medicines like homoeopathy and stuff.

Maybe it was someone else?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 23, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I don't recall anything like that, although you're correct to think that I'd be annoyed at anyone promoting snakeoil alternatives medicines like homoeopathy and stuff.
> 
> Maybe it was someone else?


 
Yeah must have been, sorry. You're pretty clued up on environmental stuff aren't you? What's your take on the GP?


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

marty21 said:


> I have voted Green in the past - this Brighton shit will put a stop to that - first time they have a sniff of power and this is how they behave? I would have expected this off the Tories, and the Lib Dems.


The Greens lost my vote when they initially started proposing cuts budgets in Brighton a year ago and made some piss-poor excuses which could have come right out of Labour's playbook. I was thus unsurprised when the issue with the striking bin workers raised its ugly head.



SpineyNorman said:


> Also, David Icke used to be their media representative.
> 
> And is that openly antisemitic conspiraloon cunt Tony Gosling still a member?


He is unless I have heard different since recently. (Edit: no, just read in the thread that he got kicked out - about bloody time and it speaks volumes he survived for so long).

I know a Green in Manchester whom has an issue with the Freemasons, although thankfully he doesn't buy wholly into the Illuminanti/NWO/Bliderberg BS.



J Ed said:


> What do people think about the Green Party opposition to GM crops? The Green Party members take part in sabotage of publicly funded GM wheat trials and their opposition seems to me to be based on ideology rather than science.


 
I am vehemently opposed to GM crops since in the main they are a profit-making ploy for Monsanto et al, which utterly fail to redress the unfair global trading system we have, nor do they provide solutions to the environmentally damaging agricultural practices which have become commonplace over the past century. There is plenty of food out there but the system prevents it from being where it's needed the most.

Even if you have no qualms about taking genes from different genomes and plopping them in your food crops in a manner that would never have happened in nature (speeded-up evolution my arse!), you can still consider the practices of the biotech and agribusiness companies utterly objectionable.



> Speaking of that ideology, I've met a few Green voters and self-proclaimed environmentalists who absolutely delight in what seems to me to be classist conspicuous consumption by bragging about how they only eat organic food. I even met one 'environmentalist' (also a yoga instructor lol) once who told me that she thought it was absolutely immoral to eat meat that you haven't bought, raised organically and slaughtered yourself.


 
On the other hand, that does get on my nerves, since for most people it's just plain impossible, due to financial and socio-economic barriers.



Nigel Irritable said:


> The Irish Green Party pretty much committed suicide by going into a right wing government as junior partners, and supporting every insane measure to prop up the banks. And then, after an economic catastrophe they shared responsibility for, they then became gung ho supporters of austerity. They even sold out on most of their environmental policies. Then they were surprised when they were completely wiped out at the last election.


 
They pretty much played the role the Lib Dems currently do here, and paid the price. What went down in Ireland (and realising how much that an election manifesto isn't worth the paper it's printed on/the hard disk space it's saved to) made me extra wary of the Greens here, even before the Brighton betrayal.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 23, 2013)

classicdish said:


> [


 
That looks fucking gorgeous - anyone know where I might purchase a cheery kit kat of my own?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 23, 2013)

Tom A said:


> I know a Green in Manchester whom has an issue with the Freemasons, although thankfully he doesn't buy wholly into the Illuminanti/NWO/Bliderberg BS.


 
I have a funny feeling he might post here, and if it is the same person then the extent to which he believes various conspiracy theories varies according to the audience and the extent to which he's losing the argument. Taffboy is from Manchester isn't he?


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I have a funny feeling he might post here, and if it is the same person then the extent to which he believes various conspiracy theories varies according to the audience and the extent to which he's losing the argument. Taffboy is from Manchester isn't he?


AFAIK he isn't on Urban. I wouldn't count my Manc Green acquaintance as a full blown conspiracy theorist, but someone whom likes to rant about the Freemasons (whom, let's face it, are just another old boy's network). His FB profile says he's originally from Shrewsbury, which whilst near isn't in Wales, so that doesn't make him a "taffy".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 23, 2013)

Tom A said:


> AFAIK he isn't on Urban. I wouldn't count my Manc Green acquaintance as a full blown conspiracy theorist, but someone whom likes to rant about the Freemasons (whom, let's face it, are just another old boy's network). His FB profile says he's originally from Shrewsbury, which whilst near isn't in Wales, so that doesn't make him a "taffy".


 
taffboy's just his username - dunno if he's welsh or not. I'm surprised he's not turned up on this thread for a bit of a whine tbh


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> taffboy's just his username - dunno if he's welsh or not. I'm surprised he's not turned up on this thread for a bit of a whine tbh


Has he ever mentioned any grievances with the Cooperative (as in THE Cooperative), and/or how Usdaw fucked him over (which, to be fair I am 100% behind him over)? If so then that's probably him.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> The following was posted on libcom, as the first response to the Brighton bin workers 'statement on community cleanups.' I have no evidence it is written by a GP member, but I'll give you damned good odds that is is:
> 
> "Maybe those 'scabs' who you think are purposely trying to undermine you are taking action to prevent wildlife from being harmed by your reckless action.
> But yes of course, humans are the MOST important species, right?"


Ahh, rabid misanthropic animal rightists... who only care about themselves, their clique, and "teh fluffy bunnie wunnies". I saw that too, and the comments soon descended into the nit-picking, how-many-primitivists-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion I have long associated with Libcom.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Jonathan Porritt is still a member and supporter.
> 
> Porritt, Chancellor of Keele University imposing massive fee increases, management board member of Wessex Water Major £ from Major's privatisation, also on the board of blacklist-using Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd the massive contractors firm, advisor to Prince Charles and also strategy adviser to anti-union heroes Marks & Spencer; President of Sustainability South West, former chair of Blair's Sustainable Development Commission, still patron of Population Matters/Optimum Population Trust and author of the dystopic fantasy _Capitalism: As if the World Matters_.


I got that book out of the library a few years ago. I read the first 20 pages of so and subsequently returned it rather than waste my time on such BS. I thought I wasn't in the Greens anymore though, read something about him falling out with them, or it could just refer to him not having any leadership positions.

Keele's my alma mater (along with Lancaster) BTW


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> They're so shit even about their only decent asset couldn't be arsed to lead them any more, preferring to focus on being a decent MP instead of having to actually try to get some semblance of coherence from the rest of the dippy hippy infused rabble that makes up much of the party around the country.


Who then turned out to be a scab.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

dominion said:


> Anne Marie Waters has this to say about Caroline Lucas and the Greens. (She's the one Andy Noman and Tony Collins are witchunting over at Stalinist Socialist Unity:
> 
> 
> Sounds fine to me.


...and to think I once supported the Greens because they seemed above pandering to reactionary religious right Islamists vis-a-vis the SWP/Respect.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 23, 2013)

AFter seeing what the green scum did in Brighton last week I have absolutely no intention of voting for them ever again. Quite literally filth.


----------



## Spandex (Jun 23, 2013)

Tom A said:


> The Greens lost my vote when they initially started proposing cuts budgets in Brighton a year ago


Sorry to piss on your tirade, but the Greens didn't just propose budget cuts out of the blue. All councils have had cuts imposed on them by central government and all councils are having to cut hard. Just blaming the Greens lets Osbourne and Pickles and the other tory shitcunts in government off the hook. The Greens initally tried to avoid cuts by increasing council tax, which Labour and the tories joined forces to stop. Where they are shit is where they chose to target the cuts: at council workers. There's plenty wrong with the Greens, but try to keep criticism based in reality.



Tom A said:


> Who then turned out to be a scab.


I've seen Caroline Lucas accused of scabbing a few times in the past week, which surprised me, as she's solidy supported the strike and is generally a reasonable MP. So I had a look at what happened rather than just believe any old crap on the internet. She says:




			
				Caroline Lucas said:
			
		

> earlier this week, I joined a small group of residents to help bag up some of the nappies and broken glass on their street.
> For me, this is community activism, and sits squarely with my support for those taking action to secure a fair income.


 link

This was the day before the statement on community clean ups was posted, whoever posted it. Seems reasonable enough. I cleaned up some used tampon applicators from outside my flat last week. Hope that doesn't make me a scab.

For me scab is a harsh insult which shouldn't be thrown around lightly and it seems a bit unfair on her. If you want to criticise her, pick on something tangible, such as her support for homeopathy or something.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> the Greens didn't just propose budget cuts out of the blue. All councils have had cuts imposed on them by central government blah blah usual apologist drivel that could have come from New Labour



Yaaaaaaaaaawn...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> I've seen Caroline Lucas accused of scabbing a few times in the past week, which surprised me, as she's solidy supported the strike and is generally a reasonable MP. So I had a look at what happened rather than just believe any old crap on the internet. She says;
> 
> This was the day before the statement on community clean ups was posted, whoever posted it. Seems reasonable enough.


 
The 'community clean up' statement was from GMB City Clean workers. As for Ms Lucas, she was undermining the strike by litter picking on Elm Grove. The PR stunt backfired.


----------



## Spandex (Jun 23, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Yaaaaaaaaaawn...


 
New Labour? Ouch  That hurt.

I don't want to come over all Meltingpot, but if you're just going to throw around made up shit then you might as well accuse Jason Kitkat of the Kirov murder or Natalie Bennet of kidnaping Maddie.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 23, 2013)

This is a load of bull:



> I have joined workers on the picket line and am doing my utmost to put pressure on all sides to reach a fair resolution.


 
If she wants to do pressure all she needs to do is resign the Green Party membership - that will knock the Brighton Greens to their senses in no time at all.  

The claim is:



> these voluntary cleanups do not in any way replicate the crucial and skilled work usually undertaken by refuse workers


 
You can't have your cake and eat it. If she as a resident needed to do something essential and otherwise absolutely life-threatening, she ought to have asked the strike committee first.

They are clear that:



> Any attempts to lessen the impact of a strike completely undermines our action.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

There was one thing, and one thing alone that could have redeemed Caroline Lucas and restore my faith in her being a "good egg" regardless of what party she was in - Acknowledge that as well meaning as her intentions were, that she did the wrong thing, and then make a statement actively supporting the GMB and discouraging anyone from doing the job of striking workers.

Although I wouldn't mind so much if they dumped it all on Jason Kitcat's front lawn


----------



## Spandex (Jun 23, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The 'community clean up' statement was from GMB City Clean workers. As for Ms Lucas, she was undermining the strike by litter picking on Elm Grove. The PR stunt backfired.


If it was a PR stunt, it wasn't a very good one as it was only publicised by a tweet from someone who drove past her. I think she actually thought she was helping out, and the statement seemed to come out a day later.

Anyway, this is all making me sound too much like a green apologist: like most people I spoke to last week I support the strike; and fuck Kitkat - he's proved himself a complete shitstick and certainly lost my vote (yeah, I voted for him last time, not expecting the Greens to actually win ).


----------



## free spirit (Jun 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is a load of bull:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
tbh though, I doubt the wisdom of that attitude from the strike committee. Forcing the city to wallow in their own shit, and objecting to them voluntarily clearing up the worst of it is a pretty shit way of maintaining public support for your strike IMO.

Certainly a high risk strategy.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> If it was a PR stunt, it wasn't a very good one as it was only publicised by a tweet from someone who drove past her. I think she actually thought she was helping out, and the statement seemed to come out a day later.


 
The statement was kind of directed towards her antics of undermining the strike.

She certainly didn't don rubber gloves & litter pick on Elm Grove 'cos she had fuck all else better to do that day.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> tbh though, I doubt the wisdom of that attitude from the strike committee. Forcing the city to wallow in their own shit, and objecting to them voluntarily clearing up the worst of it is a pretty shit way of maintaining public support for your strike IMO.
> 
> Certainly a high risk strategy.


 
GMB City Clean did say that they have no problem with residents/businesses bagging up rubbish outside their premises - but not to empty city bins.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> tbh though, I doubt the wisdom of that attitude from the strike committee. Forcing the city to wallow in their own shit, and objecting to them voluntarily clearing up the worst of it is a pretty shit way of maintaining public support for your strike IMO.
> 
> Certainly a high risk strategy.


But so far, one that's paying off, judging by the support among the grassroots for the strikers. Also that fear that it will be counter productive is allayed somewhat by the fact the council have put something on the table which the union is taking a good look at, and they have suspended (though not called off) their strike as a result, which I guess means that all that rubbish will get at least partially cleaned up.


----------



## Spandex (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> tbh though, I doubt the wisdom of that attitude from the strike committee. Forcing the city to wallow in their own shit, and objecting to them voluntarily clearing up the worst of it is a pretty shit way of maintaining public support for your strike IMO.
> 
> Certainly a high risk strategy.


Yeah, this is where I'm coming from.

It's not as if there were any visible signs of scabbing in Brighton undermining the strike: every bin I saw all week was surrounded by piles of bin bags, many of them ripped open by seagulls, with litter scattered around. Like most people I recognise the only people to blame are senior council officials and the local Green leadership. 

But, I left my flat to find used tampon applicators and broken glass outsde my door. Not wanting to push my six month old's puchchair over it, I cleaned it up. Somehow, there's this implication that I'm a scab for doing this. Fuck that.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

Who's calling you a scab for clearing your own doorstep?


----------



## Spandex (Jun 23, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> GMB City Clean did say that they have no problem with residents/businesses bagging up rubbish outside their premises - but not to empty city bins.





Mr.Bishie said:


> Who's calling you a scab for clearing your own doorstep?


That's what Caroline Lucas claims she was doing; picking up used nappies and broken glass near where she lives. Yet she's accused of being a scab.

Just saying, I've got some sympathy for her.

Unlike that Kitkat div.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 23, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> GMB City Clean did say that they have no problem with residents/businesses bagging up rubbish outside their premises - but not to empty city bins.


 
hmm. depends a bit where they are tbh - I know groups such as friends of parks groups and similar who do regular voluntary litter picks of parks / dog walkers who do a bit of litter picking on their walks etc, and can easily see the justification for them to not want to let the strike result in the park / area they regularly litter pick ending up a proper shit heap because the bins are overflowing.

Town centre bins though would be a different matter.

This is the sort of issue that could very quickly turn natural allies into vocal opponents if handled wrong.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> That's what Caroline Lucas claims she was doing; picking up used nappies and broken glass near where she lives. Yet she's accused of being a scab.


 

She was certainly not clearing shite from _her own _doorstep! Given her position, & that of supporting the strike, her litter picking antics on Elm Grove were seen as undermining, & consequently went down badly with certain people. Me included.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> That's what Caroline Lucas claims she was doing; picking up used nappies and broken glass near where she lives. Yet she's accused of being a scab.
> 
> Just saying, I've got some sympathy for her.
> 
> Unlike that Kitkat div.


 

She didn't say it was near where she lived in her statement. She, in fact, argued that she could and should be doing it anywhere she liked as she in the MP.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> tbh though, I doubt the wisdom of that attitude from the strike committee. Forcing the city to wallow in their own shit, and objecting to them voluntarily clearing up the worst of it is a pretty shit way of maintaining public support for your strike IMO.
> 
> Certainly a high risk strategy.


 
How else are people there able to press their demands then?
By welcoming middle-class strikebreakers doing the work instead, allowing the Council to last out longer?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> hmm. depends a bit where they are tbh - I know groups such as friends of parks groups and similar who do regular voluntary litter picks of parks / dog walkers who do a bit of litter picking on their walks etc, and can easily see the justification for them to not want to let the strike result in the park / area they regularly litter pick ending up a proper shit heap because the bins are overflowing.


 
City Park workers were working as normal, litter picking & emptying bins & dog waste bins in parks. City Clean don't cover parks.


----------



## Spandex (Jun 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> She didn't say it was near where she lived in her statement. She in fact argued that she could and should be doing it anywhere she liked as she in the MP.


You're right.

I guess just seeing the venom directed at some people cleaning up litter, I felt attacked cos I'd done the same. As I say, for me scab is a harsh insult.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> I guess just seeing the venom directed at some people cleaning up litter, I felt attacked cos I'd done the same. As I say, for me scab is a harsh insult.


 
The difference being, most of the people litter picking initially, were totally against the strike. Arseholes basically.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 23, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> City Park workers were working as normal, litter picking & emptying bins & dog waste bins in parks. City Clean don't cover parks.


 
fair enough.

fwiw, the organisation I briefly worked for was approached to carry out proper strike breaking litter picking & bin collection services for a council while I was there. Boss was considering it seriously, I said fuck that, others said fuck that, pointed at the negative publicity etc and boss went from excited mode to realising that it'd be a massively divisive, counterproductive one off piece of work that'd probably lead to us losing good staff, and went totally against the organisations supposed principles. Can't remember who / where the strike was now though.

That IMO would be proper scabbing and well out of order, I'm just not convinced that having a pop at people for voluntarily cleaning up their areas is such a great idea. I do get that this is probably complicated by the Green Party also running the council, so there would be lots of cross over between GP members and those doing the clean ups etc but also, surely many of those would also be likely to be putting pressure on the green councillors internally to sort it out, something they're less likely to do favorably while being called scabs.

GP members and environmentalists generally care about the environment, and particularly their local environment - it's their thing, and they'll participate in community clean ups when it's needed regardless of the cause of that clean up being needed. Trying to stop them doing this because it conflicts with a strike, isn't a strategy that's likely to do anything other than infuriate them and turn them against the strike, whatever the justification for it. I might not know much about the exact situation, but I know a hell of a lot about the green mindset.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

Hence the GMB City Clean statement to locals & businesses that litter picking wasn't an issue - certainly on the beach (Sea Life Centre) where plastics impact massively on the marine ecosystem.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I do get that this is probably complicated by the Green Party also running the council, so there would be lots of cross over between GP members and those doing the clean ups etc but also, surely many of those would also be likely to be putting pressure on the green councillors internally to sort it out, something they're less likely to do favorably while being called scabs.


 
My suspicion is that it's entirely a Green Party operation based around Green Party members, activists and sympathisers.



> GP members and environmentalists generally care about the environment, and particularly their local environment - it's their thing, and they'll participate in community clean ups when it's needed regardless of the cause of that clean up being needed. Trying to stop them doing this because it conflicts with a strike, isn't a strategy that's likely to do anything other than infuriate them and turn them against the strike, whatever the justification for it. I might not know much about the exact situation, but I know a hell of a lot about the green mindset.


 
They should be stopped from doing it as far as possible. 
Doing community strikebreaking weakens bin strikes massively, it means employers can just sit and wait and not have to deal with any legal difficulty of bringing in strikebreaker  agencies, because an unpaid group is taking on the productive role of the strikers - and for no pay at all. 

Once we concede this, where next, community dinner workers and teaching assistants who can't children not accessing school during strikes? Community drivers running a few routes to replace bus drivers on strike, to help out the elderly? etc


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My suspicion is that it's entirely a Green Party operation based around Green Party members, activists and sympathisers.


 
The initial litter picking had no political agenda whatsoever - they were conducted by money making scammers.


----------



## Spandex (Jun 23, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The difference being, most of the people litter picking initially, were totally against the strike. Arseholes basically.





Mr.Bishie said:


> Hence the GMB City Clean statement to locals & businesses that litter picking wasn't an issue - certainly on the beach (Sea Life Centre) where plastics impact massively on the marine ecosystem.


See, I've no problem with the GMB or anything they've said or done, but some of the subtleties of their position gets lost when angry people start stomping around the internet shouting 'scab', and then those views get repeated and exagerated.

Anyway, you seem to be quite close to this strike, so good luck   Keep us updated; this thread is a better source of info than the Argus


----------



## sihhi (Jun 23, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The initial litter picking had no political agenda whatsoever - they were conducted by money making scammers.


 
There was a Haringey bin strike 2006 I think when the Labour Party did organise more for a publicity stunt psychological pressure some kind of pick up effort. 

I think winning the strike ASAP is crucial for the Green Party - they have to prove their credibility in the first Green Council to wider business.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 23, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Hence the GMB City Clean statement to locals & businesses that litter picking wasn't an issue - certainly on the beach (Sea Life Centre) where plastics impact massively on the marine ecosystem.


 
is there a different statement to this one linked to earlier in the thread?

That statement seems to fairly clearly say that litter picking is "actually the opposite of being supportive."


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> See, I've no problem with the GMB or anything they've said or done, but some of the subtleties of their position gets lost when angry people start stomping around the internet shouting 'scab', and then those views get repeated and exagerated.
> 
> Anyway, you seem to be quite close to this strike, so good luck  Keep us updated; this thread is a better source of info than the Argus


 
Totally agree. The scab word should be used carefully, & not bandied around to all & sundry.

According to the Anus, City Clean workers should get back to work, work harder, & for less money. The GMB in Brighton supported them on their picket a couple of years ago when they walked out. Fuck 'em now.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> is there a different statement to this one linked to earlier in the thread?
> 
> That statement seems to fairly clearly say that litter picking is "actually the opposite of being supportive."


 

it was reported in the Argus


> “Following several informal meetings between GMB and the Sea Life management team we have had full consent from the trade union to continue with what we are doing, as long as we don’t touch litter in the bins.


http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/busi...___Brighton_and_Hove_businesses_urged/?ref=mr


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> is there a different statement to this one linked to earlier in the thread?
> 
> That statement seems to fairly clearly say that litter picking is "actually the opposite of being supportive."


 
There was another GMB statement that went out to the Sea Life Centre - as they were the first to initiate litter picking on the seafront. It was agreed that the litter picking could continue & it was purely for ecological reasons & not undermining the strike.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 23, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Sorry to piss on your tirade, but the Greens didn't just propose budget cuts out of the blue. All councils have had cuts imposed on them by central government and all councils are having to cut hard. Just blaming the Greens lets Osbourne and Pickles and the other tory shitcunts in government off the hook. The Greens initally tried to avoid cuts by increasing council tax, which Labour and the tories joined forces to stop. Where they are shit is where they chose to target the cuts: at council workers. There's plenty wrong with the Greens, but try to keep criticism based in reality.
> 
> 
> I've seen Caroline Lucas accused of scabbing a few times in the past week, which surprised me, as she's solidy supported the strike and is generally a reasonable MP. So I had a look at what happened rather than just believe any old crap on the internet. She says:
> ...


 
Where did this apologist come from? Get off my thread


----------



## Tom A (Jun 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My suspicion is that it's entirely a Green Party operation based around Green Party members, activists and sympathisers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Also David Carmeron and co would just love to see paid workers being replaced by "Big Society" volunteers.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 24, 2013)

Shameless bump.

Around the time that the Astaurian (sp?) miners thing was going on I had a Green (and actually one of the better ones around here) telling me that the left was being wreckless in supporting them because the coal 'NEEDS TO STAY IN THE GROUND' - they wouldn't listen when I pointed out that this wasn't really about environmental protection and that without a reduction in demand all it would mean would be that it would be extracted elsewhere using cheaper labour.

I managed to embarrass him because I asked, I think on the peak oil thread, for our environmental experts to help me out and free spirit told me to ask why, if it's about environmental protection and not just plain austerity and attacks on living conditions, they removed all subsidies for renewables at the same time.

But it does illustrate what their priorities are - even the better ones.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jun 24, 2013)

I briefly remember being at a meeting in manchester around free public transport maybe 2008 or 2009 and I saw a green "eco-socialist" explain to a disabled woman why that wouldn't support cheap or free public transport on the basis that buses and train still produce co2 and we should be encouraging people to use bicycles instead of any co2 based public transport. She was on crutches btw.


----------



## stowpirate (Jun 24, 2013)

I don't know if anybody has noticed how many Green supporters live in large houses, drive around in expensive large cars, with a green party sign stuck at the bottom of their large front gardens? I should really start photographing these houses as it seems a tad hypocritical !


----------



## Tom A (Jun 24, 2013)

stowpirate said:


> I don't know if anybody has noticed how many Green supporters live in large houses, drive around in expensive large cars, with a green party sign stuck at the bottom of their large front gardens? I should really start photographing these houses as it seems a tad hipocritical !


Or, like George Galloway, have villas in warmer climes?


----------



## Spandex (Jun 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Where did this apologist come from? Get off my thread


I'm the apologist? I'm not the one falling for the Lib/Con trick of trying to pass the blame for cuts onto local councils. Better to be thought a green apologist than being a tory apologist 

Anyway, more in the spirit of the thread: I don't think anyone has mentioned the Brighton 20mph speed limit fiasco yet. The Green council, whilst looking for where to save money, decide to spend an estimated £1.5 million on signage for a blanket 20mph speed limit on all council controlled roads in central Brighton, including a dual carriage way and main through roads. This despite it being unenforcable, the police publically confiming it won't be enforced and everyone totally ignoring it. Nice one Greens


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 24, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Anyway, more in the spirit of the thread: I don't think anyone has mentioned the Brighton 20mph speed limit fiasco yet.


 
I did mention it in this thread - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/green-partys-unapologetic-socialist-broadcast.309262/ - but should deffo be here! 1.5 fucking million!


----------



## Spandex (Jun 24, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I did mention it in this thread - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/green-partys-unapologetic-socialist-broadcast.309262/ - but should deffo be here! 1.5 fucking million!


Nice one. Hard to keep up with all the 'Green Party are shit' threads at the moment


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 24, 2013)

Spandex said:


> I'm the apologist? I'm not the one falling for the Lib/Con trick of trying to pass the blame for cuts onto local councils. Better to be thought a green apologist than being a tory apologist


 
I prefer to blame the lot of them. You don't oppose cuts by voting them through. They're willing executioners and if they had any backbone they'd do more than just whine about how terrible it all is.

By making out they have no other options you're an apologist for spineless councils. I prefer to criticise the government _and _the councils that are willingly carrying out their dirty work.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 24, 2013)

http://www.liverpool47.org/


----------



## chilango (Jun 24, 2013)

Uh oh.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 24, 2013)

Tom A said:


> http://www.liverpool47.org/


 
Also Poplar and Clay Cross.

Interestingly, the legislation that allowed governments to surcharge these councils in the past no longer exists so the risks they'd be taking as individuals would in fact be smaller than those that went before.

I don't think this thread is really the place for a lengthy council needs budget debate though.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 24, 2013)

At the same time, the Brighton Greens could have seized the moment and done this, and bucked the trend among their European counterparts and really prove the were the alternative progressive party the UK had been waiting for all along, silencing the naysayers in the different Trot organisations forever.

Alas, it was not to be.


----------



## Spandex (Jun 24, 2013)

Tom A said:


> the Brighton Greens could have seized the moment and done this


They couldn't, y'know. Because:

1. they're a minority administration that couldn't even get a modest increase to council tax past the Lab+Con majority on the council when they tried;
2. they've got no political game playing skills;
3. they're not firebrand socialists and if you ever thought they would be you deserve to be disappointed;
4. they're shit.



SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think this thread is really the place for a lengthy council needs budget debate though.


Agree with this. I'll let you get back to chronicling and/or making up reasons the greens are shit now


----------



## Tom A (Jun 24, 2013)

Spandex said:


> 2. they've got no political game playing skills;
> 3. they're not firebrand socialists and if you ever thought they would be you deserve to be disappointed;
> 4. they're shit.


Yep, yep, and yep.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2013)

Spandex said:


> They couldn't, y'know. Because:
> 
> 1. they're a minority administration that couldn't even get a modest increase to council tax past the Lab+Con majority on the council when they tried;
> 2. they've got no political game playing skills;
> ...


 
What reasons have been made up?


----------



## Spandex (Jun 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What reasons have been made up?


That was a throwaway, hyperbolic comment, but the only reason I started posting on this thread is that I don't agree with this, which I've hopefully explain why:



Tom A said:


> they initially started proposing cuts budgets in Brighton a year ago and made some piss-poor excuses which could have come right out of Labour's playbook.


 
Also, I'm still not convinced that the Nazi's blood & soil bollocks being a bit environmental is _really_ a reason the green party is shit


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2013)

You haven't offered a political reason for them doing what they did they no - nor for your defence of them doing so.  That they did is part of the point of the thread. A defence that this is what they were always going to do is meaningless as it only addressed what you imagine were other peoples expectations - rather than what actually happened. And no one, as far as i can see is going _oh my hopes in the green firebrand socialists have been destroyed._ And even if they were that doesn't alter the green party being shit.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 24, 2013)

Spandex said:


> I'm the apologist? I'm not the one falling for the Lib/Con trick of trying to pass the blame for cuts onto local councils. Better to be thought a green apologist than being a tory apologist
> 
> Anyway, more in the spirit of the thread: I don't think anyone has mentioned the Brighton 20mph speed limit fiasco yet. The Green council, whilst looking for where to save money, decide to spend an estimated £1.5 million on signage for a blanket 20mph speed limit on all council controlled roads in central Brighton, including a dual carriage way and main through roads. This despite it being unenforcable, the police publically confiming it won't be enforced and everyone totally ignoring it. Nice one Greens


 
On a similar note, if anyone needs some points to raise re speed bumps and why they're a bad idea, a good starting point is the fact that they will usually more than double the fuel consumption and air pollution levels where they're installed, so can in no way be considered to be either environmentally friendly, or particularly good for childrens health other than in particularly bad accident black spots.

It might be different if they actually made speed bumps you could drive over at the speed limit, instead of those that need you to slow down to 10MPH in a 20MPh zone, resulting in people braking and accelerating etc. But at present, speed bumps lead to a significant increase in fuel consumption and air pollution (my old man wrote a published, monitored trial to demonstrate this, driving a monitored car over roads with speed bumps and no speed bumps at the 20 & 30MPH speed limits - it's on my to do list to get it uploaded to the web at some point).


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 24, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Also, I'm still not convinced that the Nazi's blood & soil bollocks being a bit environmental is _really_ a reason the green party is shit


Better ask melting pot about that


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 26, 2013)

Obvious excuse for a bump:

Posted by J Ed on the Laurie Penny thread:



J Ed said:


> Here's a bit of Crabapple-Penny-Harris style pornography as activism
> 
> 
> > A new documentary explores the lives of "Fuck for Forest," a group of Berlin-based neo-hippies determined to save the rainforests with a for-pay eco-porn site. It paints a sad picture of failed idealism -- but the group isn't taking the criticism lying down.
> ...


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Obvious excuse for a bump:
> 
> Posted by J Ed on the Laurie Penny thread:


Middle-class egotistical hipsters in patronising and insulting attempt to "befriend the natives" horror!


----------



## andysays (Jun 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Obvious excuse for a bump:
> 
> Posted by J Ed on the Laurie Penny thread:


 






Glad to see you're getting the hang of this green stuff Spiney


----------



## IC3D (Jun 26, 2013)

Have any other MPs called for nationalisation of the railways recently?


> In a Private Member’s Bill to be presented in Parliament, Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) will urge that England’s fragmented railway system be gradually brought back into public hands as franchises expire or companies break the terms of their franchise agreement.


http://www.carolinelucas.com/media....nds-to-save-a-billion-a-year,-urges-green-mp/


----------



## sihhi (Jun 26, 2013)

The result of 'capture the councils and run them efficiently' mentality

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/...-after-unique-housing-scheme-gets-green-light




> Officers from Brighton and Hove's Planning Committee who recommended approval said that the containers were an “imaginative and appropriate way to meet a very real need for affordable accommodation".
> 
> BHT's chief executive, Andy Winter, said: “Shipping containers are relatively cheap to provide and maintain. They are built to withstand ocean waves so they will last a long time.
> 
> “They’re airtight and the windows are double-glazed so heating bills are much lower than they would be in some traditional buildings.”


 
It's better than no housing at all obviously, but not committed to do what's really necessary.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 26, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Have any other MPs called for nationalisation of the railways recently?
> http://www.carolinelucas.com/media....nds-to-save-a-billion-a-year,-urges-green-mp/


 
There was a group of Labour MPs calling for it a bit back - think Miliband might have even hinted that he'd consider it - it's a relatively easy vote winner given that it's supported across the board by over 70% of the population if the polling is to be believed.

And John McDonnell definitely has, repeatedly.

And they've actually got a chance of power. They won't do it though, but then again neither will the Greens since they have no chance of power - and if they did it would be in a coalition so their rail plans would go the way of Lib Dem promises to abolish university tuition fees.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The result of 'capture the councils and run them efficiently' mentality
> 
> http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/...-after-unique-housing-scheme-gets-green-light
> 
> ...


 
I'm sure I read somewhere about a similar scheme somewhere in Holland. Only in that one these kinds of homes were to be a kind of punishment for antisocial types. Then again the Green Party see anyone working class as antisocial cos most of us don't eat organic and that so it kind of fits


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The result of 'capture the councils and run them efficiently' mentality
> 
> http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/...-after-unique-housing-scheme-gets-green-light
> 
> ...


There are some pretty nifty projects that can be build out of shipping containers, but the homeless and working class deserve more than what's proposed here. It's like asking them to live in Portakabins.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm sure I read somewhere about a similar scheme somewhere in Holland. Only in that one these kinds of homes were to be a kind of punishment for antisocial types. Then again the Green Party see anyone working class as antisocial cos most of us don't eat organic and that so it kind of fits


To be fair that applies to a lot of lifestyle activists who purport to be of the anarchist persuasion, particularly those who live in housing co-ops and work in worker's co-ops (which may or may not be that cooperative in reality).


----------



## sihhi (Jun 26, 2013)

Tom A said:


> There are some pretty nifty projects that can be build out of shipping containers, but the homeless and working class deserve more than what's proposed here. It's like asking them to live in Portakabins.


 
I agree it's not terrible wouldn't mind one at all, but the promises of "real council house building" different from the other parties are still not real.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I agree it's not terrible wouldn't mind one at all, but the promises of "real council house building" different from the other parties are still not real.


I bet they will be building loads of "eco-homes" for their middle-class constituents as well, when they should be using that principle and building housing for the masses.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 26, 2013)

Tom A said:


> To be fair that applies to a lot of lifestyle activists who purport to be of the anarchist persuasion, particularly those who live in housing co-ops and live in worker's co-ops (which may or may not be that cooperative in reality).


 
We should probably have a why crusties are shit thread but I can't be arsed/they're too insignificant.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 26, 2013)

Tom A said:


> There are some pretty nifty projects that can be build out of shipping containers, but the homeless and working class deserve more than what's proposed here. It's like asking them to live in Portakabins.


 
At the place where I served my time we had big shipping containers as workshops (one craftsman and one mate to a container) and as our tea room. It was perfect for that because in addition to being well insulated and long enough to work on 3 and 5m lengths of pipe our tools were safe cos they were almost impossible to get into if we locked them properly which was pretty important cos we were in a seriously dodgy area.

I can also confirm that they're very warm - I lived about 120 miles from where I was working so in order to be able to spend my accommodation expenses on riotous living I bought a cheap caravan and stopped in that. One winter night me and my mate went out on the lash and couldn't get back to the caravan site so we stopped the night in the workshop. It was miles better than my caravan, much warmer and the floor was almost as comfortable as my caravan't shit hardboard beds.

Joking apart I reckon 2 of the big ones would make up enough space for a really nice one bed flat and I'd definitely live in one.

But in the current climate isn't job creation almost as important a reason to start council house building schemes as the housing shortage itself? I assume the manufacture of containers doesn't take place in Brighton and even if it did there's no way it's as labour intensive as building proper houses.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The result of 'capture the councils and run them efficiently' mentality
> http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/...-after-unique-housing-scheme-gets-green-light
> It's better than no housing at all obviously, but not committed to do what's really necessary.


 

The Andy Winter referred to in the link was a one time leading light of the Labour left in Brighton; he is not best loved by many of the workers at Brighton Housing Trust (BHT) especially the dozen who are about to loose their jobs. I don't know what his salary is but I would be interested to see it as a percentage of the £500,000 shortfall he's blaming for the redundancies.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> We should probably have a why crusties are shit thread but I can't be arsed/they're too insignificant.


Crusties are more into squatting though.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 26, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The Andy Winter referred to in the link was a one time leading light of the Labour left in Brighton; he is not best loved by many of the workers at Brighton Housing Trust (BHT) especially the dozen who are about to loose their jobs. I don't know what his salary is but I would be interested to see it as a percentage of the £500,000 shortfall he's blaming for the redundancies.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I assume this is the guy:


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2013)

In my days in Lancaster (academic year 2006-7) I remember someone active in the university Labour Club (as in the Labour Party, not workingmen's club) who used to moan about then local Green Party leader John Whitelegg, saying he earned quite a lot of money and had a expensive house and car. At the time I was a staunch support of the Green Party (tempted to actually join them, and Green Left along with them) and saw such talk as a way to just score cheap points against them (the Labour acquaintance was very much of the "reclaim the Labour Party" sort).

Now I see it as evidence that they are out of touch with the working classes of whatever area they are standing in.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 27, 2013)

Tom A said:


> In my days in Lancaster (academic year 2006-7) I remember someone active in the university Labour Club (as in the Labour Party, not workingmen's club) who used to moan about then local Green Party leader John Whitelegg, saying he earned quite a lot of money and had a expensive house and car. At the time I was a staunch support of the Green Party (tempted to actually join them, and Green Left along with them) and saw such talk as a way to just score cheap points against them (the Labour acquaintance was very much of the "reclaim the Labour Party" sort).
> 
> Now I see it as evidence that they are out of touch with the working classes of whatever area they are standing in.


So completely unlike the leading lights of the Labour Party then? 

Yes I know this is meant to be a why the Greens are shit thread, but glass houses and all that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2013)

Tom A said:


> http://www.liverpool47.org/


 
That ended well


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2013)

Tom A said:


> I bet they will be building loads of "eco-homes" for their middle-class constituents as well, when they should be using that principle and building housing for the masses.


 
Cob houses for all!


----------



## Tom A (Jun 27, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That ended well


Well before their demise, they managed to do quite a lot of good stuff that the Brighton Greens could never do in a thousand years:



> Liverpool was the only council to secure extra funding from a Thatcher government wedded to the principles of monetarism espoused by the likes of economists Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek, whose monetarist model was also embraced by Chile's bloodthirsty dictator Augusto Pinochet with murderous consequences for the Chilean working class.
> This victory enabled the council to carry out its electoral programme, included the building of 5,000 houses, opening six new sports centres, creating 2,000 jobs and refusing to carry out £10 million worth of cuts which had been the legacy of the Liberal/Tory alliance which had ruled Liverpool for the previous 20 years, with a short interregnum of Labour rule.


 
Although it looks more likely than not the Brighton Greens are going to be crushed electorally soon anyway. At least the Liverpool 47 (and their comrades in Clay Cross) stood up and managed to implement what they believe in.



emanymton said:


> So completely unlike the leading lights of the Labour Party then?
> 
> Yes I know this is meant to be a why the Greens are shit thread, but glass houses and all that.


Well, yeah. Most of the time I was being accused of "knowing jackshit" about the Labour Party on a long-defunct message board (and later on, Facebook). While the Greens may be much less than cracked up to be, he and many of his "Labour Left" chums seem really out of touch with the political reality, wedded to realpolitik until death do them part.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Well before their demise, they managed to do quite a lot of good stuff that the Brighton Greens could never do in a thousand years:
> 
> 
> 
> Although it looks more likely than not the Brighton Greens are going to be crushed electorally soon anyway. At least the Liverpool 47 (and their comrades in Clay Cross) stood up and managed to implement what they believe in.


 
I agree with you on this mate but I think we should probably try and avoid a Liverpool council pros and cons debate - it's one that's been gone over hundreds of times on these boards and nobody on either side of it is likely to change their minds.

I think we should say that the Greens refusing to even contemplate breaking the law to stop the cuts demonstrates the fultility and shitness of their liberal approach and shows how easy it is for powerful interests to force them to back down on the basis of capitalist realism and that it strongly suggests that they'd demonstrate similar levels of cowardice in government and would betray everything they claim to stand for the minute there was any kind of resistance to what they wanted to do from either coalition partners or monied interests - something I think most of us can agree on regardless of what side of the Liverpool debate we find ourselves on - and leave it at that.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we should say that the Greens refusing to even contemplate breaking the law to stop the cuts demonstrates the fultility and shitness of their liberal approach and shows how easy it is for powerful interests to force them to back down on the basis of capitalist realism and that it strongly suggests that they'd demonstrate similar levels of cowardice in government and would betray everything they claim to stand for the minute there was any kind of resistance to what they wanted to do from either coalition partners or monied interests - something I think most of us can agree on regardless of what side of the Liverpool debate we find ourselves on - and leave it at that.



Hear, hear.


----------



## andysays (Jun 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> ...I think we should say that the Greens refusing to even contemplate breaking the law to stop the cuts demonstrates the fultility and shitness of their liberal approach and shows how easy it is for powerful interests to force them to back down on the basis of capitalist realism and that it strongly suggests that they'd demonstrate similar levels of cowardice in government and would betray everything they claim to stand for the minute there was any kind of resistance to what they wanted to do from either coalition partners or monied interests - something I think most of us can agree on regardless of what side of the Liverpool debate we find ourselves on - and leave it at that.


 
I agree with this too, but I think it probably belongs on the

Why liberal electoral politics is shit​ 
thread, rather than specifically on this one, if you see what I mean.


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Jun 27, 2013)

Let me tell you all as a man not on the left or right I just wouldn't vote for them. Never gonna happen.

The Green party will never get people like me (which is what they will need if they are to win an election).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2013)

Whether you would vote for them or not does not determine whether they are shit or not.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2013)

CharlieChaplin said:


> Let me tell you all as a man not on the left or right I just wouldn't vote for them. Never gonna happen.
> 
> The Green party will never get people like me (which is what they will need if they are to win an election).



You probably would like some sort of new party to vote for, eh?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> You probably would like some sort of new party to vote for, eh?


 
So what sort of a new party could attract voters who were neither "..on the left or right"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2013)

_The_ New Party. You know, the one from the 30s.


----------



## chilango (Jun 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _The_ New Party. You know, the one from the 30s.



Glad to see I'm not wasting my time here!


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _The_ New Party. You know, the one from the 30s.


 
Oh...right, that one.

FWIW, I literally bumped into his son the other day whist walking along High Holborn. Couteous apologies were exchanged.

Perhaps I should add that neither he, nor anyone with him, appeared to be wearing Nazi uniforms.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2013)

brogdale said:


> So what sort of a new party could attract voters who were neither "..on the left or right"?


 
A party of the radical centre, a party of action!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2013)

andysays said:


> I agree with this too, but I think it probably belongs on the
> 
> Why liberal electoral politics is shit​
> thread, rather than specifically on this one, if you see what I mean.


 
But since the Greens are committed to liberal electoral politics this most definitely is a reason why they're shit and therefore has a place on this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2013)

Fix potholes that effect councillors first say Green Party Councillors



> Potholes reported by councillors will be given priority for repairs under a proposed scheme.
> 
> Green party councillors at Essex County Council say better communication is needed to reduce the cost of repairing road defects and compensation.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fix potholes that effect councillors first say Green Party Councillors


 
Holey moly. When you're in that deep....


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2013)

brogdale said:


> So what sort of a new party could attract voters who were neither "..on the left or right"?


 
A radical party with the morals values of the right and the social consciousness of the left, concerned with restoring the national community's historical and spiritual links to nature and the wilderness. The organic link between the people and the land. The sort of party CharlieChaplin, Meltingpot and Falcon would be at home in.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fix potholes that effect councillors first say Green Party Councillors


 
http://glumcouncillors.tumblr.com/


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://glumcouncillors.tumblr.com/


----------



## 8ball (Jun 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://glumcouncillors.tumblr.com/


 
I work with a local Lib Dem councillor and am disappointed to see she has not been honoured on this site yet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whether you would vote for them or not does not determine whether they are shit or not.


 
Yes it does


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we should say that the Greens refusing to even contemplate breaking the law to stop the cuts demonstrates the fultility and shitness of their liberal approach and shows how easy it is for powerful interests to force them to back down on the basis of capitalist realism and that it strongly suggests that they'd demonstrate similar levels of cowardice in government and would betray everything they claim to stand for the minute there was any kind of resistance to what they wanted to do from either coalition partners or monied interests - something I think most of us can agree on regardless of what side of the Liverpool debate we find ourselves on - and leave it at that.


Precisely.

Has Brighton council even done anything like this?


> Leeds council has come up with a novel way of sidestepping the controversial bedroom tax: reclassifying more than 800 "spare" rooms in its social homes as "non-specific rooms".


 
While I would rather councils just outright reject the cuts at least it's some sort of interference (Although Leeds council are shit too of course, bin strike up there a couple of years ago).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

Didn't leeds greens join with the tories in a coalition?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fix potholes that effect councillors first say Green Party Councillors


Jesus the world these idiots live in.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2013)

As I got home from work today my neighbour was on the doorstep to tell me the bins had (at last) been collected, & ranting about Kitcat. 

"If that bloke ever knocks on my door, I'll knock the fucker out!" 

Such a shame Kitcat won't be leafleting on our estate


----------



## snadge (Jun 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://glumcouncillors.tumblr.com/


 
According to a forked tongued councillor on that blog, we have just had one of the worst winters in living memory, what garbage.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't leeds greens join with the tories in a coalition?


Yep, wanted to privatise Leeds-Bradford airport, I remember been told by a Greens supporter on here that this was a good thing.

I don't think they were in coalition at the time of the 2009 bin strikes, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't leeds greens join with the tories in a coalition?


Yes.



> Green councillors in Leeds were even part of a coalition with the Tories from 2004 until 2006. The last time I made this point in an article about a party it was about the Lib Dems during pre-election ‘Cleggmania’. I was told their local council coalitions with the Tories were a one-off and it would never happen nationally. Yeah.



http://leftunity.org/just-how-left-wing-is-the-green-party/


----------



## Tom A (Jun 28, 2013)

Back on the subject of Green Party being shit (pre Brighton) and it's well documented that Jenny Jones sided with then Met Police Commissioner Ian Blair over calls for him to step down in the wake of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and subsequently wanted the inquiry into phone hacking to be called off.

http://brightgreenscotland.org/inde...-the-police-investigation-into-phone-hacking/


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2013)

snadge said:


> According to a forked tongued councillor on that blog, we have just had one of the worst winters in living memory, what garbage.


They were referring to Winter 2009/10.


----------



## snadge (Jun 28, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> They were referring to Winter 2009/10.


 
Which was nowhere near the worst winters in living memory, winters in the 60's and 70's were savage as fuck, we have had nothing like that for the last 30 years, just because you get some snow in the South doesn't mean it's a bad winter.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2013)

snadge said:


> Which was nowhere near the worst winters in living memory, winters in the 60's and 70's were savage as fuck, we have had nothing like that for the last 30 years, just because you get some snow in the South doesn't mean it's a bad winter.





> The month was mostly unsettled, the first half being very cold with widespread snowfalls and some sharp frosts. After mid-month, temperatures rose to around normal before a return to colder conditions at month end. Overall, it was a very cold month with mean temperatures 2.5 to 3.0 °C below the 1971-2000 normal over England and Wales, and 2.0 to 2.5 °C below over most of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was the coldest January over the UK since 1987 and equal eighth-coldest in a series from 1910.


 
Source: Met Office


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

Is this defend the greens blog or something?


----------



## snadge (Jun 28, 2013)

Have you ever been snowed in DaveCinzano, 6ft drifts in the streets etc, there was none of that in 2009/10


----------



## snadge (Jun 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is this defend the greens blog or something?


 

seems like it, damn average statistics fooling the people etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 28, 2013)

This winter just gone was about the worst I can remember to be fair (in terms of temperature and length of the cold spells) and I'm in the north. But that green councilor is only saying it because further down the line he'll be suggesting that we burn the homes of poor people to lift the average temperature slightly so it doesn't really let them off IMO


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 28, 2013)

snadge said:


> Have you ever been snowed in DaveCinzano, 6ft drifts in the streets etc, there was none of that in 2009/10


 
There was where I lived at the time you effete cosmopolitan


----------



## snadge (Jun 28, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There was where I lived at the time you efete cosmopolitan


 

Pardon?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 28, 2013)

snadge said:


> Pardon?


 
He said there was where he lived at the time you effete cosmopolitan


----------



## snadge (Jun 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This winter just gone was about the worst I can remember to be fair (in terms of temperature and length of the cold spells) and I'm in the north. But that green councilor is only saying it because further down the line he'll be suggesting that we burn the homes of poor people to lift the average temperature slightly so it doesn't really let them off IMO


 
I'm also in the north and also remember the WHOLE country snowed in in the 70's.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 28, 2013)

snadge said:


> Pardon?


----------



## snadge (Jun 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> He said there was where he lived at the time you effete cosmopolitan


 
Wanker.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 28, 2013)

snadge said:


> I'm also in the north and also remember the WHOLE country snowed in in the 70's.


 
Read the post you just replied to again. I wasn't talking about snow.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 28, 2013)

snadge said:


> Wanker.


 
And it does me good like it bloody well should


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

It was the unburied dead


----------



## Tom A (Jul 1, 2013)

Twice today on Facebook (both on anti-benefit cuts pages) I saw the Green party being mentioned as a good alternative to the mainstream parties, without any critical thinking about them. Twice I brought up the spectre of Brighton. Twice I was told to read the Green Party manifesto.  Twice I was accused of 'ignorance' when I subsequently dismissed it as propaganda and not worth the paper it's printed on. In one case (in a thread that was sadly deleted because the mods don't like "heated arguments" on that particular page) someone liked to Jason Kitcat's website as part of his counter-argument (someone who is vastly disliked even from within his own party).  I also got the usual apologist bilge about how the Green council have saved more services in Brighton than any other council, and how it was all the Tories' fault anyway, and the issue of the refuse workers is all about equalising the pay of the genders.

I've heard similar bull from the mouths of "Labour left" apologists in the past.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 1, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Twice today on Facebook (both on anti-benefit cuts pages) I saw the Green party being mentioned as a good alternative to the mainstream parties, without any critical thinking about them. Twice I brought up the spectre of Brighton. Twice I was told to read the Green Party manifesto.  Twice I was accused of 'ignorance' when I subsequently dismissed it as propaganda and not worth the paper it's printed on. In one case (in a thread that was sadly deleted because the mods don't like "heated arguments" on that particular page) someone liked to Jason Kitcat's website as part of his counter-argument (someone who is vastly disliked even from within his own party).  I also got the usual apologist bilge about how the Green council have saved more services in Brighton than any other council, and how it was all the Tories' fault anyway, and the issue of the refuse workers is all about equalising the pay of the genders.
> 
> I've heard similar bull from the mouths of "Labour left" apologists in the past.


 
Lib Dems innit


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2013)

Their prominent members Jenny Jones and Caroline Lucas are signatories to this rubbish idea:

http://action.compassonline.org.uk/page/s/public-interest

"The current press and political scandal is not an isolated event. It’s the third crisis in quick succession. First, the bankers and their bonuses, then some politicians and their expenses and now there is the press, profiting from peoples’ pain, grief and private lives.

If public organisations and citizens are vigilant, that elite won’t be able to get away with it again. With the right checks and balances we can put the public interest back into the heart of the system.

To work out how to do it we call for a new Public Jury for the British public interest to propose reforms of banking, politics, media and the police. The Jury would be made up of 1,000 citizens drawn as a random sample of the electorate.

The Jury will be funded out of the public purse, with a paid secretariat with the resources to commission research and call witnesses. It will have the power to require attendance where persons will be asked by the public to explain themselves. Reporting within a year of its launch the convention will study and report on:

Media ownership and the public interest
The role of the financial sector in the crash
MP selections and accountability
Policing and public interest
How to apply a ‘public interest first’ test more generally to British political and corporate life"


----------



## Tom A (Jul 2, 2013)

That sounds quite wanky liberal reformist, but don't see anything too scary in that, other than raising false conciousness and distracting people from more effective ideas.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2013)

> If public organisations and citizens are vigilant, that elite won’t be able to get away with it again. With the right checks and balances we can put the public interest back into the heart of the system.


 
wonderfully naive


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 3, 2013)

What we need here is more _public debate_. And a proper _report_.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 3, 2013)

I think we've established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Green Party is shit. But I won't rest until we get to at least 50 pages


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 12, 2013)

Labour have taken the councillor seat in the Green stronghold of Hanover by just 38 votes but with a 12% swing.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1054...you__following_shock_by_election_win/?ref=rss


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2013)

Lucas can wave bye bye to that seat in 2015 - i think she would have been on her way without the ongoing green fuck-ups though because of the national picture. And thus ends the greens nationally for another 20 years. Here's the full result - nice to see a green--> UKIP swing of the same size as well:

Lab 1,396 (39.8; +8.8)
Green 1,358 (38.7; -14.6)
Con 275 (7.8; -1.5)
UKIP 250 (7.1; +7.1)
TUSC 172 (4.9; +2.0)
LD Lev Eakins 56 (1.6; -1.9)
Majority 38
Turnout 29.1%


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

TUSC getting more than double the vote of the LD man. Strange days


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> TUSC getting more than double the vote of the LD man.


Or, in common parlance, 'more than three times the vote of the LD man'.

(I did just check it was a LD man and not a LD woman and was greeted with this...)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Or, in common parlance, 'more than three times the vote of the LD man'.
> 
> (I did just check it was a LD man and not a LD woman and was greeted with this...)
> 
> View attachment 36187


 
three times 56 is more than 172. What am I missing here. Despite the usual things like brain etc?


oh wait I just did the sums properly with a pen and I now feel foolish.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> three times 56 is more than 172. What am I missing here. Despite the usual things like brain etc?


3 x 56 = 168.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> three times 56 is more than 172. What am I missing here. Despite the usual things like brain etc?


Might want to check your maths again  there 

But yes another breakthrough result for TUSC, exciting times indeed.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2013)

it's something to build on


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Might want to check your maths again there
> 
> But yes another breakthrough result for TUSC, exciting times indeed.


 
see edit. I failed GCSE maths quite badly


but surely the ivory pointed spear of trot-union lashup tusc is mere months away from spearing the mad dog of capitalism


----------



## Tom A (Jul 12, 2013)

TUSC are still some way away from actually threatening to _win_ seats though...


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we've established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Green Party is shit. But I won't rest until we get to at least 50 pages


 
what about an online petition? that would learn em...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> it's something to build on


 

Like a disused carpark or a condemned home for the criminally insane


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> wonderfully naive


 
if people are nice and stop doing nasty things, the world will be nice and there will be no nasty things...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> if people are nice and stop doing nasty things, the world will be nice and there will be no nasty things...


 

I'm pushing flowers down gun barrels right now in order to verify this thesis


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 12, 2013)

I think micheal jackson said it best when he said " _if you wanna make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a chaanngee....._"

and there are plenty things that we CAN do, there is no need to be apathetic - we need to stop this corrosive cynicism
for instance we can:
- go vegan
- recycle more
- perform random acts of kindness
- challenge alienation by smiling at passer -byes
- help old ladies cross the road (its all about community innit)
- economise by making own meals from scratch - why eat ready meals with your benefits when you can cook your own??!!? far healthier and better for the world.
-encourange fair trade in your community by involving people in boycott campaigns. we have power man, its called consumer soverignty. This is how we break the unfair capital-labour relationship.
- encourage good vibes...

the good thing about this list is that it is open, you can all add your own suggestions that is suitable for YOUR LIFE, we can all be part of THE CHANGE in our OWN WAYS....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

POST THIS AS UR STATUS IF U AGREE!!!


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 12, 2013)

my narcissim would prefer it if people 'liked' it if they agreed...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> I think micheal jackson said it best when he said " _if you wanna make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a chaanngee....._"
> 
> and there are plenty things that we CAN do, there is no need to be apathetic - we need to stop this corrosive cynicism
> for instance we can:
> ...


 
Ya fucken hippy!


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 12, 2013)

theres a fucking website for 'random acts of kindness'
http://www.randomactsofkindness.org/

if someone tried a random act of kindness on me - id 'ave em...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2013)

is that that "free hugs" shite?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 12, 2013)

think so... the worst hippish thing i came across was when i got asked to put up a poster in a place i worked at advertising 'laughter workshops' to which i replied 'you must be having a laugh....'


(actually i didn't say that im afraid - no wit)

ETA this was the mob..

http://www.joyworks.co.uk/public-events/


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2013)

laughter workshops?? 

no, just no


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 12, 2013)




----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> POST THIS AS UR STATUS IF U AGREE!!!


 
I was going to post a moving .gif of the fascinating human phenomenon of reverse peristalsis in response to this one, but perhaps that is better left to the imagination.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 12, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


>



We need a hate it button.


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> I was going to post a moving .gif of the fascinating human phenomenon of reverse peristalsis in response to this one, but perhaps that is better left to the imagination.


 
"fucking idris and his imaginary gifs"​


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2013)

andysays said:


> "fucking idris and his imaginary gifs"​









NEW LOW


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> NEW LOW


 
OK, you bastard, you win.

Your real gifs are worse than your imaginary ones


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> is that that "free hugs" shite?


 
I'm a sucker for the free hugs - it's not that I actually want one but I'd feel like I was insulting the well meaning idiot offering them if I didn't so I always end up saying yes. I'm just too fucking nice me


----------



## emanymton (Jul 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> I'm a sucker for the free hugs - it's not that I actually want one but I'd feel like I was insulting the well meaning idiot offering them if I didn't so I always end up saying yes. I'm just too fucking nice me


No one has ever offered me a free hug.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No one has ever offered me a free hug.


 
(((emanymton)))

fiver please.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jul 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ya fucken hippy!


 

Personally when making the world a better place rather than micheal jackson i would go with MOTORHEAD and "Eat The Rich"


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No one has ever offered me a free hug.


Gromit


----------



## emanymton (Jul 13, 2013)

free spirit said:


> (((emanymton)))
> 
> fiver please.


I'll put in in the post, but there will be a £5 charge for handling and postage.


----------



## Tom A (Jul 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> is that that "free hugs" shite?


 
People who offer free hugs are likely to get a free displaying of the middle finger from me, whether or not they requested it.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 13, 2013)

youse are all so heavy mannnn. its a beautiful day, get out there and do some sun salutations!!!

eta this will cheer y'all up


----------



## Firky (Jul 16, 2013)

Green Councillor Tony Mabbott found guilty of punching a woman he called a 'rude bitch' to the ground.








Article:



> A former Milton Keynes councillor has been found guilty of smacking and punching a woman in the face.


 
http://www.mkweb.co.uk/News/Ex-councillor-guilty-of-punching-woman-he-called-rude-bitch.htm

Nicked this off Newcastle Solfed:



> All this week, all day long, the cleaners in the new union on campus (the IWGB) and supporters are holding a stall outside Senate House, handing out flyers, biscuits and coffee, encouraging people to support the campaign and come to the protest next Wednesday to support their demands. On the first day, management came out and threatened to call the police unless a student stop flyering in the car park. The students called his bluff though, so all fine. Day three: UNISON turn up with a stall of their own! They did a full one hour! (well done UNISON, there's the spirit) but the bureaucrat on the stall also found the time to go and harass the workers at the other stall about being in the wrong union, and also, again, for being 'lazy'. This is, of course, Tony Mabbott, the same guy I posted about a couple of weeks ago, when I confronted him about handing out flyers telling people not to join the IWGB, and then proceeded to go on a tirade of abuse against the militants cleaners calling them 'lazy' and 'ignorant'. What a foul man - and it turns out, not only racist, but also a violent misogynist. Share away: this is the guy who UNISON is employing to try and break the cleaners' campaign:


----------



## Tom A (Jul 17, 2013)

That reminds me, a Nuneaton and Bedworth Green candidate was, not that long ago, found to have shared a racist joke on Facebook.

That was deleted (hence the link to Pastebin), however he was called out on Twitter over this, and made no attempt to apologise or deny sharing the 'joke':


----------



## Firky (Jul 17, 2013)

I don't know what Tony Mabbott said for SolFed to label him racist but he sounsd like a nasty piece of work.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2013)

Tom A said:


> That reminds me, a Nuneaton and Bedworth Green candidate was, not that long ago, found to have shared a racist joke on Facebook.
> 
> That was deleted (hence the link to Pastebin), however he was called out on Twitter over this, and made no attempt to apologise or deny sharing the 'joke':


 

I've just seen the joke. Fucking horrible racist classist shit.


----------



## Tom A (Jul 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've just seen the joke. Fucking horrible racist classist shit.


 
Yup.  So much for the Green Party being a party of "real progress" for "ordinary people".


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Yup.  So much for the Green Party being a party of "real progress" for "ordinary people".


 

Beyond left and right.


----------



## Tom A (Jul 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Beyond left and right.


 
I, for my sins, used to consider myself that, considering "left" and "right" meaningless terms in this age. But that is usually used to put a nice veneer on liberal reformism. Also a lot of far-right groups will say they are "beyond left and right".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Yup.  So much for the Green Party being a party of "real progress" for "ordinary people".


 
The party for ordinary  racists who are green too. I wonder how much of their members are active. Anyone here with party experience?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2013)

Tom A said:


> I, for my sins, used to consider myself that, considering "left" and "right" meaningless terms in this age. But that is usually used to put a nice veneer on liberal reformism. Also a lot of far-right groups will say they are "beyond left and right".


 

which is funny when falange says his party are the new third choice in british politics


----------



## sihhi (Jul 18, 2013)

Current Reality: British Greens small.

Q: What do you want to do? What do you see happening in future?
A: We want to gain more votes and more MPs perhaps transform the parliamentary election system.

Aspired Reality: British Greens to be the size of German Greens.

Current state of larger German Greens: looking to form coalition with CDU - the anti-immigrant Tories



> In April 2013, one poll suggested that 54 per cent of Green voters would back a Federal coalition with the CDU this September, while 64 per cent of CDU voters would be happy with a Black–Green government in Berlin. [30] Cohn-Bendit told Bild (25 April 2013) that a CDU–Green alliance would be a ‘realistic option'


 
Can anyone sane can welcome the growth of Greens? Green Party = greenwashed Lib Dems.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 18, 2013)

After spending 4 days in the last week chopping down bramble bushes and cutting my arms to shit and almost certainly getting an infection in one of my elbows I have decided that in addition to not liking the Greens I am now a fully paid up anti-environmentalist. Chop down fucking everything and concrete over the entire world


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Current Reality: British Greens small.
> 
> Q: What do you want to do? What do you see happening in future?
> A: We want to gain more votes and more MPs perhaps transform the parliamentary election system.
> ...


 
The German greens have a really interesting history of this, and you're absolutely right the British Green party would behave no differently should they get to a similar size. They still pull votes away from the left too, as there's a left-wing green faction subordinated in the green, and they campaign on a much more left-wing basis in SPD area's than they do in CDU ones. Total opportunists they do the same here. I was reading a load of articles recently about how the Greens moved to the right in the 80's and the far-right Green stuff (which has a unique history in Germany) but I'll have to go searching for them later tonight/tomorrow coz I'm off out in a bit.

The German Greens are currently polling around 14% in Germany. The CDU is on 40%+ and Merkel is looking like Thatcher did in the 80's in terms of being able to consistently pull in 40% at every election. SDP floundering on 23% and Die Linke, after their vote collapsed awfully a few years back, are back up to 7-8% although very unlikely to go above 10% any point in the future or take part in any coalition govt.


----------



## rekil (Jul 18, 2013)

David Irving's Germany ban is up and he's doing a gig in Berlin in September - €91 a ticket! A green party geezer is taking credit for getting the hotel association to boycott him. Probably some sort of trick.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130716-50879.html


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The party for ordinary  racists who are green too. I wonder how much of their members are active. Anyone here with party experience?



Very few. My experience was that the vast majority of members view membership rather like they view supporting Friends of the Earth or their local orthological society; you pay subs, read the magazine, sign the odd petition but do sod all else. That isn't to say that there aren't notable exceptions but this, allied to a central political leadership who utterly dismiss and devalue campaigning and you have local parties who in the main only do electioneering and nothing else. There's very little political discussion either. The structure of the greens also means local parties are very independent, plus there's no attempt from the party to engage them politically or strategically so you get lots of local members who haven't got a clue about the manifesto. The right of the party loves that beyond left and right shit, ime most members are left wing if not exactly revolutionaries. It's no surprise though that in this apolitical milieu it's the usual bourgeois fucks who get elected just like all the other parties.

Eta -  not that much that I describe isn't true of party memberships in general I suspect.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 19, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Eta - not that much that I describe isn't true of party memberships in general I suspect.


Which is precisely the problem, they are no different.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2013)

I wonder if the pallying up with racists is done in the name of "coming to a mutual understanding" or "finding common ground".


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jul 19, 2013)

So the Greens seem to be developing similar traits to the liblabcon party and there was me thinking they might have been a worthwhile alternative to the liblabcon party but it is becoming clear that if the greens got a worthwhile number of mp's the greens would be no different


----------



## rover07 (Jul 19, 2013)

The Green Party are the only ones worth voting for at the moment. More left wing than Labour that's for sure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2013)

I've had shits more left wing than the green party


----------



## Tom A (Jul 19, 2013)

Used to be a full-on Green sympathiser who strongly considered properly joining them. Left uni, continued to vote Green (other than to vote Lib Dem in 2010 generals, still voted Green for the councils ), the realised how much a manifesto is potentially not worth the hard disk space its stored onto. Still was sympathetic to the Greens but was more cautious, especially after the ConDems drove home to me the true meaning of the term "class war", and subsequently reradicalised me. The Brighton betrayal of last year was the final straw, it's [insert most viable socialist alternative] or a spoilt ballot from there on.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2013)

rover07 said:


> The Green Party are the only ones worth voting for at the moment. More left wing than Labour that's for sure.


Try telling that to the CityClean workers in Brighton.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 7, 2013)

Saw the why the lib dems are shit thread back on the front page and got jealous - now the Lib Dems have exposed themselves as the yellow Tories we all knew they were (well, most of us anyway) the Greens are the real enemy as they're the new home for sandal wearing crypto-Tory hippy types who'll pretend to be all nice then when you're not looking enact legislation for the compulsory sterilisation of anyone who's not a vegan with a hybrid car and their own yoghurt fueled biotech heating system. 

So in order to bump the thread without it looking too gratuitous I have two pieces of green party shitness to report on:

1) Green based I think in Rotherham defended Sheffield Greens actions that could easily have resulted in Sheffield Wednesday going bust, killing off one of the few remaining opportunities for working class people to get a bit of culture and recreation in the city by claiming that football was simply a tool wielded by the ruling class to divert the attention of working class 'sheep' away from the political issues that really matter (and in the process ignoring the invaluable contributions made by football fans, both as individuals and groups, in radical and antifascist politics). Football fans are all either apolitical or reactionary so we need to be prevented from watching it by our betters so we can wake up. Or something. (The issue in question was the proposed redevlopment of the club's training ground, at a time when it could easily have gone bust - in fact it was within hours of doing exactly that before Mandaric stepped in - because they wanted to preserve the 'green space'. Not a problem if they proposed a viable alternative strategy for saving the club but most local Greens either didn't care about the club or appeared to think its death would be positive). 

2) Same bloke arguing for state directed population controls. People who 'can't support' children prevented from having them and a one child policy for everyone else - except those with 'very high aptitude' who should be encouraged to breed as they're the ones who will have the ideas that save the world or something.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> 2) Same bloke arguing for state directed population controls. People who 'can't support' children prevented from having them and a one child policy for everyone else - except those with 'very high aptitude' who should be encouraged to breed as they're the ones who will have the ideas that save the world or something.



Have you got a link for the second?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Have you got a link for the second?



I'm afraid not - it was comments on a friend's facebook status so unless you're friends with him you won't be able to see it. It's not official Green Party policy as far as I know (not yet anyway!)


----------



## rover07 (Sep 7, 2013)

So the millionaire shareholders, who bankrupted Sheffield Wednesday, didn't need to concrete over the local playing fields after all. 

Instead they sold the club to another millionaire, writing off their debts and unpaid tax. 

But yeah it's all the Green Party's fault for er... what exactly?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> So the millionaire shareholders, who bankrupted Sheffield Wednesday, didn't need to concrete over the local playing fields after all.
> 
> Instead they sold the club to another millionaire, writing off their debts and unpaid tax.
> 
> But yeah it's all the Green Party's fault for er... what exactly?



Yes, that's a really insightful comment. Pillock.

They blocked the sale of the training ground - and at the time to the best of their and everyone else's knowledge this was the only way the club could be saved. As far as they knew they were killing the club and they were quite happy to do that. If they'd proposed an alternative way of saving the club I'd have been all for it but they didn't. They appeared to be quite keen on the idea of it dying - after all people who go to Hillsborough don't tend to wear sandals and eat humus. That the owners then and now are and were a set of cunts is obvious to all and not really relevant. Sheffield has more green space than any other big city in the country and unlike the training ground most of it is free for all to access - what precisely would the environmental impact have been? 

Besides which, the criticism in the post you're replying to is of a member claiming the death of the club would be a good thing as it would force the stupid sheeple proles to wake up maan.

I suggest you go back to masturbating over clean energy snake oil.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 7, 2013)

You sound like a right mug. Of course they are going to tell you that's the only way to save the club.

Except it wasn't. Thankfully the working class Green Councillors put the interests of the Club before the millionaire owners.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> You sound like a right mug. Of course they are going to tell you that's the only way to save the club.
> 
> Except it wasn't. Thankfully the working class Green Councillors put the interests of the Club before the millionaire owners.



Working class green councilors?  Have you met the two Sheffield Green councilors? Obviously not!

You don't know anything about this do you? The club was within hours if not minutes of going under. Court appearances, dealines not met - it was only the leniency of a sympathetic judge that stopped it actually happening. It was not a bluff.

And I see you still refuse to engage with the substance of the post, which centred around Greens thinking the death of the club was a positive thing - because they know what's good for us.

Explain this for me - how were these working class (LOL) Green councilors putting the interests of the club before the millionaire owners? How does preventing the sale of the training ground, freeing up funds to pay debts - including the tax bill - and develop a more modern training ground - help the club? Especially as the biggest stakeholder (who I won't name as he has a tendency to be letigious - once tried to sue a set of fans for calling him 'dumb') had special guarantees on his investment.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> Thankfully the working class Green Councillors



lol


----------



## rover07 (Sep 7, 2013)

The training ground isn't owned by the Club. It's leased from Sheffield City Council.

In other words the millionaire owners wanted the people of Sheffield to sell off Council land to Asda and a property developer to pay the debts of these millionaires.

The Green and Labour councillors told them where to go.

As for bankruptcy and last minute deals, that's how the game is played to negotiate a good deal.

And they got a good deal, £23m out of £30m debt and unpaid tax written off. The outgoing shareholders recieving millions in compensation plus the promise of full payment when the Club starts to make a profit.

I imagine your millionaire friends toasted themselves with plenty of champagne that day.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 7, 2013)

rover07 said:


> The training ground isn't owned by the Club. It's leased from Sheffield City Council.
> 
> In other words the millionaire owners wanted the people of Sheffield to sell off Council land to Asda and a property developer to pay the debts of these millionaires.
> 
> ...




Utterly bizarre. What planet are you on? None of this is true. The facilities belonged to the club. They wanted planning permission, not a transfer of ownership. It was for a housing development, not Asda ffs. The debts were the club's and not the owners. The outgoing board members got the same as the co-op bank - the equivalent to what they'd have got had the club gone bankrupt and that's all they'll get until the club starts turning a profit - which it never will - pretty much every club in the country operates at a loss. I don't give a fuck about the millionaire owners - I do give a fuck about my football club though and the greens were more than happy to see it die.

And as I said before, this wasn't about last minute deals - had the courts operated as they usually do the club would have gone bankrupt well before Mandaric came on the scene - it was only the leniency of a sympathetic judge that saved them.

So why don't you go away and come back when you have a clue what you're on about.

Now I suspect the man who believes we'll soon be driving around in electric cars charged up by solar panels on our garage roofs will again ignore the facts of the case, which contradict the bizarre line he appears to be getting fed by some green party hack (we had all this at the time too and it was laughable then) and make further comical non-arguments.

I also expect the snake oil consuming loon to once again ignore the fact that I'm talking here about a green who openly said he thought the death of the club would be a good thing as it would prevent us having our consciousness distorted by reactionary competitive sports.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Now I suspect the man who believes we'll soon be driving around in electric cars charged up by solar panels on our garage roofs will again ignore the facts of the case, .


 and this....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 7, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> if people are nice and stop doing nasty things, the world will be nice and there will be no nasty things...





> The people in power will not disappear voluntarily, giving flowers to the cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window.
> 
> William S. Burroughs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Saw the why the lib dems are shit thread back on the front page and got jealous - now the Lib Dems have exposed themselves as the yellow Tories we all knew they were (well, most of us anyway) the Greens are the real enemy as they're the new home for sandal wearing crypto-Tory hippy types who'll pretend to be all nice then when you're not looking enact legislation for the compulsory sterilisation of anyone who's not a vegan with a hybrid car and their own yoghurt fueled biotech heating system.
> 
> So in order to bump the thread without it looking too gratuitous I have two pieces of green party shitness to report on:
> 
> ...



A lot of Greens rely on simplistic Galtonian "solutions" for the supposed gap between resource demand over supply, never bothering to go down the route of calculating the effects of better resource-distribution.  They're not closet or crypto-Tories, they're many of them full-on rightists.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 8, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> and this....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 8, 2013)

A lot of Greens are a bit shit politically, but I think it's important not to drift from recognising that (and perhaps also recognising that _some _of what's presented by the media as environmental science and engineering is dodgy for a variety of reasons) through to dismissing the substantial body of environmental science and engineering which _is_ well founded.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> 2) Same bloke arguing for state directed population controls. People who 'can't support' children prevented from having them and a one child policy for everyone else - except those with 'very high aptitude' who should be encouraged to breed as they're the ones who will have the ideas that save the world or something.


Wait, what?! 

I need to go bleach my brain now... You can't unread what has already been read


----------



## elbows (Sep 14, 2013)

Yuck:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-natalie-bennett-party-pleasant-green-field



> Green leader Natalie Bennett paints her party as a "pleasant green field in which we can all pass the ball between each other".
> 
> Delegates at the autumn conference in Brighton certainly began by living up to this tree-hugging, hand-holding image as it all kicked off with a minute of silent "attunement" for reflection.





> While the Tories tore themselves apart over Europe and Labour takes on the unions, the Greens have been fighting like rats in a black plastic sack over waste collection in their stronghold of Brighton.





> It is not the only dispute to rock the party. A Green party committee warns in its conference report that there is a "culture of bullying in many areas of the party and at all levels, which is our collective duty to address and eliminate". It talks of "a number of very difficult disputes to deal with, resulting in some expulsions". The most high-profile case was the sacking of a Christian Green councillor, again in Brighton, for refusing to back gay marriage last year.
> 
> There also appears to be a deep ideological split between the "watermelons", red on the inside with a soft spot for Labour, and the "mangoes", yellow on the inside who are more partial to liberal politics.





> Bennett utterly dismisses Nigel Farage, saying that waving a pint and a cigarette will not make him a serious leader. But at the same time, Green members can attend a talk on Saturday about "how to break into mass popular awareness as Ukip has done".
> 
> There are perhaps more similarities than either side would like to admit − a membership of protest voters, an anti-establishment vein, a proudly amateur streak, a certain nostalgia for simpler times, and of course, the inner turmoil.



As usual for mainstream press attention towards the Greens, there is no attempt to look at their actual policies.


----------



## elbows (Sep 14, 2013)

Tom A said:


> That reminds me, a Nuneaton and Bedworth Green candidate was, not that long ago, found to have shared a racist joke on Facebook.
> 
> That was deleted (hence the link to Pastebin), however he was called out on Twitter over this, and made no attempt to apologise or deny sharing the 'joke':



Missed this completely. Pretty sure he was the candidate in my council ward, which has a large muslim population, at the last local election.

He is a sales manager at a solar panel company, and this is what I said about his election leaflet earlier this year:



> Apart from some green issues his focus is on 20MPH speed limits for the area, upgrading CCTV and incentivising the neighbourhood watch scheme.
> 
> Neighbourhood Watch! : Should the council incentivise this scheme like they do in some European countries? Reduction in Council tax for members and a bonus for valuable information!



And the results in the ward were:



> TUSC got 29, compared to 28 some independent bloke I know nothing about, 87 BNP, 162 Green, 165 ex-Labour bloke who got kicked out of the party for allegedly shouting aggressively at another party member, 252 Tory, and 1133 Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

Scab-labour local service cutting Jason kitcat is now head of Local Govt for the Greens. His election to this post presumably indicates the parties satisfaction with his scab-labour actions and their desire to extend such actions to other areas in which they have influence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Scab-labour local service cutting Jason kitcat is now head of Local Govt for the Greens. His election to this post presumably indicates the parties satisfaction with his scab-labour actions and their desire to extend such actions to other areas in which they have influence.



Bristol's Rob Telford, now the Greens' national spokesman on 'Parliamentary Reform', will no doubt be making strong representations on such matters in due course, given how much of a man-o-the-people he is.



> He also serves as the Green whip on the Council, but he doesn’t believe in using it



Ah yes - the strong, silent type. Anyway, bit difficult to whip in two other people and your party boss.

PS Does DotCommunist have anything interesting on Tony Clarke?

http://greenparty.org.uk/people/spokespeople.html#Parliamentary


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 5, 2013)

No, maybe ask Balbi

I had thought he was the one banned from driving for being a speeding freak but on looking thats Binley


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 5, 2013)

> He was also a Special Constable with Northamptonshire Police



An ex hobby bobby, wicked.

also apparently was general manager and director for the Cobblers for over a decade LOL


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Scab-labour local service cutting Jason kitcat is now head of Local Govt for the Greens. His election to this post presumably indicates the parties satisfaction with his scab-labour actions and their desire to extend such actions to other areas in which they have influence.



How can kitkat be a real name


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How can kitkat be a real name


It's not, his name is Kitcat, which whilst by no means necessarily common, is not that rare a surname in anglophone countries.


----------



## Gerry1time (Oct 5, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Bristol's Rob Telford, now the Greens' national spokesman on 'Parliamentary Reform'



Good grief.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 5, 2013)

Gerry1time said:


> Good grief.


Judging by the number of 'national spokespersons' listed on that page, they appear to have developed a policy of 'one member, one portfolio'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How can kitkat be a real name




one hopes that in a soviet russia meme style irony it is Kitcat that soon has the break


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2014)

*shameless bump*

Cross posted from the why the lib dems are shit thread - beaten by TUSC in the Arbourthorne by-election, Sheffield:



> *Arbourthorne on Sheffield (Lab Defence, last elected in 2012)*
> Result: Lab 1,398 (52% -15% on 2012), UKIP 482 (18% +2% on 2012), Con 213 (8% -1% on 2012), *TUSC 204 (8%, no candidate in 2012), Lib Dem 161 (6% -2%),* Green 143 (5%, no candidate in 2012), Eng Dems 75 (3%, no candidate in 2012)
> Labour HOLD with a majority of 916 (34%) on a swing of 8.5% from Lab to UKIP on a turnout of 20%


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> *shameless bump*
> 
> Cross posted from the why the lib dems are shit thread - beaten by TUSC in the Arbourthorne by-election, Sheffield:



That's not a bad result for TUSC that.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 6, 2014)

Brighton Greens & Tories have just voted in the go ahead for a £38 million Gov loan for the i360. Just their 4.25% council tax rise to go for the full Greenhouse.

Utter fucking cunts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 6, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Brighton Greens & Tories have just voted in the go ahead for a £38 million Gov loan for the i360. Just their 4.25% council tax rise to go for the full Greenhouse.
> 
> Utter fucking cunts.



what's the i360 mate?


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> what's the i360 mate?


looks great!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 6, 2014)

WTF is that? 

Has the Green Party's Posadist entrist faction taken over and built an antenna for communicating with aliens or something?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 6, 2014)

The yogurt weaving bohemian fucks (& their Tory chums) all need rounding up for a jolly good thrashing with nettles & thistles. Failing that, send all the fuckers up in the i360 for the debut lift, & RPG the fuckers.

38 MILLION FUCKIN' QUID!!!!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 6, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The yogurt weaving bohemian fucks (& their Tory chums) all need rounding up for a jolly good thrashing with nettles & thistles. Failing that, send all the fuckers up in the i360 for the debut lift, & RPG the fuckers.
> 
> 38 MILLION FUCKIN' QUID!!!!!



my local council done a budget that involves borrowing and then paying twice the 17m back. All for civic improvements etc but double bubble? who are they borrowing of, wonga ffs

/derail


----------



## Wilson (Mar 6, 2014)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 6, 2014)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 20, 2014)

Ashley ward's primus inter pares Green councillor (and ‘Assistant Mayor’ under George Ferguson) has had an image makeover - tweed & _Joe 90_ glasses! - which unfortunately has not been accompanied by cosmetic surgery to remove his vocal chords from his alimentary canal:



Forgot to say - it's all about plans to introduce a bunch of new byelaws that if adopted could - on pain of fines - be used to ban things like ball games, tree-climbing and barbecues from Bristol's parks (which coincidentally is Hoyt's own Cabinet portfolio).

George, having been sunning himself in Cannes at a property conference (at the expense of both Council Tax payers AND corporate lawyers Burges Salmon!) and so ignorant of what his own Cabinet was doing, saw which way the wind was blowing and withdrew the measure from Full Council the same day it was due to be voted on.

Gus then appeared on the telly news defending the byelaws, by claiming that they were just “the legislative formation we find ourselves in” and that when they say you can be fined £500 for booting a ball about, they don't _really_ mean that, and you might as well just ignore them...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 21, 2014)

I couldn't make head nor tail of this when i heard it on the radio; hanks for clearing that up Gus.

Bellus Endicus.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2014)

what the fuck is that in his button hole?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

It's a black flower for his dead mate whose currently haunting him.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's a black flower for his dead mate whose currently haunting him.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 21, 2014)

"Edge of Darkness" / James Lovelock reference?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> "Edge of Darkness" / James Lovelock reference?


This green has moved onto higher things i'm afraid. For now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what the fuck is that in his button hole?



A windjammer for the lapel mic they've (the TV company's sound crew) fitted him with.


----------



## JTG (Mar 21, 2014)

Green backed attempt to ruin the dreams of thousands of working class Bristolians by preventing Bristol Rovers from selling our ground to a supermarket knocked back by judge. In your faces Gloucester Road weirdoes, new stadium ahoy


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> looks great!



neo-liberalism seems to need its grand projects, follies?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 21, 2014)

JTG said:


> Green backed attempt to ruin the dreams of thousands of working class Bristolians by preventing Bristol Rovers from selling our ground to a supermarket knocked back by judge. In your faces Gloucester Road weirdoes, new stadium ahoy


they've  got form for this kind of shit in Sheffield too, see my previous posts about them opposing the sale of Wednesdays training ground, almost resulting  in the death of the 5th oldest league club which gives many w/c Sheffielders one of the few real pleasures we have left.


----------



## JTG (Mar 21, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> they've  got form for this kind of shit in Sheffield too, see my previous posts about them opposing the sale of Wednesdays training ground, almost resulting  in the death of the 5th oldest league club which gives many w/c Sheffielders one of the few real pleasures we have left.


It's symptomatic of a bohemian liberal hippy middle class type that seems to think they have exclusive rights to decide what happens in Bristol. Concentrated down the Gloucester Road and in Southville/Knowle/Totterdown, they get a bit upset if you suggest that the estates and other w/c areas and interests may want something other than policies that put independent small businessmen with a green veneer on a fucking pedestal


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 21, 2014)

JTG said:


> Green backed attempt to ruin the dreams of thousands of working class Bristolians by preventing Bristol Rovers from selling our ground to a supermarket knocked back by judge. In your faces Gloucester Road weirdoes, new stadium ahoy


I'm having trouble parsing that: so they are allwoed to sell the stadium for a sainsburys?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

Why do people say they _have trouble parsing that_ when they mean that _they don't agree with what's been said? _I.e the substition of a technical process for their own subjective opinions? It's on a par with ending a short empty post in reply to an long fleshed out one with the wankers question _no?_


----------



## Santino (Mar 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why do people say they _have trouble parsing that_ when they mean that _they don't understand/agree with what's been said? _I.e the substition of a technical process for their own subjective opinions? It's on a par with ending a short empty post in reply to an long fleshed out one with the wankers question _no?_


Do what?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

That's better.


----------



## JTG (Mar 21, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'm having trouble parsing that: so they are allwoed to sell the stadium for a sainsburys?


I'm having trouble understanding your use of the word 'allwoed'


----------



## Santino (Mar 21, 2014)

When a Celtic warrior painted himself entirely blue, he was said to be 'allwœd'.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 21, 2014)

JTG said:


> I'm having trouble understanding your use of the word 'allwoed'


There's no need to be a child about it, I genuinely didn't understand your post the way it was worded.


----------



## JTG (Mar 21, 2014)

Santino said:


> When a Celtic warrior painted himself entirely blue, he was said to be 'allwœd'.


Ah right. Dave Clarkson's from Scotland, is that what he means?


----------



## JTG (Mar 21, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> There's no need to be a child about it, I genuinely didn't understand your post the way it was worded.


Oh fuck off


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why do people say they _have trouble parsing that_ when they mean that _they don't agree with what's been said?_


 
Myself not happen seen have.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

8ball said:


> Myself not happen seen have.


I think you need to be a bit more realistic with this poster in this specific example. But have you not seen this happen - regardless of its most recent moaning is genuine?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think you need to be a bit more realistic with this poster in this specific example. But have you not seen this happen - regardless of its most recent moaning is genuine?


 
I really don't think I have, and the clause structure in the post referred to _is_ a little odd - anything can be said disingenuously, though. <shrugs>


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

8ball said:


> I really don't think I have, and the clause structure in the post referred to _is_ a little odd - anything can be said disingenuously, though. <shrugs>


Try saying unorthodox things a bit more - it'll happen to you too - no?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2014)

I have noticed this parsing trouble recently - it's a good way to turn your own failure to understand into the other persons failure to communicate


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2014)

One of the green council candidates in Sheffield has an unhealthy obsession with drains and looks a bit like a gnome


----------



## rekil (Apr 27, 2014)

Ex green TD Paul "fuck you" Gogarty in full on mid life crisis.



Spoiler: Trigger warning: Green dad pop.








He forgot to mention "green party" in his local election tat.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 27, 2014)

copliker said:


> Trigger warning: Green dad pop...



I'll see your tractor-casually-parked-in-suburban-street Green dad pop, and raise you possibly-creepiest-middle-aged-man-ever-kidnap-fantasy Green dad pop:


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 27, 2014)

Brilliant


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'll see your tractor-casually-parked-in-suburban-street Green dad pop, and raise you possibly-creepiest-middle-aged-man-ever-kidnap-fantasy Green dad pop:



Surprised copliker wasn't on that first.

Reminded me of when the Green Party Mayor of Rome Franceso Rutelli wanted to rename one of the cities most famous squares in honour of Giuseppe Bottai the fascist Minister of Education and hands on murderer who ordered and oversaw the expulsion of all jewish employees from educational positions - this after the local jewish community, for the first time ever came out in support of a specific mayoral candidate (him), as had the local partisan members because in a close run fight his opponent was the fascist Fini.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Surprised copliker wasn't on that first.
> 
> Reminded me of when the Green Party Mayor of Rome Franceso Rutelli wanted to rename one of the cities most famous squares in honour of Giuseppe Bottai the fascist Minister of Education and hands on murderer who ordered and oversaw the expulsion of all jewish employees from educational positions - this after the local jewish community, for the first time ever came out in support of a specific mayoral candidate (him), as had the local partisan members because in a close run fight his opponent was the fascist Fini.


Oh come on the two hardy compare, those videos are far worse.


----------



## rekil (Apr 27, 2014)

..


butchersapron said:


> Surprised copliker wasn't on that first.


I was  but I used spoiler code and wasn't sure which one represented his art best.

Does 'His Sweet Surprise' - sound like a cheeky jizzed trousers reference, or something a bit more sordid?

Edit: Oh right, he's been at this for 2 whole years.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 8, 2014)

Anyone else see this bloody daft election broadcast by the way? Featuring an all child cast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod..._Local_Elections_2014_Green_Party_07_05_2014/


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 8, 2014)

Fuck of a lot more appealing than nuLabour's half arsed witterings. I mean, yes I know the greens are pretty useless, but that video seems to me to pose a vital question.

What exactly _are_ we going to say to that generation when they ask ....

'How the fuck did you people let this happen to our society?'


----------



## Santino (May 8, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> - 'how the fuck did you let this happen to our society?'


'I'm new here myself.'


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 18, 2014)

Seeing as how every political party in Britain seems to be implicated in some sort of wrong 'un scandal (sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, paedophilia, covering up paedophilia etc) I'm just wondering - surely at some point the Greens must have had something similar happen?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Seeing as how every political party in Britain seems to be implicated in some sort of wrong 'un scandal (sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, paedophilia, covering up paedophilia etc) I'm just wondering - surely at some point the Greens must have had something similar happen?


David Icke would be the man to ask - green party insider and expert paedofinder


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> David Icke would be the man to ask - green party insider and expert paedofinder



Although there's plenty of reasons for saying the Green Party is shit, it's rather dishonest to suggest that David Icke is a GP insider.

It's true that he was involved in setting the party up, but he left in 1990 and was formally banned from their conference 20 years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> Although there's plenty of reasons for saying the Green Party is shit, it's rather dishonest to suggest that David Icke is a GP insider.
> 
> It's true that he was involved in setting the party up, but he left in 1990 and was formally banned from their conference 20 years ago.


What does "must have had" mean to you andy? A sense of history? You're going to call someone dishonest for accurately remembering history now?


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What does "must have had" mean to you andy? A sense of history? You're going to call someone dishonest for accurately remembering history now?



I'm saying that slagging the Green Party by suggesting that Icke *is* a party insider, rather than "accurately remembering history" by saying he *used to be* a party insider (which I don't deny) seems dishonest to me, rather like slagging the BBC or Hereford United by suggesting that his former association with them is still current.

He might perhaps have some knowledge of sex scandals within the Green Party between 1988 and 1991, assuming that there were any to know about, but he is unlikely to have any insider knowledge more recent than that, as since 1991 he hasn't been a member, far less an insider.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm saying that slagging the Green Party by suggesting that Icke *is* a party insider, rather than "accurately remembering history" by saying he *used to be* a party insider (which I don't deny) seems dishonest to me, rather like slagging the BBC or Hereford United by suggesting that his former association with them is still current.
> 
> He might perhaps have some knowledge of sex scandals within the Green Party between 1988 and 1991, assuming that there were any to know about, but he is unlikely to have any insider knowledge more recent than that, as since 1991 he hasn't been a member, far less an insider.


No one did that. You suggested that they did that. They didn't. Stop shooting your feet off ffs.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 18, 2014)

Besides which, dishonesty is perfectly acceptable if employed in the service of green bashing. It's credibility rather than truth that matters here imo


----------



## andysays (Nov 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Besides which, dishonesty is perfectly acceptable if employed in the service of green bashing. It's credibility rather than truth that matters here imo



I just wonder how much credibility you actually have slagging the Greens off for their association with David Icke 20+ years in the past when there's plenty of more up to date stuff you could be calling them on. Still, you know best...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> Still, you know best...



Indeed I do so stfu and listen


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 18, 2014)

you're like a shit treelover andysays


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> you're like a shit treelover andysays



Harsh.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 23, 2014)

wow!! And I thought I dodged a bullet when I left Nu Labour in 1996


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> wow!! And I thought I dodged a bullet when I left Nu Labour in 1996


Well you've just walked towards this one! Answer all the charges.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well you've just walked towards this one! Answer all the charges.


 If someone says something sensible I will.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> If someone says something sensible I will.


You've just written off every post, every poster and every criticism. This is a bit rubbish isn't it?


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You've just written off every post, every poster and every criticism. This is a bit rubbish isn't it?


You're asking me to sit and write a response to everything in this thread? 

to be honest here, if anyone lives in my constituency then I will give them the time of day. Other than that, there's always Google for anyone who really wants to give the Greens a fair chance, or I can pass them on to their local party.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> You're asking me to sit and write a response to everything in this thread?
> 
> to be honest here, if anyone lives in my constituency then I will give them the time of day. Other than that, there's always Google for anyone who really wants to give the Greens a fair chance, or I can pass them on to their local party.


If you don't have a self-interest in them they can fuck off? Are you sure you want to be a politician? You're going to get a lot worse than this quite soon and you will need answers. 

If any other greens want to answer the questions raised...feel free.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If you don't have a self-interest in them they can fuck off? Are you sure you want to be a politician? You're going to get a lot worse than this quite soon and you will need answers.
> 
> If any other greens want to answer the questions raised...feel free.


 So you think I should answer a post comparing me to a nazi?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> So you think I should answer a post comparing me to a nazi?


Yes i do. Are you a nazi?  No, so deal with that one and onto the next one. This is exactly what you'll be having rather soon. Questions that you don't like but that it would be a bit snobbish to ignore.


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> You're asking me to sit and write a response to everything in this thread?
> 
> to be honest here, if anyone lives in my constituency then I will give them the time of day. Other than that, there's always Google for anyone who really wants to give the Greens a fair chance, or I can pass them on to their local party.



I don't live in your constituency, but I do have what I think is a sensible, valid and important criticism of the Green Party - why do they appear to have nothing approaching a class analysis in their approach?

I have sympathy with the wider green movement, but until the GP do something about this major deficiency, they are always going to be vulnerable to criticism as a bunch of liberal middle class do-gooders telling people that they know better and, motre importantly perhaps, they are never going to be on the right side when it comes to making decisions about austerity and a host of other class focussed issues - the example of what they've done in Brighton, discussed at length up-thread, is a prime example of this.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 23, 2014)

anyone who has a reaonable question to ask can email me at stella.gardiner@greenparty.org.uk

When I'm elected I'll come back and deal with this thread. In the meant time I have a life and a day job and a campaign to run!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> You're asking me to sit and write a response to everything in this thread?
> 
> to be honest here, if anyone lives in my constituency then I will give them the time of day. Other than that, there's always Google for anyone who really wants to give the Greens a fair chance, or I can pass them on to their local party.


Not very holistic that. Bit parochial.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> anyone who has a reaonable question to ask can email me at stella.gardiner@greenparty.org.uk
> 
> When I'm elected I'll come back and deal with this thread. In the meant time I have a life and a day job and a campaign to run!


You bumped a 6 week dead thread to tell people that a) you don't care about them if they don't live in your town b) that you don't care about wider social issues and c) this press conference is over - no more questions.


----------



## treelover (Dec 23, 2014)

> You're asking me to sit and write a response to everything in this thread?
> 
> to be honest here, if anyone lives in my constituency then I will give them the time of day. Other than that, there's always Google for anyone who really wants to give the Greens a fair chance, or I can pass them on to their local party.



Imo, that's a bit pathetic, not a great advert for a 'welcoming' political party.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

This is a bit old but I did a quick search on the thread and didn't find it

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/why-i-resigned-from-the-green-party/



> I joined the Green Party ten years ago as I believed that it had something new and radical to say in British politics. I was also a founder member of Green Left, which was formed in 2006, and I helped draft the Headcorn Declaration, the group’s mission statement. One of my aims in doing so was to ensure that there was a radical left faction in the party constantly pushing it in a progressive direction - and providing a counterbalance to those in the party for whom pragmatism and ‘lifestyle environmentalism’ were the driving forces.
> 
> As an Irish person with strong links with some of the founding members of the Irish Green Party, I watched in horror as pragmatism and party centralisation led to both the entry of that party into a right wing coalition government and the resignation of many of those radical members in disgust. I wrote a critical article about this in 2009 entitled ‘The Rise and Fall of the Irish Greens’, which also predicted their eventual drubbing at the hands of the Irish people in the general election of 2011.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

I have to admit I'm genuinely considering voting for the Greens. They come across as a true Socialist party and have filled the void on the left once occupied by Labour. I'm all for re-nationalisation of the rail industry, keeping the NHS away from private hands, having a living wage and rights for the LGBT community. I also like Caroline Lucas as a politician. They may just get my vote.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2014)




----------



## stethoscope (Dec 23, 2014)

Lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I have to admit I'm genuinely considering voting for the Greens. They come across as a true Socialist party and have filled the void on the left once occupied by Labour. I'm all for re-nationalisation of the rail industry, keeping the NHS away from private hands, having a living wage and rights for the LGBT community. I also like Caroline Lucas as a politician. They may just get my vote.


You're called trendy lefty and you say genuinely/true and other tics/gives. Come on


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I have to admit I'm genuinely considering voting for the Greens. They come across as a true Socialist party and have filled the void on the left once occupied by Labour. I'm all for re-nationalisation of the rail industry, keeping the NHS away from private hands, having a living wage and rights for the LGBT community. I also like Caroline Lucas as a politician. They may just get my vote.



All sounds fine to me but is there an example of a Green Party coming to power and not turning dramatically to the right? At the end of the day the class composition of the party does matter, and Green Party membership is mostly people in upper-middle-class managerial professions. In most areas elected Greens locally argue for and pursue the same policies as the Lib Dems pre-2010, they are a 'nice' party for 'nice' people but I don't expect them to fight tooth and claw for socialism from below, above or the middle. They'll fight tooth and claw for small hummusmongers, maybe.

edit: I just got trolled didn't I


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I have to admit I'm genuinely considering voting for the Greens. They come across as a true Socialist party and have filled the void on the left once occupied by Labour. I'm all for re-nationalisation of the rail industry, keeping the NHS away from private hands, having a living wage and rights for the LGBT community. I also like Caroline Lucas as a politician. They may just get my vote.


----------



## treelover (Dec 23, 2014)

The party here is changing, more small business people seem to be getting involved, there always were quite a few, but they seem to dominate now, business seems to be a key feature of them now

if people want to vote for that its up  to them, but for me its a step too far.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> All sounds fine to me but is there an example of a Green Party coming to power and not turning dramatically to the right? At the end of the day the class composition of the party does matter, and Green Party membership is mostly people in upper-middle-class managerial professions. In most areas elected Greens locally argue for and pursue the same policies as the Lib Dems pre-2010, they are a 'nice' party for 'nice' people but I don't expect them to fight tooth and claw for socialism from below, above or the middle. They'll fight tooth and claw for small hummusmongers, maybe.



I'd agree that the Greens do appeal to a trendy :lol: middle class, left-wing student vote. I think they'll do well in student towns and cities. Look at how they've done in Brighton for instance. I think a lot of Lib Dem voters, especially students who felt betrayed over the tuition fees saga, would potentially switch to them. As a party, there's more to them though than 'tree-hugging hippies'. For instance, the Greens finished above the Lib Dems in the European Elections. I think they're a genuine alternative on the left. Not quite the UKIP of the left but they're popularity has risen.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I'd agree that the Greens do appeal to a trendy :lol: middle class, left-wing student vote. I think they'll do well in student towns and cities. Look at how they've done in Brighton for instance. I think a lot of Lib Dem voters, especially students who felt betrayed over the tuition fees saga, would potentially switch to them. As a party, there's more to them though than 'tree-hugging hippies'. For instance, the Greens finished above the Lib Dems in the European Elections.



They won't win next year in Brighton that's for fucking sure! I'll have a bet with you too - monies donated to server fund?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> As a party, there's more to them though than 'tree-hugging hippies'. For instance, the Greens finished above the Lib Dems in the European Elections.



What?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What?



As if it's difficult to finish above the Lib Dems these days


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> As if it's difficult to finish above the Lib Dems these days


For a small party such as the Greens, it would class as a big achievement to beat one of the main Westminster three (well, the Lib Dems for now).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> For a small party such as the Greens, it would class as a big achievement to beat one of the main Westminster three (well, the Lib Dems for now).



On a National level it's a fucking pipe dream. Local level in Brighton was a one off.

Fancy a bet for May?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

The thing with that red pepper article is that it's 3 years old. The Green Party membership has apparently doubled in the last year or so, and I'd expect that most of those new members are pretty left wing or at least anti-austerity, so to my mind this ought to have changed the picture within the party from the 2011 version.

My previous flirtations with the green party weren't good, and Brighton had really put me off, but looking at the options now I would really be interested to hear about what the green party is like now after this influx of members, which direction they're moving the party in etc as they're looking like the most credible alternative to the neoliberalist / austerity parties in most of the country on the surface at least.

Brighton's a worrying example of them in power, but what lessons if any have they learned from it, is it still the same party as it wasin 2011, has it changed further to the right / left since etc.

Those are the sorts of questions someone like AuntiStella could help answer, and IMO they're quite important questions as there seem to be quite a lot of people on the left who're switching support to the greens, or talking about it, but once bitten twice shy and all that.

Genuine questions, I don't know the answers to them. If there is now a genuine left wing majority in the party then that would give me a bit more confidence that they would be less likely to do a lib dems / brighton if they did get anywhere (although the lib dem stuff also shows that the member's vote isn't that important when it comes to coalitions as the leader apparently thinks that gives them the right to ignore all the policies the party members had previously voted on.)

I'm pretty much lost as to who to vote for at the next election at the moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I'd agree that the Greens do appeal to a trendy :lol: middle class, left-wing student vote. I think they'll do well in student towns and cities. Look at how they've done in Brighton for instance. I think a lot of Lib Dem voters, especially students who felt betrayed over the tuition fees saga, would potentially switch to them. As a party, there's more to them though than 'tree-hugging hippies'. For instance, the Greens finished above the Lib Dems in the European Elections. I think they're a genuine alternative on the left. Not quite the UKIP of the left but they're popularity has risen.


How does finishing above the lib-dems in the euros mean there is more to them? Does this mean UKIP is the best?


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> On a National level it's a fucking pipe dream. Local level in Brighton was a one off.
> 
> Fancy a bet for May?



I think the Lib Dems will beat the Greens in May. The FPTP system works in favour of the three main parties. Until a PR system is brought in, like with the European Elections, parties like the Greens will be lucky to win a few seats. It will be the same with UKIP. However, I do think both parties will profit from the anti-establishment, protest vote which I expect to see. 

Will give the bet a miss haha


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How does finishing above the lib-dems in the euros mean there is more to them? Does this mean UKIP is the best?



Lots of wc folk on the estate will be voting for the kippers! Christ alive!


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How does finishing above the lib-dems in the euros mean there is more to them? Does this mean UKIP is the best?


It shows that like UKIP, they're garnering a lot of the protest vote against the main parties. But like I've said in my previous post, come the General Election with the FPTP system, they'll be lucky to win a few seats. The Euro elections don't say an awful lot tbh - just look at how the BNP have fared since they got one million votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> It shows that like UKIP, they're garnering a lot of the protest vote against the main parties. But like I've said in my previous post, come the General Election with the FPTP system, they'll be lucky to win a few seats. The Euro elections don't say an awful lot tbh - just look at how the BNP have fared since they got one million votes.


They won't win any seats-  the only one they have will go.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The thing with that red pepper article is that it's 3 years old. The Green Party membership has apparently doubled in the last year or so, and I'd expect that most of those new members are pretty left wing or at least anti-austerity, so to my mind this ought to have changed the picture within the party from the 2011 version.



As nice as this would be to assume I think that it would be wrong to do so. To take one example, as treelover the party in Sheffield has been inundated with business people who are working with a lot of students who pre-2010 would have probably been Lib Dems, and we all know by now the approach of the Brighton Green council to picketlines.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> So you think I should answer a post comparing me to a nazi?



You'd probably be better starting with the stuff about Brighton but if you want to start by dealing with the fact they seem to be a but to comfortable with antisemites that's up to you.

Though imo the most damning evidence for the prosecution is the stuff about the minutes silence to attune their muesli to nature before the conference our whatever that yogurt weavery was all about


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The thing with that red pepper article is that it's 3 years old. The Green Party membership has apparently doubled in the last year or so, and I'd expect that most of those new members are pretty left wing or at least anti-austerity, so to my mind this ought to have changed the picture within the party from the 2011 version.
> 
> My previous flirtations with the green party weren't good, and Brighton had really put me off, but looking at the options now I would really be interested to hear about what the green party is like now after this influx of members, which direction they're moving the party in etc as they're looking like the most credible alternative to the neoliberalist / austerity parties in most of the country on the surface at least.
> 
> ...


Where did  the influx come from? That's what i want to know. Busy body ex-lib-dems down here, concerned with little bits and pieces changes that help their business or property portfolio. Know they can't do it under lib-dem flag any more.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where did  the influx come from? That's what i want to know.



In Brighton it was certainly down to ex Lib Dem voters - & tactical votes to keep the Tories out. Lucas won the votes hands down - but after her scabbing antics during the GMB bin strike, & the wanker that is Kitcat, the Greens are fucked down here.


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

Of course its all ex lib dems. Look who you're quoting...


----------



## red & green (Dec 23, 2014)

They are the new lib dems


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where did  the influx come from? That's what i want to know. Busy body ex-lib-dems down here, concerned with little bits and pieces changes that help their business or property portfolio. Know they can't do it under lib-dem flag any more.


I don't know, I suspect you're probably right, but I'm asking the question to find the answer not because I know the answer.

If it is ex lib dems though, bare in mind they're going to be the left of centre lib dems who walked away from the lib dems in disgust at their actions in coalition.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I don't know, I suspect you're probably right, but I'm asking the question to find the answer not because I know the answer.
> 
> If it is ex lib dems though, bare in mind they're going to be the left of centre lib dems who walked away from the lib dems in disgust at their actions in coalition.


They will also be lib-dems who bought the lib-dems being left-wing pre-2010. So a) with a track record of being wrong and b) shifting around parties as needs dictate


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 23, 2014)

Yeah a lot of their new voters will be the same divs who voted Libdem in 2010


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

red & green said:


> They are the new lib dems


UKIP are the new lib-dems. The one's that general anger is poured into into elections.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 23, 2014)

Part of the problem is the public not (in general) having a clear idea of what a party acting in their interest would look like, and hence not being able to give that party a mandate to act that way.

For example Green (and other non-Tory) councillors are often criticised for compromising on austerity budgets rather than holding out for a 'needs' budget that would force a confrontation with Westminster.

You could argue plausibly though, that councillors going that route should have been clear that that's what they'd be doing and gained a mandate for doing so and a commitment to dealing with the consequences *before* picking a fight about it. 

As far as I can tell the only mandate the Greens have is to be very slightly nicer (for some Tom and Barbara Good value of 'nice') than the alternatives.

Which is fuck all use really ...


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They will also be lib-dems who bought the lib-dems being left-wing pre-2010. So a) with a track record of being wrong and b) shifting around parties as needs dictate





Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yeah a lot of their new voters will be the same divs who voted Libdem in 2010



an alternative viewpoint being that they're left of centre voters in search of a party to represent them, but unfortunately the left in this country are incapable of actually getting it together to give them a credible option to vote for.

The Greeks get Syriza mopping up all the anti-austerity votes, we get a bunch of holier than thou lefties who'd prefer to snipe at them all perpetually for not being as ideologically perfect as them, than actually do something positive with the fact that there were a significant block of left of centre votes up for grabs after the lib dems went into coalition and lost them.

The result apparently now being rightly or wrongly that many of those votes are going to end up coalescing around the greens, or labour.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The result apparently now being rightly or wrongly that many of those votes are going to end up coalescing around the greens, or labour.


I think they should vote Labour


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2014)

LOL


Trendy Lefty said:


> I have to admit I'm genuinely considering voting for the Greens. They come across as a true Socialist party and have filled the void on the left once occupied by Labour. I'm all for re-nationalisation of the rail industry, keeping the NHS away from private hands, having a living wage and rights for the LGBT community. I also like Caroline Lucas as a politician. They may just get my vote.


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

a mug's viewpoint._ it's 'the lefts' fault that I campaigned for a nest of vicious scum, and am about to do the same for another._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> an alternative viewpoint being that they're left of centre voters in search of a party to represent them, but unfortunately the left in this country are incapable of actually getting it together to give them a credible option to vote for.
> 
> The Greeks get Syriza mopping up all the anti-austerity votes, we get a bunch of holier than thou lefties who'd prefer to snipe at them all perpetually for not being as ideologically perfect as them, than actually do something positive with the fact that there were a significant block of left of centre votes up for grabs after the lib dems went into coalition and lost them.
> 
> The result apparently now being rightly or wrongly that many of those votes are going to end up coalescing around the greens, or labour.



The lib-dems who went green were never going anywhere but labour or green. Nothing any one did would change that.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> a mug's viewpoint._ it's 'the lefts' fault that I campaigned for a nest of vicious scum, and am about to do the same for another._


It's the left's fault that they haven't got it together to mount any sort of serious electoral challenge at this coming election.

If they can't mount a serious challenge at this election after 5 years of austerity, and a 7 year economic depression, with only neoliberalism and slightly differing levels of austerity on offer from the 3 main parties then they probably never will unfortunately.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2014)

So the greens are basically the Continuity Lib Dems now then?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The lib-dems who went green were never going anywhere but labour or green. Nothing any one did would change that.


so if a Syriza type coalition had got it together to mount a serious electoral challenge against these austerity policies, NHS privatisation etc you don't think they'd have gained significant support?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> It's the left's fault that they haven't got it together to mount any sort of serious electoral challenge at this coming election.
> 
> If they can't mount a serious challenge at this election after 5 years of austerity, and a 7 year economic depression, with only neoliberalism and slightly differing levels of austerity on offer from the 3 main parties then they probably never will unfortunately.


Why didn't you and your bloc of left-leaning self-starters do it? Because it's a rhetorical fantasy designed to cover your back and point fingers for your own action/inaction.


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So the greens are basically the Continuity Lib Dems now then?


yep.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so if a Syriza type coalition had got it together to mount a serious electoral challenge against these austerity policies, NHS privatisation etc you don't think they'd have gained significant support?


Not from the lib-dems who voted lib-dem in 2010  - no. Have a look where their support has gone over the last 4 years .It hasn't gone leftward.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why didn't you and your bloc of left-leaning self-starters do it? Because it's a rhetorical fantasy designed to cover your back and point fingers for your own action/inaction.


I don't have such a block.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2014)

How long until I get to start the 'green party polls: how low can they go?' Thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So the greens are basically the Continuity Lib Dems now then?


No, just the purple loon element of it.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not from the lib-dems who voted lib-dem in 2010  - no. Have a look where their support has gone over the last 4 years .It hasn't gone leftward.


it can't go leftward there is no credible leftward alternative outside possibly of the greens (and labour as I guess they're now slightly to the left of the lib dems)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I don't have such a block.


So stop talking as if you have, as if you have something that you're representing, as if you're talking for a market now missed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> it can't go leftward there is no credible leftward alternative outside possibly of the greens (and labour as I guess they're now slightly to the left of the lib dems)


So, as i said, you lot were only ever going green or labour - which you then questioned. And whined about.


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)




----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So stop talking as if you have, as if you have something that you're representing, as if you're talking for a market now missed.


It's not my block, but you'd be completely wrong to deny that this mass of voters exist. Why do you think they ended up voting lib dem in the first place, then abandoning them rapidly as soon as they started on with these austerity policies in coalition?

61% of 2010 lib dem voters disapprove of the government. 34% intend to vote labour, 12% Green, 3% SNP / PCY, so that's 49% of them moving leftwards (to the only credible leftish alternatives on the table), and 16% don't know. vs 13% and 14% moving to tory / UKIP.

eta from you gov


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

Deranged. Voting labour is moving leftwards? WTF?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So, as i said, you lot were only ever going green or labour - which you then questioned. And whined about.


what other credible alternative is there?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> It's not my block, but you'd be completely wrong to deny that this mass of voters exist. Why do you think they ended up voting lib dem in the first place, then abandoning them rapidly as soon as they started on with these austerity policies in coalition?
> 
> 61% of 2010 lib dem voters disapprove of the government. 34% intend to vote labour, 12% Green, 3% SNP / PCY, so that's 49% of them moving leftwards (to the only credible leftish alternatives on the table), and 16% don't know. vs 13% and 14% moving to tory / UKIP.


So, if they have gone left show me. I told you where they had to go - and you denied this was a left move. Hpw many ways do you want it? Is there no blame that lib-dems will ever accept for anything ever?_ I had to vote neo-liberal in 2010 because an ideal world wasn't on the ballot paper. _Whines_.
_
Note the 51% not moving in your leftward mind.

No, this left-wing lib-dem mass doesn't exist. It never existed. Lib-dem voters looking to clean themselves up like to think that it does/did.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> Deranged. Voting labour is moving leftwards? WTF?


After he just argued that voting labour is not moving leftward as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> what other credible alternative is there?


Irrelevant. I said that you soppy lot were only ever going labour or green. You disagreed then said you were only ever going labour or green. Then blamed everyone else.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> Deranged. Voting labour is moving leftwards? WTF?


case in point here.

are they moving to labour because they're now to the left of the lib dems or to the right of the lib dems?

I can't prove that a significant proportion would move further left if such a party existed as that party doesn't exist, but to me there were at least 10-20% of the votes up for grabs, more if a decent left wing alternative had actually come out fighting against austerity and started to win the argument.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant. I said that you soppy lot were only ever going labour or green. You disagreed then said you were only ever going labour or green. Then blamed everyone else.


if the options are labour or green, then yes they'd end up voting labour or green.

put in a credible 3rd option though, and at the very least it stood the best chance in a generation of gaining a significant level of those votes, as well as those who mainly haven't voted at all.


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

I wonder why a credible party of the left hasn't happened? Do you think something or someone is needed that might unite the squabbling tribes of the left? A charismatic figurehead, perhaps?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> Deranged. Voting labour is moving leftwards? WTF?



to be fair it is compared to the Libdems or Greens, now as it was in 2010 for that matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> if the options are labour or green, then yes they'd end up voting labour or green.
> 
> put in a credible 3rd option though, and at the very least it stood the best chance in a generation of gaining a significant level of those votes, as well as those who mainly haven't voted at all.


_You made the monstor i am. _

_I didn't bother looking at the lib-dem stuff pre-2010_. What a catch you may be.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> I wonder why a credible party of the left hasn't happened? Do you think something or someone is needed that might unite the squabbling tribes of the left? A charismatic figurehead, perhaps?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The thing with that red pepper article is that it's 3 years old. The Green Party membership has apparently doubled in the last year or so, and I'd expect that most of those new members are pretty left wing or at least anti-austerity, so to my mind this ought to have changed the picture within the party from the 2011 version.


correction, the membership was up 45% in 2014 by the end of October rather than doubled.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> I wonder why a credible party of the left hasn't happened? Do you think something or someone is needed that might unite the squabbling tribes of the left? A charismatic figurehead, perhaps?


bear grylls


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> correction, the membership was up 45% in 2014 by the end of October rather than doubled.


Excellent - is there any field in which you'rte not a meddling expert?

Are you a member? What do you base your estimation of their views on? Guilt?


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yeah a lot of their new voters will be the same divs who voted Libdem in 2010



I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of their promise with their tuition fees.

Boy did they betray me! My vote will go to Labour or the Greens this time.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> bear grylls



Drinking your own piss is a little bit ecosocialism


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of their promise with their tuition fees.
> 
> Boy did they betray me! My vote will go to Labour or the Greens this time.



Obvious troll


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Drinking your own piss is a little bit ecosocialism


Drinking someone else's piss is a little bit lib-dem. Never cross the streams.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Obvious troll



No troll. Just posting a thing called an opinion. I know it's a new word to you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Drinking someone else's piss is a little bit lib-dem. Never cross the streams.


clear yellow water


----------



## rekil (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Obvious troll


lletsaaaaa


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

not lletsa. not interesting enough.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

No chance


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - is there any field in which you'rte not a meddling expert?


lol says you.



butchersapron said:


> Are you a member? What do you base your estimation of their views on? Guilt?


no, I used this new fangled thing called google to double check the figures.

What estimate of who's views? I came on the thread to ask the question as I'm not sure who's making up this upsurge in members. I suspect that they're mainly left leaning, but that's just my suspicion, hence asking the question.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I voted Lib Dem in the last election .



Constituency?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> lol says you.
> 
> 
> no, I used this new fangled thing called google to double check the figures.
> ...


Your estimate of what new green party members views are. You stated that they were left-wing anti-austerity pretty much as as fact. I asked you the question why you came up with that figure. Your reply is that you were just asking if they were.

Anyway, the fault clearly lies with people who failed to vote lib-dem and who failed to do what the lib-dem voters who don't now want to vote lib-dem want to do now and what one lib-dem voter thinks means establish a UK syrizia for him. Whilst he and the people like him show no inclination to do a damn thing but vote labour or green. Never mind get involved in setting up a new party and all that work.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'm not sure who's making up this upsurge in members. I suspect that they're mainly left leaning, but that's just my suspicion,


Big jump in membership in Scotland over indy ref. Generally left wing pro indy types. The Greens were the only party other than the SNP to be pro indy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I voted Lib Dem in the last election because of their promise with their tuition fees.
> 
> Boy did they betray me! My vote will go to Labour or the Greens this time.


giving them a chance to betray you this time i see. when will you give the tories the chance to betray you - or have you already done that?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Big jump in membership in Scotland over indy ref. Generally left wing pro indy types. The Greens were the only party other than the SNP to be pro indy.


Different party. And lots of left-wingers supported no.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, just the purple loon element of it.



Someone please post the one with the 'power to the liberal intelligentsia' ginger bloke in it


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> clear yellow water


it's the closest either party will get to moscow gold.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Someone please post the one with the 'power to the liberal intelligentsia' ginger bloke in it


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your estimate of what new green party members views are. You stated that they were left-wing anti-austerity pretty much as as fact.


did I really?



free spirit said:


> The thing with that red pepper article is that it's 3 years old. The Green Party membership has apparently doubled in the last year or so, and I'd expect that most of those new members are pretty left wing or at least anti-austerity, so to my mind this ought to have changed the picture within the party from the 2011 version.
> 
> My previous flirtations with the green party weren't good, and Brighton had really put me off, but looking at the options now I would really be interested to hear about what the green party is like now after this influx of members, which direction they're moving the party in etc as they're looking like the most credible alternative to the neoliberalist / austerity parties in most of the country on the surface at least.
> 
> ...



'I'd expect' prefacing a sentence does not indicate that this sentence should be taken as a statement of fact.

I don't know how much more fucking obvious I could make it that I'm specifically not stating this as fact, but putting out what I think the case is likely to be, and asking for further information to confirm or refute that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> did I really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And i'm asking you to outline the reasons that you have used to come to your expectations above. What you think is 'likely'.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Big jump in membership in Scotland over indy ref. Generally left wing pro indy types. The Greens were the only party other than the SNP to be pro indy.


thanks, I was intending to make that point as well, but seem to have been way laid by the usual divvies.


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


>


that's just beautiful.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> thanks, I was intending to make that point as well, but seem to have been way laid by the usual divvies.


The greens on here tonight = wow, don't like being questioned when not prepared.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> giving them a chance to betray you this time i see. when will you give the tories the chance to betray you - or have you already done that?



I would never vote Tory!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I would never vote Tory!


a likely story.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> a likely story.



Okay dear.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And i'm asking you to outline the reasons that you have used to come to your expectations above. What you think is 'likely'.


They've been running regular anti-austerity, anti TTIP type posts on facebook, pushing left wing policies etc. so it stands to reason that those who're joining are doing so in response to this line of campaigning rather than due to their record in Brighton.

Also, anecdotally, all those I know who've publicly supported them in the council elections etc have done it from a left perspective. The likes of Another Angry Voice has been pushing the green party quite heavily from a left perspective, and is fairly influential with the facebook generation etc.

And the reports from scotland that Ferrel mentioned.

But I'm aware that my experience isn't necessarily indicative of the overall situation, and it's entirely possible they're tailoring facebook adverts to different audiences or something, so wanted to verify this.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I would never vote Tory!


You have done already. Which constituency?


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You have done already. Which constituency?



Cheshire West and Chester. I certainly didn't vote for this coalition!


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Also, anecdotally, all those I know who've publicly supported them in the council elections etc have done it from a left perspective. The likes of Another Angry Voice has been pushing the green party quite heavily from a left perspective, and is fairly influential with the facebook generation etc.



AAV is also pro-EU but anti-TTIP


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Okay dear.


i don't see why you're so dismissive of the notion, having found it in you to once vote lib dem and having no obvious ideological objection to voting for neoliberal parties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Cheshire West and Chester. I certainly didn't vote for this coalition!


you seem to have voted for one part of it. and once the vote is in the ballot box it's out of your hands.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> They've been running regular anti-austerity, anti TTIP type posts on facebook, pushing left wing policies etc. so it stands to reason that those who're joining are doing so in response to this line of campaigning rather than due to their record in Brighton.
> 
> Also, anecdotally, all those I know who've publicly supported them in the council elections etc have done it from a left perspective. The likes of Another Angry Voice has been pushing the green party quite heavily from a left perspective, and is fairly influential with the facebook generation etc.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but you simply didn't use this thread to verify - you already took it for read that this was the case and used that assumption as a jump off. You didn't need or wait for verification. I outlined what the case is here- which is after defence of brighton probably the #2 green target area.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Cheshire West and Chester. I certainly didn't vote for this coalition!


That's not a parliamentary constituency, is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Cheshire West and Chester. I certainly didn't vote for this coalition!


Nonesuch


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> AAV is also pro-EU but anti-TTIP



Much better


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Weaver Vale


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Okay dear.



do you have a blog or newsletter i could subscribe to please


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Weaver Vale


mornington crescent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> do you have a blog or newsletter i could subscribe to please


you're a glutton for punishment


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


>



good work sir


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Weaver Vale


 You mean the Weaver vale where just over 8k of you voted LD to allow the vermin to beat Lab by less that 1k.

You dumb fucker.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You mean the Weaver vale where just over 8k of you voted LD to allow the vermin to beat Lab by less that 1k.
> 
> You dumb fucker.



Lib Dem was an attractive vote at the time. They seemed like an alternative to the main two parties, now they're just another one of the Westminster elite who have colluded with the Tories to inflict some horrific polices on the most vulnerable.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Fair enough, but you simply didn't use this thread to verify - you already took it for read that this was the case and used that assumption as a jump off. You didn't need or wait for verification. I outlined what the case is here- which is after defence of brighton probably the #2 green target area.


I posted my opinion in response to someone elses post of a 3 year old opinion piece which mentioned that the anti-austerity party of the green party had lost a key internal vote on the policy to refuse to co-operate with austerity policies by 3 votes.

I thought it pretty relevant to point out that the greens had had a big influx of new members, and that if that influx was majority anti-austerity, then the situation within the party now is likely to be significantly different to the situation in 2011 when the author of that article left the party.

IMO it's likely that this is the case, but it is just my opinion, not a statement of fact, and I'm specifically seeking any evidence either way to find out what the situation actually is. So far Urban's responded with little other than pointless sniping, as per fucking usual.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

You didn't say _if_, you said that you expect that it was the case - and quite clearly didn't expect any dissent.

We're all shit, just ignore us.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't see why you're so dismissive of the notion, having found it in you to once vote lib dem and having no obvious ideological objection to voting for neoliberal parties.



I'm a social liberal - so what? As another posted has alluded to, why all the sniping?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Lib Dem was an attractive vote at the time. They seemed like an alternative to the main two parties, now they're just another one of the Westminster elite who have colluded with the Tories to inflict some horrific polices on the most vulnerable.


You lie - they were never going to win in the seat that you say you live in. What was attractive - the fact they couldn't win? That your vote is lost?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I posted my opinion in response to someone elses post of a 3 year old opinion piece which mentioned that the anti-austerity party of the green party had lost a key internal vote on the policy to refuse to co-operate with austerity policies by 3 votes.
> 
> I thought it pretty relevant to point out that the greens had had a big influx of new members, and that if that influx was majority anti-austerity, then the situation within the party now is likely to be significantly different to the situation in 2011 when the author of that article left the party.
> 
> IMO it's likely that this is the case, but it is just my opinion, not a statement of fact, and I'm specifically seeking any evidence either way to find out what the situation actually is. So far Urban's responded with little other than pointless sniping, as per fucking usual.


out of curiosity how many people have left the green party in the same period?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I'm a social liberal - so what? As another posted has alluded to, why all the sniping?


you vote LD in a Con/Lab marginal constituency and express surprise at sniping?


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

here's some pointless sniping for you. 



free spirit said:


> unfortunately the left in this country are incapable of actually getting it together to give them a credible option to vote for... a bunch of holier than thou lefties who'd prefer to snipe at them all perpetually for not being as ideologically perfect as them, than actually do something positive with the fact that there were a significant block of left of centre votes up for grabs after the lib dems went into coalition and lost them.


pompous twat.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You lie - they were never going to win in the seat that you say you live in. What was attractive - the fact they couldn't win? That your vote is lost?



I made my vote and voted for the party I felt would serve me best at the time - something I and every other person registered to vote has every right to do. We live in a democracy. 

As I've previously posted, I voted for the Lib Dems, like a lot of other students at the time, because of their promise with the tuition fees.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I'm a social liberal - so what? As another posted has alluded to, why all the sniping?


i don't think you can really call yourself a social liberal if you can consider voting for a party famous for waging aggressive war.

and it wasn't just abroad they were less than liberal, you'll recall their liberal scheme for id cards - which the current coalition scrapped.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I made my vote and voted for the party I felt would serve me best at the time - something I and every other person registered to vote has every right to do. We live in a democracy.
> 
> As I've previously posted, I voted for the Lib Dems, like a lot of other students at the time, because of their promise with the tuition fees.


Where were you studying? Did you graduate?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity how many people have left the green party in the same period?


not sure, the numbers look to be total increases in membership, but I could be wrong. Membership is reported to have risen above 20,000 from 13,800 at the end of 2013.

Looks like the majority of that could be coming from scotland though.



> The details, contained within a press release from the UK Green Party show that membership of the party north of the border has increased from 1,200 on 1st January to 7,500 today – an increase of 625 per cent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I made my vote and voted for the party I felt would serve me best at the time - something I and every other person registered to vote has every right to do. We live in a democracy.
> 
> As I've previously posted, I voted for the Lib Dems, like a lot of other students at the time, because of their promise with the tuition fees.


no, we don't.

if we live in a democracy, why do the armed forces and police swear allegiance to an unelected woman?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you can really call yourself a social liberal if you can consider voting for a party famous for waging aggressive war.



The whole idea of an 'economic conservative social liberal' is a big joke anyway. Yeah, I like gays, blacks, women etc as long as they aren't poor and if they are then fuck them, also if a disproportionate number of them are poor it's probably their fault so fuck them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> not sure, the numbers look to be total increases in membership, but I could be wrong. Membership is reported to have risen above 20,000 from 13,800 at the end of 2013.
> 
> Looks like the majority of that could be coming from scotland though.


yes, increases in membership: but people leave political parties, sometimes in great numbers (e.g. bnp, labour) and sometimes rises in membership can disguise great turnover in membership, as happened with the bnp for some years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> The whole idea of an 'economic conservative social liberal' is a big joke anyway. Yeah, I like gays, blacks, women etc as long as they aren't poor and if they are then fuck them, also if a disproportionate number of them are poor it's probably their fault so fuck them.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> here's some pointless sniping for you.


the cap fits though doesn't it. Just look at the last few pages to see exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> not sure, the numbers look to be total increases in membership, but I could be wrong. Membership is reported to have risen above 20,000 from 13,800 at the end of 2013.
> 
> Looks like the majority of that could be coming from scotland though.


Which is,as i noted earlier, a different party altogther.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where were you studying? Did you graduate?



Yes, I did and I have no reason to tell you what I was studying or where I did.  Love how I'm getting interrogated for posting an opinion and for expressing my democratic right to vote in an election.

Expected more of a welcome on here if I'm being honest. Not the most inviting place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Yes, I did and I have no reason to tell you what I was studying or where I did.  Love how I'm getting interrogated for posting an opinion and for expressing my democratic right to vote in an election.
> 
> Expected more of a welcome on here if I'm being honest. Not the most inviting place.


it's an initiation ritual. we've all been through it. and in all honesty you're getting an easier ride than a lot of people.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

Is the class composition of the Scottish Greens different to the English and Welsh Greens?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which is,as i noted earlier, a different party altogther.


you see, if I were an actual member I'd know that sort of thing.

Now you mention it, I did now what, but had forgotten.

So ok the green party south of the border has also had a 6-7k increase in membership.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, we don't.
> 
> if we live in a democracy, why do the armed forces and police swear allegiance to an unelected woman?



Not a fan of an unelected head of state myself, but like all systems, democracy isn't perfect but IMO it's the best we have.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> democracy isn't perfect but IMO it's the best we have.



For who?


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> For who?



For the political and business elite mainly, but at least we get some say, however limited.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Not a fan of an unelected head of state myself, but like all systems, democracy isn't perfect but IMO it's the best we have.


i would be interested to know what definition of democracy you're working from.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> you see, if I were an actual member I'd know that sort of thing.
> 
> Now you mention it, I did now what, but had forgotten.
> 
> So ok the green party south of the border has also had a 6-7k increase in membership.


You will be come may - delivering last minute leaflets, posters etc


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the cap fits though doesn't it. Just look at the last few pages to see exactly what I'm talking about.


You see calls for ideological purity on this thread? When you were campaigning for the lib dems in 2010, were the people telling you then that you were making a mistake doing that too?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Not a fan of an unelected head of state myself, but like all systems, democracy isn't perfect but IMO it's the best we have.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> For the political and business elite mainly, but at least we get some say, however limited.


in that case it's not a democracy  democracy being - as the word suggests - rule by the people. the term you're looking for is oligarchy.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, increases in membership: but people leave political parties, sometimes in great numbers (e.g. bnp, labour) and sometimes rises in membership can disguise great turnover in membership, as happened with the bnp for some years.


no idea then, I don't know where I'd be able to find those numbers.

If there were significant numbers leaving as well, then that'd make it even more likely to be a different composition now than in 2011.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> in that case it's not a democracy  democracy being - as the word suggests - rule by the people. the term you're looking for is oligarchy.



Constitutional monarchy?


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 23, 2014)

So you vote through a needs budget. Then what?

Have Eric pickles take over the council?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> You see calls for ideological purity on this thread? When you were campaigning for the lib dems in 2010, were the people telling you then that you were making a mistake doing that too?


in future he should preface any political activity with the words 'as someone who once campaigned for the lib dems i know what it's like to make a mistake. and i'm probably making a mistake here too.'


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Monarchy?


i think it's a safe bet that if you're a student you're not studying politics.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 23, 2014)

Is that how it works though? You just get enough people to vote for a suitably left wing party and things change?

I'm just trying to think through how that's meant to work in the context of the example I mentioned a couple of pages back, where you've elected some councillors and they have to decide whether to try to get the least-worst compromise on an austerity budget or dig in for a proper fight with central government by refusing to pass an austerity budget, with all the risks to services that that entails.

It seems to me that for the second option (or any real challenge to the neo-liberal TINA consensus) to be realistic you need something better than a bunch of disillusioned floating voters who've drifted away from the Lib-Dems or nuLabour.

You need committed support from a section of the community who have a clear view of where their interests lie, how picking that fight is potentially going to further them, what's at stake and what the risks are etc.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it's a safe bet that if you're a student you're not studying politics.


BA Hons


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is that how it works though? You just get enough people to vote for a suitably left wing party and things change?
> 
> I'm just trying to think through how that's meant to work in the context of the example I mentioned a couple of pages back, where you've elected some councillors and they have to decide whether to try to get the least-worst compromise on an austerity budget or dig in for a proper fight with central government by refusing to pass a budget, with all the risks to services that that entails.
> 
> ...



+contacts/networks/communication +chance of spreed though similarity of conditions. That's exactly how we did the poll tax. Hope lies outside the town halls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> BA Hons


no wonder so much of our comedy comes from the cambridge footlights.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> BA Hons



But we live in a constitutional monarchy, not an oligarchy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> But we live in a constitutional monarchy, not an oligarchy.


Both.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> +contacts/networks/communication +chance of spreed though similarity of conditions. That's exactly how we did the poll tax. Hope lies outside the town halls.



Sure but it doesn't seem to me that having representation the town halls is a totally bad thing, just so long as it is actually expressing the interests of a politically conscious mass of people of which it's an organic part, rather than being arbitrarily picked by bunch of floating voters who think democracy is some sort of shopping between 'brands' ...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Expected more of a welcome on here if I'm being honest. Not the most inviting place.



You call yourself trendy lefty and come to a message board dominated by senior HR managers, management consultants, landlords, Tories, and business owners and run by a freelance Daily Telegraph photographer and expect a warm welcome?


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it's a safe bet that if you're a student you're not studying politics.



We don't live in a oligarchy. We live in a constitutional monarchy, which is again different from an absolute monarchy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure but it doesn't seem to me that having representation the town halls is a totally bad thing, just so long as it is actually expressing the interests of a politically conscious constituency, rather than being arbitarily picked by bunch of floating voters who think democracy is some sort of shopping between 'brands' ...


tell you what, if people standing for election had to be branded each time they stood you'd see far fewer of them doing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> We don't live in a oligarchy. We live in a constitutional monarchy, which is again different from an absolute monarchy.


ok then. give me a link to the constitution.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Not a fan of an unelected head of state myself, but like all systems, democracy isn't perfect but IMO it's the best we have.



For real? A minority of the populace pin the tail on the donkey once every five years and the declared winner has free reign to not do anything they promised once at the levers of power. That's democracy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> For real? A minority of the populace pin the tail on the donkey once every five years and the declared winner has free reign to not do anything they promised once at the levers of power. That's democracy?


no, the unelected monarch has free reign and her government has free rein.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, the unelected monarch has free reign and her government has free rein.



I've got minus GCSEs and work in a coal mine though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I've got minus GCSEs and work in a coal mine though.


as a canary?


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, the unelected monarch has free reign and her government has free rein.



Our unelected monarch doesn't have much power and those she does are largely ceremonial, certainly nothing like the absolute rule of the monarch in other countries.

You're wrong to say we live in a oligarchy.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> As nice as this would be to assume I think that it would be wrong to do so. To take one example, as treelover the party in Sheffield has been inundated with business people who are working with a lot of students who pre-2010 would have probably been Lib Dems, and we all know by now the approach of the Brighton Green council to picketlines.


I missed this earlier btw.

That's the sort of contribution I was hoping for. 

Business people covers quite a range of people though, from the suited and booted brigade with audis, mercs etc, to those who run small businesses, drive a van etc. treelover any more info on what you were meaning by 'business people'?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure but it doesn't seem to me that having representation the town halls is a totally bad thing, just so long as it is actually expressing the interests of a politically conscious mass of people, rather than being arbitrarily picked by bunch of floating voters who think democracy is some sort of shopping between 'brands' ...


I don't think the 'politically conscious mass of people' bit is needed as regards formal voting.  The collective self-recognising and long running communities that allow that to even happen, that's our work now. I think we're saying the same thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Our unelected monarch doesn't have much power and those she does are largely ceremonial, certainly nothing like the absolute rule of the monarch in other countries.
> 
> You're wrong to say we live in a oligarchy.


i don't think you know what power is. now, about that constitution, could you link to it?


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I missed this earlier btw.
> 
> That's the sort of contribution I was hoping for.


so sorry we let you down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> so sorry we let you down.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you know what power is. now, about that constitution, could you link to it?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2561719.stm

I'll repeat though - we don't live in an oligarchy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2561719.stm
> 
> I'll repeat though - we don't live in an oligarchy.


that's the bbc website. do you not have another, perhaps more official, website to which you could link?

you can repeat yourself as much as you like, but perhaps you could provide some argument for your assertion.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2561719.stm
> 
> I'll repeat though - we don't live in an oligarchy.



Excellent. Perhaps we all ought to vote for a pay rise.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> as a canary?



As a canary's cleaner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty if we live in a democracy how come every act of parliament has to get some monarch's approval?

btw, i'll save you the trouble of trying to find the constitution - there isn't one, they make it up as they go along.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2561719.stm
> 
> I'll repeat though - we don't live in an oligarchy.



A Plutocracy, surely?


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that's the bbc website. do you not have another, perhaps more official, website to which you could link?
> 
> you can repeat yourself as much as you like, but perhaps you could provide some argument for your assertion.



BBC is usually quite reliable. But here's another link http://archive.org/stream/britishconstitut00dean/britishconstitut00dean_djvu.txt

I would agree with you in a sense that our country behaves like an oligarchy as we do have that form of power structure where power effectively rests with a small number of people. 

However, the BIG difference  is that _oligarchy_ is not always ruled by the wealthy, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by either wealth or by bloodlines – as in a monarchy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A Plutocracy, surely?


s/he doesn't know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> BBC is usually quite reliable. But here's another link http://archive.org/stream/britishconstitut00dean/britishconstitut00dean_djvu.txt
> 
> I would agree with you in a sense that our country behaves like an oligarchy as we do have that form of power structure where power effectively rests with a small number of people.
> 
> However, the BIG difference  is that _oligarchy_ is not always ruled by the wealthy, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by either wealth or by bloodlines – as in a monarchy.


yes. your new link is to an 1893 book written by an american academic. i'm not persuaded that that is up to date.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2014)

> Surveys of new members show that they are overwhelmingly on the left.
> 
> A check on way people have joined the party throws up comments like “I joined because the Green Party is firmly on the left,” “The Green Party has policies for social justice,” and “I joined the Greens because I am a lifelong socialist.”


I can't verify this, but this is a quote from a Green Left member writing in the morning star


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> Trendy Lefty if we live in a democracy how come every act of parliament has to get some monarch's approval?
> 
> btw, i'll save you the trouble of trying to find the constitution - there isn't one, they make it up as they go along.



Well my point is that the queen has the power to dissolve parliament if she wants, but the chances of this happening are next to none as these are only notional powers. And yes, she does does have to approve acts of parliament but when has she ever not approved them? Most of her actual powers evolve round acting as a ceremonial figurehead and promoting national unity.
In reality the queen may be an unelected head of the state but the powers she has are very little. I am no royalist either.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I can't verify this, but this is a quote from a Green Left member writing in the morning star


That's the green left - a faction with the green party  - and that's the leading voice of the green left in fact,someone i gen have a lot of time for. He needs it to be true. It might well be. But in electoral terms - so what.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Well my point is that the queen has the power to dissolve parliament if she wants, but the chances of this happening are next to none


Gough Whitlam


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

She didn't dissolve parliament when she felt like it in this case here. This is no response to this mans post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Well my point is that the queen has the power to dissolve parliament if she wants, but the chances of this happening are next to none as these are only notional powers. And yes, she does does have to approve acts of parliament but when has she ever not approved them? Most of her actual powers evolve round acting as a ceremonial figurehead and promoting national unity.
> In reality the queen may be an unelected head of the state but the powers she has are very little. I am no royalist either.


but her head's on all the coins and on all the stamps just to make her feel better. the royal crest's in every courtroom for no particular reason, i suppose. the government is not our government, it is her majesty's government. and as i say, you've yet to say what you mean by power. she's a fuck of a lot more power than you or i do, that's for sure.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but her head's on all the coins and on all the stamps just to make her feel better. the royal crest's in every courtroom for no particular reason, i suppose. the government is not our government, it is her majesty's government. and as i say, you've yet to say what you mean by power. she's a fuck of a lot more power than you or i do, that's for sure.



To me a better example of how we live in an oligarchy rather than a democracy is how, despite the fact that none of the main three (I suppose four now), parties are openly in favour of NHS privatisation all of these parties will undoubtedly accelerate that process.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> To me a better example of how we live in an oligarchy rather than a democracy is how, despite the fact that none of the main three (I suppose four now), parties are openly in favour of NHS privatisation all of these parties will undoubtedly accelerate that process.


i know, i was just bored and fooling about.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's the green left - a faction with the green party  - and that's the leading voice of the green left in fact,someone i gen have a lot of time for. He needs it to be true. It might well be. But in electoral terms - so what.


In electoral terms, then if true, then there's an increasingly majority left of centre party that states it's against austerity, and neoliberalism, wants to end the WTO, wants a £10 minimum wage etc That has increase it's polling from under 1% to 6-8% or so, and has a membership level that's rapidly approaching that of the lib dems.

I just found a GP tweet from last week claiming they've hit 30,000 members in England and Wales, with another 8k in Scotland. So my original post about them doubling their E&W membership this year was actually right.

Compare that with Left Unity, whose membership has apparently levelled off at around 2000, and is embroiled in infighting over what if any level of co-operation to have with TUSC. The TUSC are least are targeting the numbers of candidates needed to get election broadcasts, but are going to be pretty over stretched to even get to that level never mind actually run proper campaigns in all those constituencies.

Realistically, 6 months out from the election it seems that, like it or not, the Green Party is the only potentially left of centre anti-austerity political party that has the momentum to make the most significant impact at the election. Though even integrating that volume of new members into a party is going to be a massive task for them, and frankly I doubt a lot of their local parties are really going to know what's hit them as they're used to bumbling along with a small group doing the minimum necessary to not lose their deposit.

I've only scanned it, and haven't had chance to really take it all in, but some of their economic policy proposals look pretty radical, and a lot more detailed than I was expecting. Some stuff pretty sensible, some like removing the ability of the banks to actually create electronic credit / effectively ending fractional reserve banking would have massive consequences if implemented. It definitely doesn't read like another neoliberalist economic policy though.

Interesting discussion about this on the left unity blog here


> There is no point in our trying to deny it: the Green Party is certainly now a party of the left and is even – somewhat fuzzily – anti-capitalist. Caroline Lucas has said on TV that she is proud of the party’s ‘socialist traditions’ and both she and the party’s current leader, Natalie Bennet, have publicly said that they are comfortable with being described as ‘watermelons’ (green on the outside but red on the inside;



Obviously it helps that I come from an environmental background anyway, but the greens were always pretty useless and hadn't nailed their colours to the mast on neoliberalism properly last time i really considered them a decade or so ago.

There is the issue of the greens taking votes from Labour and potentially letting the tories sneak back in, but UKIP are currently taking more votes from Labour, and the greens are taking more votes from the lib dems. It probably only becomes a major issue if the tories win back a significant portion of the 24% of their vote that's gone to UKIP.

Still not made my mind up what to do though. It probably depends how the various campaigns look locally really


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2014)

What on earth do you mean by



> There is the issue of the greens taking votes from Labour and potentially letting the tories sneak back in, but UKIP are currently taking more votes from Labour, and the greens are taking more votes from the lib dems. It probably only becomes a major issue if the tories win back a significant portion of the 24% of their vote that's gone to UKIP.



All that late night _research _to show that the glibness owners class who think they're lefties are going to vote labour or green - sort of like exactly as i said.

Still, shame on the rest of us for not catering for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

treelover said:


> The party here is changing, more small business people seem to be getting involved, there always were quite a few, but they seem to dominate now, business seems to be a key feature of them now
> 
> if people want to vote for that its up  to them, but for me its a step too far.



Not really a surprise. When a party surpasses a certain level of public awareness, those who see themselves as *politically-pragmatic will always turn up and attempt to take advantage.

*And yes, by "politically-pragmatic", I do mean the equivalent of "March violets".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yeah a lot of their new voters will be the same divs who voted Libdem in 2010



Come the hour, come trevhagl!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 24, 2014)

The Labour Party agrees. They are afraid that the Greens will steal some of their votes and lose them a few seats:

http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/greens-the-myth-of-the-new-left-debunked/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2014)

Jean-Luc said:


> The Labour Party agrees. They are afraid that the Greens will steal some of their votes and lose them a few seats:
> 
> http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/greens-the-myth-of-the-new-left-debunked/


Yeah, that totally looks like The Labour Party. I mean that's def where they would direct a _fightback_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Part of the problem is the public not (in general) having a clear idea of what a party acting in their interest would look like, and hence not being able to give that party a mandate to act that way.
> 
> For example Green (and other non-Tory) councillors are often criticised for compromising on austerity budgets rather than holding out for a 'needs' budget that would force a confrontation with Westminster.
> 
> ...



In general, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. That said, here in Lambeth, the council is held by Labour, who hold all but one ward. That single ward is held by a Green and bless him, he does his very best to hold Lambeth Labour accountable, causing them much more irritation and hard work than Lambeth Tories or Lib-Dems did in opposition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So the greens are basically the Continuity Lib Dems now then?



Yep, and the Lib-Dems are the Provisional wing of the Tory Party.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2014)

struggling for a labour/UDA comparison now


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so if a Syriza type coalition had got it together to mount a serious electoral challenge against these austerity policies, NHS privatisation etc you don't think they'd have gained significant support?



As Farage has proven, to garner support, you need a gimmick as well as (more or less nebulous, depending on your target audience) policies. A new "party of the left" would have to sell itself not only as "not Labour", and "not Trots", but as a viable electoral alternative. That means building the organisation from the grass roots upward and proliferating through setting a good example of alternative politics (an excellent gimmick at any time), but it all requires time and effort, as well as a broader political base than "anti-austerity and pro-NHS", in order to gain "significant support". Voters aren't, for the most part, sheep. They're informed actors who vote according to their personal and class interests, and currently they're aware that the only real options are between total shitcunts and almost-total shitcunts, and that spending their vote on Left Unity, the Greens or TUSC will make them feel good, but achieve nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> struggling for a labour/UDA comparison now



something something Red Hand Commandos.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> Lib Dem was an attractive vote at the time. They seemed like an alternative to the main two parties, now they're just another one of the Westminster elite who have colluded with the Tories to inflict some horrific polices on the most vulnerable.


"Now they're just another one of the Westminster elite..."?
By 2010 we'd already had several years of Orange Book bullshit from the Lib-Dem leadership. It was patently obvious by 2007 at latest that any Lib-Dem presence in government would be firmly neoliberal in outlook, in keeping with the other two major parties. You'd have to have been gullible and/or immensely politically-naive to have voted for them, except insofar as students did, on what appeared to be a solid promise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> For the political and business elite mainly, but at least we get some say, however limited.



Yep, getting to elect our councillors and MPs, over whom we have no control once they're elected, is really worth all the shit they heap on us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> But we live in a constitutional monarchy, not an oligarchy.



No, we live within a system that is *labeled* as a constitutional monarchy, but that is in practice an oligarchy. Calling a turd a bird doesn't make your shit an eagle.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Dec 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> here in Lambeth, the council is held by Labour, who hold all but one ward. That single ward is held by a Green and bless him, he does his very best to hold Lambeth Labour accountable, causing them much more irritation and hard work than Lambeth Tories or Lib-Dems did in opposition.


Slight correction. Actually, while there is a single Green councillor, he shares a ward with two Labourites. The is one Tory ward with 3 councillors. Clapham Common. Where else?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 27, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> So you think I should answer a post comparing me to a nazi?



I think you should fuck off and die you Nazi scumbag.

E2A: Apparently this isn't funny.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2014)

jesus h


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think you should fuck off and die you Nazi scumbag.



Fucking bang out of order.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2014)

who shat on his cornflakes?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 27, 2014)

It seemed funny to me but a solid week of Xmas drinking may have clouded my judgement I suppose. Wasn't meant seriously.

Not apologising to an arrogant Green wannabe MP though.


----------



## Celyn (Dec 27, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Big jump in membership in Scotland over indy ref. Generally left wing pro indy types. The Greens were the only party other than the SNP to be pro indy.



SSP and Solidarity also support independence.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 27, 2014)

Celyn said:


> SSP and Solidarity also support independence.



As do TUSC.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It seemed funny to me but a solid week of Xmas drinking may have clouded my judgement I suppose. Wasn't meant seriously.
> 
> Not apologising to an arrogant Green wannabe MP though.


I'm not arrogant and I'm not a wanna be MP! I'm standing to see if we can increase the Green vote from less than 1% to 5% and to help boost our standing in the GLA elections a year later!

What is it with people calling other people things they can't possibly even know because they have never met them!

And I'm not talking to any group of people who insist I am a Nazi.

Edit: just remembered the ignore button. Problem sorted!


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 27, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm not arrogant and I'm not a wanna be MP! I'm standing to see if we can increase the Green vote from less than 1% to 5% and to help boost our standing in the GLA elections a year later!
> 
> What is it with people calling other people things they can't possibly even know because they have never met them!
> 
> ...


Well are you going to deal with the criticisms people have of your party or are you just going to stick those on ignore too.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Well are you going to deal with the criticisms people have of your party or are you just going to stick those on ignore too.


Well if any of them accuse me of being a Nazi I will quite rightly refuse to answer. I prefer to talk about the relevant issues and not some conspiraloon nonsense designed to distract. In my view I am the most left wing candidate standing in my seat and the one still in touch with my working class roots and willing to stand up for people of my class. Can't see anyone else doing this!!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> Well if any of them accuse me of being a Nazi I will quite rightly refuse to answer. I prefer to talk about the relevant issues and not some conspiraloon nonsense designed to distract. In my view I am the most left wing candidate standing in my seat and the one still in touch with my working class roots and willing to stand up for people of my class. Can't see anyone else doing this!!


No one did it here though.  It doesn't matter what you prefer - it really doesn't work that way. You're going to get hammered and i think maybe you need to learn how to deal with that in this election. 

I wish you the best of luck in fucking up the rest - not as a green candidate or any of that shit, you know fucks the greens, but as a person, you sound alright.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No one did it here though.  It doesn't matter what you prefer - it really doesn't work that way. You're going to get hammered and i think maybe you need to learn how to deal with that in this election.
> 
> I wish you the best of luck in fucking up the rest - not as a green candidate or any of that shit, you know fucks the greens, but as a person, you sound alright.


I'm going to learn how to deal with it in the debates with the other candidates and in front of my constituents and not here on Urban75.


----------



## rekil (Dec 27, 2014)

Going door to door will be much much harder than anything you get here.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm going to learn how to deal with it in the debates with the other candidates and in front of my constituents and not here on Urban75.


Good, learn learn learn, seek knowledge even in china - but they're not your constituents.  And really, in terms of learning how to deal with criticisms this could a be good place - many others though.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2014)

copliker said:


> Going door to door will be much much harder than anything you get here.


I disagree - I've been doing door to door since I was 16! It's in my blood!


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2014)

copliker said:


> Going door to door will be much much harder than anything you get here.





I have done a lot of doorstep, thousands of houses, it's a breeze compared to the shit that gets thrown around on here.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2014)

co-op said:


> I have done a lot of doorstep, thousands of houses, it's a breeze compared to the shit that gets thrown around on here.


It really is!!


----------



## rekil (Dec 27, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I disagree - I've been doing door to door since I was 16! It's in my blood!


Fair dues, hardest game in the world etc.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 27, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> Well if any of them accuse me of being a Nazi I will quite rightly refuse to answer. I prefer to talk about the relevant issues and not some conspiraloon nonsense designed to distract. In my view I am the most left wing candidate standing in my seat and the one still in touch with my working class roots and willing to stand up for people of my class. Can't see anyone else doing this!!


Well one person referred to you as a Nazi and was pulled up on it (and for the record I agree that what they said was out of order) but from the very first time you posted on this thread you've dodged the issues. And as for other people not standing up for their class, well quite frankly that's pretty offensive, there's loads of people on here that do stuff that is a damn site more productive than running for election in a seat you'll never win for a party that employed scab labour.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Well one person referred to you as a Nazi and was pulled up on it (and for the record I agree that what they said was out of order) but from the very first time you posted on this thread you've dodged the issues. And as for other people not standing up for their class, well quite frankly that's pretty offensive, there's loads of people on here that do stuff that is a damn site more productive than running for election in a seat you'll never win for a party that employed scab labour.


I've been an activist all my life. I don't need to answer to you! I supported the miners when the labour leadership wouldn't and labour always let working people down so now I'm here standing up for working people! Brighton have done plenty of positive hings including introducing a living wage and equalising pay for women while labour voted with the Tories. The Labour Party have been evicting ordinary families in favour of developers and joining in with the social cleansing of London and the only socialists I can find are in the Green Party. I didn't have to even acknowledge this thread but I did! And I don't have to answer to people like you! So fuck off


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 27, 2014)

So you'll just keep on dodging the perfectly valid issues people have raised on this thread. You haven't acknowledged this thread, that's precisely the problem. You've posted on it but not once have you addressed the issues.

And I'm no asking you to answer to "people like me" (whatever that means) I'm asking you to address the criticisms raised by people in this thread, that fact that you are either unwilling or unable to do that is pretty crap. Hell if you are the best the Green Party can muster than they really are shit.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 27, 2014)

andysays said:


> I do have what I think is a sensible, valid and important criticism of the Green Party - why do they appear to have nothing approaching a class analysis in their approach?



Sorry mate, but


----------



## JTG (Dec 27, 2014)

Good luck with running for public office whilst posting abusive messages to people on the internet then


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm going to learn how to deal with it in the debates with the other candidates and in front of my constituents and not here on Urban75.



TBF, you should do the latter in order to home your ability to do the former. To not do so is a missed opportunity, especially given that *here* you'll possibly get asked questions that you wouldn't be prepared for in public debate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2014)

copliker said:


> Going door to door will be much much harder than anything you get here.



Absolutely. Some of the complex stuff you get asked when canvassing is stuff a lot of PPCs don't bone up on, and can lose you a household's votes in an instant if you fumble or mumble.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I've been an activist all my life. I don't need to answer to you! I supported the miners when the labour leadership wouldn't and labour always let working people down so now I'm here standing up for working people! Brighton have done plenty of positive hings including introducing a living wage and equalising pay for women while labour voted with the Tories. The Labour Party have been evicting ordinary families in favour of developers and joining in with the social cleansing of London and the only socialists I can find are in the Green Party. I didn't have to even acknowledge this thread but I did! And I don't have to answer to people like you! So fuck off



The above is why you need to hone your answers. All you've done is trot out a party line, and attempt to imply that you're doing people a favour by deigning to reply to them at all.
And sure, the Greens did provide an alternative for socialists over the last 30 years. Unfortunately (for the party and the country) they also have given shelter to the nastier end of the ideological spectrum, or are you going to claim that the Green Party hasn't been tainted by crypto-fascism in some local areas?  I hope not, as the reality of some local parties having members of the bonkers brigade in positions of responsibility has been a deterrent to the party extending its' membership over and over again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry mate, but



Is or isn't class an element in current politics, major or minor, national or local?
The answer is clearly "is", in which case we can only hope that your multiple facepalms knock some sense into you.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm not arrogant and I'm not a wanna be MP! I'm standing to see if we can increase the Green vote from less than 1% to 5% and to help boost our standing in the GLA elections a year later!
> 
> What is it with people calling other people things they can't possibly even know because they have never met them!
> 
> ...



I wasn't seriously calling you a Nazi (and as has been pointed out I was out of order apparently, although IMO this thread demonstrates there are no limits to the ill treatment of Greens but it seems I'm in a minority of one on that score).

I was responding to the fact that you claimed you had been called a Nazi (see below):



AuntiStella said:


> So you think I should answer a post comparing me to a nazi?



You say you're not a wannabe but you sound like one:



AuntiStella said:


> anyone who has a reaonable question to ask can email me at stella.gardiner@greenparty.org.uk
> 
> When I'm elected I'll come back and deal with this thread. In the meant time I have a life and a day job and a campaign to run!



So you've got no time to deal with the questions raised on this thread now but when you're elected to Parliament you'll have loads of time to respond in detail to criticisms of your party and tell us why we should vote for you?

I guess I could give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you about Brighton. What do you think about Kitkat and Green take on austerity?

I don't believe for a second you're genuine in anything you say but go ahead, prove me wrong. As you say, I can't prove you're a horrible liar but I like betting and I'd stake a hefty sum on you being a horrible liar.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I've been an activist all my life. I don't need to answer to you!



Have you had that arrogant attitude all your life too? You must be a nightmare to work with. I've been flat out rude to you but redsquirrel has engaged; why can't you respond to them?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 29, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry mate, but



We don't know if your facepalming is because you don't think the Greens should have a class based approach or because you think it's completely obvious that they do. Make it clear if you want to answer andysays constructively.



andysays said:


> I don't live in your constituency, but I do have what I think is a sensible, valid and important criticism of the Green Party - why do they appear to have nothing approaching a class analysis in their approach?



Because they're a bunch of woolly liberals. Apart from the anti semitic crypto fascists, of course.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> We don't know if your facepalming is because you don't think the Greens should have a class based approach or because you think it's completely obvious that they do. Make it clear if you want to answer andysays constructively.



It might not be clear to you, but it will be clear to anyone who isn't mired in class obsessed politics.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 29, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It might not be clear to you, but it will be clear to anyone who isn't mired in class obsessed politics.



Ahhhh, it becomes clear now - you agree that the Greens don't have a class based approach and you think that's good.

E2A: Aren't you glad I'm here to help you communicate?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2014)

the greens dont need class - they have humus.


----------



## rekil (Dec 29, 2014)

Love Hummus, Hate Greens tbh


----------



## JTG (Dec 29, 2014)

copliker said:


> Love Hummus, Hate Greens tbh


That needs to be on a ubiquitous sticker campaign


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ahhhh, it becomes clear now - you agree that the Greens don't have a class based approach and you think that's good.
> 
> E2A: Aren't you glad I'm here to help you communicate?



I don't think it is totally clear from what he said, although I'm guessing you've got it right based on the implications of the 'class obsessed' bit. 

Is Andrew Hertford a Green then? Is that a typical Green view on class?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is Andrew Hertford a Green then? Is that a typical Green view on class?



Don't know and yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2014)

hertfords a bog standard labour liberal


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 29, 2014)

Emphasis on bog, he's a toilet


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 29, 2014)

DP


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 29, 2014)

as if there's a form of mainstream politics in this country that _isn't _class obsessed.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ahhhh, it becomes clear now - you agree that the Greens don't have a class based approach and you think that's good.
> 
> E2A: Aren't you glad I'm here to help you communicate?


Although policies such as universal income would have a massive class inpact


----------



## andysays (Dec 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> We don't know if your facepalming is because you don't think the Greens should have a class based approach or because you think it's completely obvious that they do. Make it clear if you want to answer andysays constructively...



Yeah, that was my reaction. There are various possible explanations for the triple facepalm, but without some clarity that reaction is worthless.



SpackleFrog said:


> ...Because they're a bunch of woolly liberals. Apart from the anti semitic crypto fascists, of course.



I'd tend to agree with the first bit (and I'd take issue with the apparent assumption that significant numbers of members/supporters of the GP are anti semitic crypto fascists, BTW, none of the members/supporters I know come into that category, unless they're very good at hiding it).

I would still be interested in hearing a coherent response from AuntiStella or Andrew Hertford or anyone else who might speak in some way for the Green Party about the class issue, because as I already said, I'm someone who is sympathetic to green issues but who sees this as the major failing of the Green Party as it exists.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2014)

Anyone remember Meltingpot ?

If not, worth reading from here on this thread.

And from meltingpot the green's stormfront postings are revealed from here


----------



## belboid (Dec 30, 2014)

What's happened to Derek Wall and the Green Left? He/they did have something of a class analysis (well, class and 'indigenous populations'), much of it seemingly derived from a Fourth Internationalist perspective.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 30, 2014)

belboid said:


> What's happened to Derek Wall and the Green Left? He/they did have something of a class analysis (well, class and 'indigenous populations'), much of it seemingly derived from a Fourth Internationalist perspective.



Still going

http://www.thegreenleft.co.uk/

Also I don't want to defend the Green Party - but we have no evidence the slime Meltingpot was a member or supporter only his words, which we know were worthless. 

It's probably more useful to point to the likes of Tony Gosling in Bristol who was a candidate for the Greens


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Still going
> 
> http://www.thegreenleft.co.uk/
> 
> ...


And is now being given space on RT -_the channel you can trust._ I wonder if this is part of the protocols of the elders of zions plans and he was just trying to give us fair warning by circulating them?


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> I would still be interested in hearing a coherent response from AuntiStella or Andrew Hertford or anyone else who might speak in some way for the Green Party about the class issue, because as I already said, I'm someone who is sympathetic to green issues but who sees this as the major failing of the Green Party as it exists.



OK, I will give a go. But I can't claim to speak for the Party and I don't know the ins and outs of the Green Left group.

Basically, there is an assumption behind a lot of Green policies, not always spelled out, that we should/need to move to a decentralised, mutual society. So a lot of the opposition to new nuclear is opposition to large, centralised power generation rather than nuclear per se.

This can also be seen in Green policy on Workers' rights and Employment. I've cut out a few relevant ones, apologies for the length:



> WR360 The large income disparities which characterise our society are a sign of significant social and economic injustice. The Green Party believes that working people should be paid a decent, living wage and, like every other citizen, be entitled to a sufficient level of economic security to meet their needs. Every worker, like every citizen, should have the right to fair income security, whether working, unemployed, in retirement or in sickness. Everyone should be paid the same for work of equal value, regardless of age.
> 
> WR361 To these ends we propose (i) a Citizens Income payable to every citizen as a basic right, funded by an ecological and genuinely progressive taxation system, and (ii) a significant role for unions and workers to ensure decent wage levels. In the absence of a fully developed Citizens Income scheme, we support (a) the idea of minimum wage legislation, set at a level to combat social and economic injustice and the poverty and economic insecurity associated with low pay, and (b) the payment of decent benefits to low-and un-waged people.
> 
> ...



I'm going to characterise this as a society with citizen's income and a move towards mutuals.

I think two questions arise from this: 1) is this 'enough' of a class analysis for you? Do you agree that what they propose is sufficient? 2) Will they actually try and deliver any of it, and succeed?

For me, I would be happy with a citizen's income and co-operatives as the default business model. Citizen's income at a sufficient level would end wage slavery and worker/community ownership would end the extraction of surplus value (as I understand all those terms, at least). What do you think? How do you think it compares to e.g. Left Unity?

On 2), I think this is where we run into problems. I think that the policies listed above have a class analysis behind them, but this is not made explicit by the terms used. A downside of this is that a seemingly small shift in the policy can completely obviate any class analysis.

For example, proposing a living wage as an intermediate step to a citizen's income. Would a living wage be better than what we have now? Certainly. A living wage might be roughly around the same amount as a citizen's income, but would it necessarily make it any easier to implement a citizen's income? I don't think so. Is it a meaningful change in how society is organised, as citizen's income is? No.

How will this shift to mutual ownership happen in the face of certain opposition from current owners? It's not clear.

Partly you have the issue faced by anyone with fairly radical policies, of how to implement them in the current environment. If you're up for social revolution and don't like parliamentary democracy then you'll probably see the Greens as pushing their way into a blind alley. Though to be fair they do spell out the need to effect change at all levels and recognise the limits of the parliamentary system.

Specific to the Greens, I think there is a danger that as they become more mainstream they lose the more radical things and end up just as a 'bit more left than labour' party. I think it is undeniable that they are primarily a party of middle-class luvvies and as discussed above it would be interesting to see if the surge has moved them more to the soft left or the radical left.

All that said, I find it encouraging that a party with such policies is pushing into the mainstream and gaining support (especially among the young, who are often characterised as thatcherite these days). I also like Left Unity's policies, but I simply don't see them really going anywhere. Will the Greens simply be co-opted and made into an ineffectual 'we're nicer than labour' party? I hope not but I can see why many think that will happen.


----------



## andysays (Dec 30, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> OK, I will give a go. But I can't claim to speak for the Party and I don't know the ins and outs of the Green Left group...
> 
> ...I think two questions arise from this: 1) is this 'enough' of a class analysis for you? Do you agree that what they propose is sufficient? 2) Will they actually try and deliver any of it, and succeed?...
> 
> ...Will the Greens simply be co-opted and made into an ineffectual 'we're nicer than labour' party? I hope not but I can see why many think that will happen.



Thanks for that response - it's a shame that Urban's one (as far as I'm aware) Green candidate for elected office couldn't take the trouble to make a similar response.

It's the beginnings of a class analysis but it's not, IMO, sufficient or explicit enough. Maybe there's more explicit stuff underlying it (I wouldn't necessarily expect the policy statement to contain the underlying principles) but from everything I've seen/heard I don't think so.

And because it isn't sufficient/explicit, I share the doubts that you have about them trying and succeeding to impliment even the limited measures proposed (far less any involvement in going beyond them to really transform capitalism into anything truely socialist or truely sustainable), as the example of Brighton council seems to show.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for that response - it's a shame that Urban's one (as far as I'm aware) Green candidate for elected office couldn't take the trouble to make a similar response.
> 
> It's the beginnings of a class analysis but it's not, IMO, sufficient or explicit enough. Maybe there's more explicit stuff underlying it (I wouldn't necessarily expect the policy statement to contain the underlying principles) but from everything I've seen/heard I don't think so.
> 
> And because it isn't sufficient/explicit, I share the doubts that you have about them trying and succeeding to impliment even the limited measures proposed (far less any involvement in going beyond them to really transform capitalism into anything truely socialist or truely sustainable), as the example of Brighton council seems to show.


I suppose this is as deep as you will be able to go: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/philosophical-basis.html

There's lots of stuff on co-operation in that. I am interpreting that as arising from a class analysis leading to a preference for co-operatives over exploitation, but I suppose that is only from my own interpretation.

Regarding Brighton, someone else, maybe you, up thread made the point about needing a popular mandate to run a needs budget and take the consequences. I don't think they had that as a minority council. If they had managed to get a needs budget through, Brighton probably would have been taken over by Eric Pickles. Would that have been better or worse than what they did? Hard to know really. Given the centralisation of local government in the UK, I think any party trying to do anything even slightly radical will be buggered unless they seek that explicit mandate.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

also when small parties get into power they are often keen to prove that they can be 'responsible' with it. in practice, this means working within the standard, narrowly-defined limits of what the bigger parties have done. e.g. the Lib Dems had all their pre-election chat about doing politics differently but dropped that sharpish. however, had they done confidence and supply or similar they probably would have been criticised for not being 'mature' enough.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

finally, when you say 'are the Green Party shit?' you need to say in reference to what?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 30, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> finally, when you say 'are the Green Party shit?' you need to say in reference to what?


 
Ok.  How about starting off by comparing them to cat shit?


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> Ok.  How about starting off by comparing them to cat shit?


better


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2014)

Reason why the green party is shit number 9,457,823:

go on the yougov profiler website and have a look at favourite dishes. Stuffed aubergine comes a close second to Vegetarian shepherds pie. LOL


----------



## andysays (Dec 30, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> I suppose this is as deep as you will be able to go: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/philosophical-basis.html
> 
> There's lots of stuff on co-operation in that. I am interpreting that as arising from a class analysis leading to a preference for co-operatives over exploitation, but I suppose that is only from my own interpretation.
> 
> Regarding Brighton, someone else, maybe you, up thread made the point about needing a popular mandate to run a needs budget and take the consequences. I don't think they had that as a minority council. If they had managed to get a needs budget through, Brighton probably would have been taken over by Eric Pickles. Would that have been better or worse than what they did? Hard to know really. Given the centralisation of local government in the UK, I think any party trying to do anything even slightly radical will be buggered unless they seek that explicit mandate.



I'll have a read of that.

Co-operation is a nice idea, but if your idea of co-operation simply relies on everyone being nice and doesn't explicitly recognise the class divisions which work against meaningful co-operation, you won't get very far (the Green Party, not you personally).

It wasn't me that made the point about the absence of a popular mandate to resist cuts, but it's one I agree with. From memory, at the council elections earlier this year TUSC _did_ stand with an explicit "no-cuts"agenda - they were the only party to do so, in my ward at least. I'd like to see the Green Party follow that example, though I don't expect they will anytime soon.


----------



## andysays (Dec 30, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> finally, when you say 'are the Green Party shit?' you need to say in reference to what?



I would say they're better than almost all the other varieties of electoral shit currently on offer, but still requiring me to hold me nose in order to actually vote for them.


----------



## belboid (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Reason why the green party is shit number 9,457,823:
> 
> go on the yougov profiler website and have a look at favourite dishes. Stuffed aubergine comes a close second to Vegetarian shepherds pie. LOL


Don't diss stuffed aubergine, it's bloody lovely. Especially with lamb imported by air from New Zealand.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Co-operation is a nice idea, but if your idea of co-operation simply relies on everyone being nice and doesn't explicitly recognise the class divisions which work against meaningful co-operation, you won't get very far (the Green Party, not you personally).



Yes, they're somewhat chicken and egg in saying that there'll be no division because there will be common ownership and everyone co-operates, but without saying how they'll get to that stage.


> It wasn't me that made the point about the absence of a popular mandate to resist cuts, but it's one I agree with. From memory, at the council elections earlier this year TUSC _did_ stand with an explicit "no-cuts"agenda - they were the only party to do so, in my ward at least. I'd like to see the Green Party follow that example, though I don't expect they will anytime soon.



Interestingly, just after I wrote that I was reading about the General Strike and came across this line in Wikipedia:



> The leaders of the Labour Party were terrified by the revolutionary elements within the union movement or at least worried about the damage association with them would do to their newly established reputation as a more moderate party of government and were unhappy about the proposed general strike.



From which it is obvious that trying to establish yourself as 'a party of government' means that you become co-opted. Greens currently have a policy of 'no cuts, to the extent that we are able' which puts local parties in an impossible position.



andysays said:


> I would say they're better than almost all the other varieties of electoral shit currently on offer, but still requiring me to hold me nose in order to actually vote for them.



Do you think that a radical left could develop a broad base of support, win an election and implement radical changes? I am not sure.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Reason why the green party is shit number 9,457,823:
> 
> go on the yougov profiler website and have a look at favourite dishes. Stuffed aubergine comes a close second to Vegetarian shepherds pie. LOL



I LIKE AUBERGINES YOU NOBBER!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I LIKE AUBERGINES YOU NOBBER!


You did used to be alib dem though so that you share dietary preferences with the continuity lib dems isn't aa complete surprise!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 30, 2014)

Thanks for that tbtommyb, appreciate a green (member? supporter?) taking up the issue, but this leaps out at me:



tbtommyb said:


> Basically, there is an assumption behind a lot of Green policies, not always spelled out, that we should/need to move to a decentralised, mutual society. So a lot of the opposition to new nuclear is opposition to large, centralised power generation rather than nuclear per se.



This sounds a bit like wanting to go back to the 1700's and live in villages powered by water mills to me. Which is basically what's wrong with the Greens - they see class based politics and nostalgia for feudalism as basically the same thing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You did used to be alib dem though so that you share dietary preferences with the continuity lib dems isn't aa complete surprise!



Outed on Urban. The final humiliation.


----------



## belboid (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You did used to be alib dem though!


Ooh, you barstard


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I LIKE AUBERGINES YOU NOBBER!


yeh as some sort of natural sex toy no doubt


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You did used to be alib dem though so that you share dietary preferences with the continuity lib dems isn't aa complete surprise!


he hasn't said he eats them. see post 826


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh as some sort of natural sex toy no doubt



I LIKE TO UTILISE MY FOOD FOR MULTIPLE PURPOSES.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I LIKE TO UTILISE MY FOOD FOR MULTIPLE PURPOSES.


pls take caps lock off if you don't want to be banned for being a conspiraloon.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2014)

Lol


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I've only scanned it, and haven't had chance to really take it all in, but some of their economic policy proposals look pretty radical, and a lot more detailed than I was expecting. Some stuff pretty sensible, some like removing the ability of the banks to actually create electronic credit / effectively ending fractional reserve banking would have massive consequences if implemented. It definitely doesn't read like another neoliberalist economic policy though.



Their manifestos and other policy stuff always tend to be far more radical than the 'enviro-lib-dem' version of their image would suggest.

It can afford to be. Its not usually tested, and it doesn't tend to get woven into the broader public image of the party in a way that might scare off liberals. So it can safely exist to be swooned over by those it would naturally appeal to, and ignored by everyone else. 

This does pose a problem when trying to promote the idea of voting green as the anti-austerity choice for 2015. If the mainstream narratives don't dwell on the greens as being anti-austerity, then any notable vote for them won't translate into the appropriate story. I wouldn't reach any firm conclusions on that front until its clear the extent to which the Greens will make that stuff central to their campaign in 2015.

Personally although I don't mean to be pessimistic, I suspect that in terms of national and international campaigns against austerity, we may be stuck waiting for further catalysing events. The depression has been managed to date in ways that seem to have stored up plenty of pain and implications for the future.


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> Brighton have done plenty of positive hings including introducing a living wage and equalising pay for women while labour voted with the Tories.



Go where you need to go and do what you gotta do, but perhaps try to contain the poisonous leakage that the concept of belonging to a party can induce on the rest of the mind. When the party does a bad thing there is no need to excuse it, for example. It it were me, I would not dare to bring up any achievements in Brighton without allowing myself to indulge at length in criticism of their despicable failures there at the same time.

This forum is a useful resource for learning about a range of problems some people have with the green party or green politics more generally. Right now we appear to be in a phase of focus on the greens as some kind of alternative for lib-dem voters, and have the concrete examples of Brighton to pick on, but there is much more to it than that.

I wasn't quite sure what to make of your earlier promise to engage with the thread once you'd been elected, since you don't appear to expect to be elected. Perhaps cute, too cute.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> This sounds a bit like wanting to go back to the 1700's and live in villages powered by water mills to me. Which is basically what's wrong with the Greens - they see class based politics and nostalgia for feudalism as basically the same thing.


No problem.

Well, powered by solar panels and with a much more efficient use of resources. If our current lifestyle is flagrantly unsustainable then a shift to a more sustainable path might look like a step backwards in some ways. But then there is also sometimes a bit of a value judgement in it - 'without capitalism we won't have thing xyz that I have decided we don't really need'. Of course, then you get into what are true desires, what are artificial ones created by capitalism, is such a distinction valid, etc. etc.

elbows that is a good point, though has the assumption that political parties consider their actions post-election to be bound by the narrative pre-election, which I don't think is borne out by past form. So the Greens might or might not carry through on anti-austerity. Perhaps if another, external actor had a 'vote Green as the anti-austerity party' that might set up more of an expectation.

Going out on a limb, I think the left, to the extent that you can talk of 'the left', often has a very pessimistic view of its own performance and major actors, forever comparing things to a better, yet theoretical, alternative.

So people often talk of the left's failure in the economic sphere in the last few decades, but ignore the immense success of embedding social equality into the debate, such that Cameron is prepared to defy his party on gay marriage. I know most people on this board can't stand intersectionality and so on, but at the very least it has prompted renewed interest in and discussion of the left's ideas (just not the 'right' ideas for many).

Equally, the debate on Russell Brand. Maybe he's not the ideal figure but he's raising the issue of inequality in the minds of large sections of the population who simply aren't reached by the usual left figures.

Maybe the Greens will turn out be a disappointment, but I think it is promising that a party committed to anti-austerity, citizen's income and mutualisation is polling increasingly better and doing particularly well among the young. In an ideal world, would you have a more explicitly working class party? Fine, but there doesn't seem to be one so I think the Greens are worth a punt. The task is to keep them to the radical bits of their agenda.

I can see the reasoning that such things are just the establishment co-opting an ineffectual safety valve (my view on Tony Benn), but fuck, might as well give it a go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2014)

i can't help thinking that people's economic experiences over the past six years might have added a certain interest for many to debates over equality and exclusion.


----------



## killer b (Dec 30, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> I know most people on this board can't stand intersectionality and so on, but at the very least it has prompted renewed interest in and discussion of the left's ideas (just not the 'right' ideas for many).


what? intersectionality is discussion being funnelled in a particular direction, not a discussion starter in itself. Has it fuck renewed interest and discussion in the left's ideas, it's put countless people off even engaging.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 30, 2014)

I've yet to hear anyone outside of the internet mention intersectionality.


----------



## killer b (Dec 30, 2014)

I have.

Admittedly, only people I've met through the internet.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 30, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I've yet to hear anyone outside of the internet mention intersectionality.



I once heard a very, very posh voice say 'white privilege' in Sheffield train station outside Burger King


----------



## JTG (Dec 30, 2014)

I'm a bit vague about intersectionality. It's a bit like oppression top trumps, yeah?


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> elbows that is a good point, though has the assumption that political parties consider their actions post-election to be bound by the narrative pre-election, which I don't think is borne out by past form. So the Greens might or might not carry through on anti-austerity. Perhaps if another, external actor had a 'vote Green as the anti-austerity party' that might set up more of an expectation.



I wasn't even meaning to sound like I had any expectations on then actually doing anything anti-austerity after the election. I suppose I was making my point within the confines of how a fair chunk of the electorate voting for an anti-austerity party might at least lead to a tweak of the official narrative, some subtle changes to the tone of the propaganda we are offered.

Personally I would like to use my vote to contribute towards something that could at least be a fly in the ointment for the 'there is no alternative' message. I doubt that I can convince myself that the green party quite offers that, especially as the local base they've managed to establish here in recent elections stems from specific NIMBY-green 'don't build new houses on those fields by my house' in a couple of tory areas of town.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 30, 2014)

One important thing about green with a small 'g' politics is the (fairly compelling in my view) argument that you can't have sustainable capitalism any more than you can have socially just capitalism. Nor can you address one, certainly at scale, without addressing the other.

All that '... but you want to send us back to the 17th century' stuff needs to be understood in this context if it's meant to be a serious criticism rather than just a crude parody.


----------



## killer b (Dec 30, 2014)

JTG said:


> I'm a bit vague about intersectionality. It's a bit like oppression top trumps, yeah?


I think the basic idea behind it ('be aware of and perhaps take into account the different ways people can be oppressed'. I think) is pretty sound. The endless attempts to enforce and codify it via twitter, less so.


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> One important thing about green with a small 'g' politics is the (fairly compelling in my view) argument that you can't have sustainable capitalism any more than you can have socially just capitalism.
> 
> All that 'you want to send us back to the 17th century' stuff needs to be understood in that context if it's not just crude parody.



Much of my frustrations of the last 12ish years stem from the possibility that this stuff is not going to gain broader political attention, and will not get to mix much with other political ideas I like, until some more vivid displays of its unsustainability are on offer.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> Much of my frustrations of the last 12ish years stem from the possibility that this stuff is not going to gain broader political attention, and will not get to mix much with other political ideas I like, until some more vivid displays of its unsustainability are on offer.



Even then, unless there's widespread conciousness of the way both unsustainability and injustice have their roots in capitalism _plus _a political movement arising from that conciousness that effectively does something about it; all that those 'vivid displays' are likely to achieve is political pressure to blame it all on foreigners while capital profits from it.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

killer b said:


> what? intersectionality is discussion being funnelled in a particular direction, not a discussion starter in itself. Has it fuck renewed interest and discussion in the left's ideas, it's put countless people off even engaging.


I think it has renewed interest in the issue of privilege, and I think examining how people use privilege to create power structures that perpetuate their privilege is central to left wing politics.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 30, 2014)

JTG said:


> I'm a bit vague about intersectionality. It's a bit like oppression top trumps, yeah?



afaik it starts from academic feminism and a realisation that sexism isn't the only form of oppression and that other forms of oppression (eg: racism, homophobia) intersect with sexism in people who suffer from more than one oppression. Poverty/class/economic oppression is simply another oppression in this ideology, which puts it at odds with a marxist-feminist position, which sees sexism as intrinsically linked with capitalism and class. Intersectionalism is very individualistic and generally liberal (because the politics is all about the oppression/domination of the individuals in a relationship, and the solution to the problem is for people to check their privilege, ie become better people).

From this start you can kind of go two ways - one is to use the idea of different oppressions as a way of building solidarity between different oppressed groups, to see that the feminist struggle won't be complete until the anti-racist struggle is complete because black women will still be oppressed even if women aren't and to see a path for empathy in that a white woman can understand a black man's oppression because there'll be similarities. 

The other, which is where the twitter intersectionalists have gone, is to use it to divide so a man can't disagree with a woman about sexism (this has some validity but they take it too far then get all in a twist when they find themselves arguing against a woman - eg see the comet scientist shirt discussion and how some people made a big thing about how a woman designed the shirt so it can't be sexist which troubled the intersectionalists who thought the shirt was sexist) and to play the oppression top trumps whereby a rich black woman is more oppressed than a poor white man because she has 2 oppression and he only has 1. Mostly it seems to just be used to shut discussion down.

I've never seen intersectionalism used in a practical sense, there's no praxis afaik, the only time it's come out in real life was in the student groups at Brum Uni during the anti-cuts stuff, and then it wasn't used to inform organisation/strategy/tactics but as offhand comments in discussions when an intersectionalist would say someone should check their privelege about something or other. I guess that it may be more practical in liberation stuff but I've not seen it in the anti-racism / anti-edl stuff I've been involved with in the past few years.

imo obviously.


----------



## killer b (Dec 30, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> I think it has renewed interest in the issue of privilege, and I think examining how people use privilege to create power structures that perpetuate their privilege is central to left wing politics.


but nobody other than middle class liberals on the internet have even heard of it?


----------



## elbows (Dec 30, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Even then, unless there's widespread conciousness of the way both unsustainability and injustice have their roots in capitalism _plus _a political movement arising from that conciousness that effectively does something about it; all that those 'vivid displays' are likely to achieve is political pressure to blame it all on foreigners while capital profits from it.



Well initially I'm not even hoping for widespread consciousness of this stuff, I was just hoping to get to a point where related issues would worm their way into discussion on the likes on u75 in new ways. To at least partially bridge a gap that existed on, for example, between the peak oil thread and some of the other political discussions/stances/angles on u75. Or a discussion of sustainable politics and societies that doesn't get bogged down by either the nature of the mainstream capitalist greenwashing of recent times, hippy dippy shit, or earlier ecologist politics that may have interesting class dimensions and unpalatable eugenicist angles.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> Well initially I'm not even hoping for widespread consciousness of this stuff, I was just hoping to get to a point where related issues would worm their way into discussion on the likes on u75 in new ways. To at least partially bridge a gap that existed on, for example, between the peak oil thread and some of the other political discussions/stances/angles on u75. Or a discussion of sustainable politics and societies that doesn't get bogged down by either the nature of the mainstream capitalist greenwashing of recent times, hippy dippy shit, or earlier ecologist politics that may have interesting class dimensions and unpalatable eugenicist angles.



Interesting discussion in a programme I listened to today including on the limits of 'ethical consumerism' and green washed 'nicer' capitalism.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 30, 2014)

BigTom one issue with it is that people sometimes use it to mean that because they are 'oppressed' to a small extent in some way this means that they therefore fit into the 'oppressed' group. E.g. a posh friend of mine told me 'it's so hard to be a Catholic in England' because people at dinner ask loads of questions, or because of the anti-Catholic laws from the 17th century or something. But I'm sure his wealth will see him through. However, this is a mis-use of the whole concept.

killer b maybe 'intersectionality' as a term yes, but I think the wider ideas around privilege are spreading further.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> Well initially I'm not even hoping for widespread consciousness of this stuff, I was just hoping to get to a point where related issues would worm their way into discussion on the likes on u75 in new ways. To at least partially bridge a gap that existed on, for example, between the peak oil thread and some of the other political discussions/stances/angles on u75. Or a discussion of sustainable politics and societies that doesn't get bogged down by either the nature of the mainstream capitalist greenwashing of recent times, hippy dippy shit, or earlier ecologist politics that may have interesting class dimensions and unpalatable eugenicist angles.



The 'unpalatable' things that you mention are often really good examples of what can happen when someone starts thinking about sustainability, sometimes even using real science, without also thinking about its relationship to capital, class and all the rest of it.

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_ethics


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 30, 2014)

Despite reading an awful lot of Twitter I've never seen examples of "Twitter intersectionality" as described above being in the slightest commonplace. In general it seems to be a concept used pretty well, to challenge single-issue analyses based purely on gender, race, class etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 30, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Despite reading an awful lot of Twitter I've never seen examples of "Twitter intersectionality" as described above being in the slightest commonplace. In general it seems to be a concept used pretty well, to challenge single-issue analyses based purely on gender, race, class etc.



I have.

But yeah I think it encompasses a really big range of things from people who use that kind of stuff to inform really sound views and analysis (and let's be honest it was the comrade delta thing that really triggered a more widespread acceptance of this stuff on the British left, I have a good mate who agrees with us on most stuff who uses this stuff to inform her views and to be honest after her experience of 'class based' trotskyite politics that only appeared gave a shit about men in positions of power a totally understand why) to the sort of bollocks talked about in this thread, bellydancing as cultural appropriation and so on.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 30, 2014)

stethoscope


----------



## JTG (Dec 30, 2014)

Thanks all, it was a throwaway comment but I feel better informed now


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> I think it has renewed interest in the issue of privilege, and I think examining how people use privilege to create power structures that perpetuate their privilege is central to left wing politics.


I disagree. To me, examination of how privilege is deployed isn't central to anything. Dismantling the power structures that are used against us, on the other hand...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 31, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> No problem.
> 
> Well, powered by solar panels and with a much more efficient use of resources. If our current lifestyle is flagrantly unsustainable then a shift to a more sustainable path might look like a step backwards in some ways. But then there is also sometimes a bit of a value judgement in it - 'without capitalism we won't have thing xyz that I have decided we don't really need'. Of course, then you get into what are true desires, what are artificial ones created by capitalism, is such a distinction valid, etc. etc.



Not really what I mean - you said you felt the Greens were against large centralised power generation but the alternative - locally produced energy - is gonna mean a massive decline in living standards whether you're talking pop up solar power generators or bijou personal coal power stations.



tbtommyb said:


> If our current lifestyle is flagrantly unsustainable



This is basically the issue in 7 words. "Our" lifestyle isn't flagrantly unsustainable - take it apart and understand the us and them dynamic behind it. My living standards aren't flagrantly unsustainable and probably yours aren't either - it's the obscene consumption of the super rich which absolutely cannot be sustained.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 31, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> One important thing about green with a small 'g' politics is the (fairly compelling in my view) argument that you can't have sustainable capitalism any more than you can have socially just capitalism. Nor can you address one, certainly at scale, without addressing the other.
> 
> All that '... but you want to send us back to the 17th century' stuff needs to be understood in this context if it's meant to be a serious criticism rather than just a crude parody.



This is the thing isn't it though - people who quite rightly get alarmed about carbon emissions etc and how we as a species are killing ourselves and many other species at a fairly rapid pace but who cannot or will not think outside of the current profit driven paradigm can only suggest that we cease to consume. That's where all the mad 'zero growth' stuff comes from - and of course you'll never build mass support among people for this kind of idea, because reducing consumption without economic restructuring means reducing the consumption of the poorest, not the wealthy. In short, pushing the living standards of working class people back to 1700's levels. 

Spiney and me know someone who is a fascinating example of this.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 31, 2014)

I've usually found zero growth / steady state stuff to be linked to anti capitalist green politics tbh, the idea that capitalism requires growth and that growth is not indefinitely sustainable so capitalism is not indefinitely sustainable.

Also a slightly wider idea that we need to think of our economy as a finite space, so at some point growth must stop (or only come about through efficiency improvements)

Your right though that when this idea is linked to liberal politics it does what you say, needs an eco-socialist ideology underlying it


----------



## andysays (Dec 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I LIKE TO UTILISE MY FOOD FOR MULTIPLE PURPOSES.



Thereby following the "reduce, re-use, re-cycle" maxim - you're clearly an instinctive green, you just need to embrace it


----------



## andysays (Dec 31, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> One important thing about green with a small 'g' politics is the (fairly compelling in my view) argument that *you can't have sustainable capitalism any more than you can have socially just capitalism. Nor can you address one, certainly at scale, without addressing the other*.
> 
> All that '... but you want to send us back to the 17th century' stuff needs to be understood in this context if it's meant to be a serious criticism rather than just a crude parody.



Agree with this 100%, which is why I was disappointed to see that the Green Party principles thing tbtommyb linked to above fails to make this point adequetely.

Greens need to be as explicit about the exploitation of people as they are about the exploitation of nature.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is the thing isn't it though - people who quite rightly get alarmed about carbon emissions etc and how we as a species are killing ourselves and many other species at a fairly rapid pace but who cannot or will not think outside of the current profit driven paradigm can only suggest that we cease to consume. That's where all the mad 'zero growth' stuff comes from - and of course you'll never build mass support among people for this kind of idea, because reducing consumption without economic restructuring means reducing the consumption of the poorest, not the wealthy. In short, pushing the living standards of working class people back to 1700's levels.
> 
> Spiney and me know someone who is a fascinating example of this.



I think there needs to be a clear relationship between directly democratic control of the means of production and sustainable consumption. A great deal of the other stuff sorts itself out if you have that bit sorted out, in my view.

... big 'if' though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 31, 2014)

In my experience the ideal typical green is someone like taffboy.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I disagree. To me, examination of how privilege is deployed isn't central to anything. Dismantling the power structures that are used against us, on the other hand...


I'm roughly equalling privilege to power, which is admittedly lazy, but you've got to examine how the power structures work in order to dismantle them, no? but yeah i should have added '... and then knock them down'.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2014)

The loathsome 'Economist' interviewed Natalie Bennett...and set a trap that she fell into...



> They are broadly against consumption, for example: “The world is sodden with stuff, it cannot have more stuff,” said Ms Bennett. Yet they do not appear to have considered what that would mean for billions of the world’s poorest people, almost none of whom live in Britain. When Bagehot suggested to her that there was a problem with this, *Ms Bennett said he was worrying too much: to be poor in India wasn’t so bad as to be on benefits in Britain, she suggested, “because at least everyone else there is poor too”.*
> 
> That is contemptibly naive and also a shame.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is the thing isn't it though - people who quite rightly get alarmed about carbon emissions etc and how we as a species are killing ourselves and many other species at a fairly rapid pace but who cannot or will not think outside of the current profit driven paradigm can only suggest that we cease to consume. That's where all the mad 'zero growth' stuff comes from - and of course you'll never build mass support among people for this kind of idea, because reducing consumption without economic restructuring means reducing the consumption of the poorest, not the wealthy. In short, pushing the living standards of working class people back to 1700's levels.
> 
> Spiney and me know someone who is a fascinating example of this.


I think 'zero growth' is a pretty broad church and I think a lot of it is outside the current profit driven paradigm, hence they argue for a wholesale change in economic structure e.g. look at this report from a green think tank. I was going to go to their event but couldn't make it so I will need to read through it in more depth, but from  different part of the site:



> As part of our 'Post-Growth Project', Bill Blackwater addressed the key question ‘'Why do capitalist economies need to grow?' (pdf, 278 K) in a provocative essay which argues that growth is essential to capitalism and that therefore anybody who believes we need to abandon growth as a political goal must accept that this means we need to abandon capitalism. Green House's Victor Anderson has now responded by taking issue with some aspects of Bill's essay in a new Gas entitled Growth, Capitalism and the 'Green Economy': a response to Bill Blackwell (pdf, 255 K). This is hotly-debated territory in the Green movement, and we hope and anticipate that this conversation will develop and attract new participants, enabling us all to understand better the relationship between capitalism and growth.



It's a more sophisticated analysis than 'don't consume' and so I think a zero growth society wouldn't necessarily have to mean lower living standards for the majority and could improve it in many ways (e.g. less work). That said, I think sorting out massive income inequality would be a prerequisite of any shift to zero growth, to stop a small elite not applying it to themselves.

Separately on the point about sustainable lifestyles, I think I need to look into the data a bit more. Do you know of any good emissions analysis adjusted for income? My initial thought that while the super rich's consumption is very high, a lot of it wouldn't have high embedded emissions because they're buying expensively branded trinkets and shite. number of miles flown is probably a better indicator (and obviously the rich fly more).


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 31, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think there needs to be a clear relationship between directly democratic control of the means of production and sustainable consumption. A great deal of the other stuff sorts itself out if you have that bit sorted out, in my view.
> 
> ... big 'if' though.


Why does democratic control lead to more sustainable consumption?

Also, on a separate point - I think a lot of the green movement has been focused on _what_ a future society will look like. Will it be a bright green society saved by sustainable technology? Will it be a deep green return to older society? Will it be a dark green future of destruction? (other greens are available). Because there's been so much discussion on the what there's been less on the _how_. But I think there is a (growing?) realisation that capitalism is a major impediment, unless you're throwing your lot in with technology.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 31, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> I think 'zero growth' is a pretty broad church and I think a lot of it is outside the current profit driven paradigm, hence they argue for a wholesale change in economic structure e.g. look at this report from a green think tank. I was going to go to their event but couldn't make it so I will need to read through it in more depth, but from  different part of the site:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very fair points. On the statistics though, I think it's important not to get too bogged down in what the numbers are now because they don't help you to see the potential.

A world in which humanity co-operated on producing renewable energy would re-write carbon emissions totally, and that's the only viable solution to climate change.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 31, 2014)

JTG said:


> I'm a bit vague about intersectionality. It's a bit like oppression top trumps, yeah?


 
You can also win by inventing a new category, but it works best if you already tick some of the other boxes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

The answer is political not statistical. The mention of the peak oil debate above reminds me of what i think is an exemplary piece of what Bernie was saying he'd like to see more of:

The Peak Oil Complex, Commodity Fetishism, and Class Struggle



> I argue that Peak Oil arguments cut both ways. Though they can be used to criticize capitalists’ stewardship of important natural resources, they can also be used to justify attacks on working class wages, working conditions and social guarantees in the name of “escaping the energy apocalypse.” For the key issues in the coming years will be: What classes will pay for “the energy transition”? What classes will benefit from potentially a century of “expensive oil”? What classes will lose wages, profits and/or rents? And finally, will class society be transcended in the course of this transition?


----------



## Greebo (Dec 31, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I've yet to hear anyone outside of the internet mention intersectionality.


It's been mentioned and discussed on Woman's Hour at least twice since the summer - check your patriarchal bias and working hours privilege.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 31, 2014)

tbtommyb said:


> Why does democratic control lead to more sustainable consumption?
> 
> <snip>


 Where do you think I said that one 'leads to' the other?

That certainly wasn't my intent in the bit you quoted, especially if you take that to mean 'necessarily leads to' ...

What I meant was something more like, I don't think you can have a coherent analysis that glosses over that relationship or tries to handwave it away with liberal bullshit. 

I recommend a look at the thing butchers just linked.

I'll reply properly later.


----------



## tbtommyb (Dec 31, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Where do you think I said that one 'leads to' the other?
> 
> That certainly wasn't my intent in the bit you quoted, especially if you take that to mean 'necessarily leads to' ...
> 
> ...


 Apologies, I took your second sentence to mean that sustainable consumption is sorted out if you have democratic control. what 'other stuff' were you referring to?

I have butchers on ignore, the forum is a much more pleasant experience.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 31, 2014)

I edited to clarify a bit while you were replying. 

Meanwhile here's the article butchers linked. 

http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=49


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 31, 2014)

OK so let's separate out the 'direct democracy' bit, because that's not the main point I was trying to make.

What I was getting at is the essential relationship between a whole bunch of sustainability-related issues and the productive forces of the global economy being under the control of capital.

Capital being the mechanism that sets the goals for the employment of that productive machinery in almost all cases.

'Direct democratic control' is me jumping to conclusions about what the alternative to that situation might look like, but from where we are right now, that's kind of less important than the immediate challenge of that basic fact.

continued below the drama ...


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 1, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Anyone remember Meltingpot ?
> 
> If not, worth reading from here on this thread.
> 
> And from meltingpot the green's stormfront postings are revealed from here



Not this crap again :sigh:

I think a reality check is in order. You don't get to tell me to "fuck off and don't come back" and then reference me whenever you think you can use me to make points about a party with which I've been associated and for which I've campaigned (albeit for a short time). It doesn't work like that.

The general consensus on this board, which I've respected, is that I don't belong here and should go. Fine - I've done that. Now I find that you've not only quoted me, but tagged me - twice. The other time was to make an inaccurate comment about my political allegiances in the EDL Watch thread.

Just leave it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2015)

Meltingpot said:


> Not this crap again :sigh:
> 
> I think a reality check is in order. You don't get to tell me to "fuck off and don't come back" and then reference me whenever you think you can use me to make points about a party with which I've been associated and for which I've campaigned (albeit for a short time). It doesn't work like that.
> 
> ...



And you don't get to tell me what I can and can't post. You daft racist.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 1, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> And you don't get to tell me what I can and can't post. You daft racist.



I've just done it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2015)

Meltingpot said:


> You don't get to tell me to "fuck off and don't come back" and then reference me whenever you think you can use me to make points about a party with which I've been associated and for which I've campaigned (albeit for a short time).



I've just done it.

Do you expect this to go well?


----------



## JTG (Jan 1, 2015)

Tbh Spiney, you're the one who summoned him back here. So best leave it really.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2015)

to be honest I thought he'd been banned


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 1, 2015)

... following on from pre-drama post above

What capital being in control of the mechanisms of production and distribution means is that any attempt to optimise for for sustainability (or a just society for that matter) runs right up against the fact that capital optimises instead for accumulation ...

The Stern Review is an instructive case here. It acknowledges the science behind climate change and gives a bit of lip service to prevention, but moves on quickly to decide that it's far too inconvenient for capital to seriously try prevent it from happening. Instead it moves straight on to discuss forcing impoverished countries with hundreds of millions of people directly at risk from the impacts of climate change to buy 'climate change insurance' from the City and Wall Street. That kind of shit is *always* going to happen while capital is in control of the forces of global production. The Stern Review is a large-scale example but you can see it just as clearly in shitty little austerity / cost-cutting moves being greenwashed by your local council or by corporations.

A green movement whose analysis doesn't come to terms with this fundamental fact and do so in a way that connects it clearly to peoples' real-life concerns to help them reason about the issues, risks and choices linking sustainability and our society, isn't in my view capable of providing the basis for a mass social movement to address them. All something like the Green Party is going to be able to manage without such an analysis and such a movement, is to create an electoral 'brand' that offers a bit of greenwashing for business as usual and a safe haven for protest votes. For many ordinary people it's going to be seen, not unreasonably, as a party of irrelevant, interfering, middle-class do-gooders ...


----------



## elbows (Jan 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The answer is political not statistical. The mention of the peak oil debate above reminds me of what i think is an exemplary piece of what Bernie was saying he'd like to see more of:
> 
> The Peak Oil Complex, Commodity Fetishism, and Class Struggle



Good stuff. We've certainly been treated to a few dodgy examples of some of that stuff on u75 in the past. Mostly via certain posts by Falcon, who did not disguise his glee at having a justification for the destruction of remaining post-war social safety nets.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ... following on from pre-drama post above
> 
> What capital being in control of the mechanisms of production and distribution means is that any attempt to optimise for for sustainability (or a just society for that matter) runs right up against the fact that capital optimises instead for accumulation ...
> 
> ...


They do address this, it's the rationale for their policy of pulling out of the WTO / replacing it with an organisation that regulates international trade on the basis of environmental and social concerns as opposed to the WTO that does the opposite.



> *Long term aims*
> EC941 To redesign trade policy so that it is based on less, not more, international trade, and founded on the principles of equity and sustainable development.
> 
> EC942 To replace the WTO with a more accountable, decentralised body, which aims to protect and enhance social and environmental conditions, and to develop strong self-reliant regions where individual communities meet more of their own needs.





> EC902 Formidably powerful and publicly unaccountable trans-national companies are becoming ever more footloose, their strength and mobility facilitated both by technological advances, and by the progressive withdrawal of investment controls by governments and by multilateral institutions such as WTO. TNCs are now increasingly able to exploit differences in social and environmental standards between countries in order to maximise profits.
> EC903 The rush towards globalisation is neither inevitable nor desirable. It is leading to the sharp reduction in powers of local and indigenous communities, states, and even nations, to control their futures, as economic power is transferred to global institutions. A worldwide homogenization of diverse, local, and indigenous cultures, social and economic forms, as well as values and living patterns increasingly reflect the new global monoculture
> 
> EC904 New global agreements are urgently needed to regulate international trade and investment in the interests of equity and sustainable development. Green policies are based on the principle that we need to reduce to a minimum the overall volume of international trade, and to revitalise local communities by promoting maximum self-reliance, economic, social, and political control, and environmental sustainability. These policies will also greatly increase employment opportunities.



This stuff is all the basic starting point for sustainable development, as defined and explained in the 80s by the Brundtland report*. I've always been of the opinion that the WTO was set up by global capital in direct opposition to the movement towards sustainable development which had just been given a global mandate (for a watered down version at least) at the Rio Earth Summit, prior to the WTO being formed with a mandate that ran completely counter to sustainable development principles.

So I'd agree with the GP analysis and propositions on this, and to my knowledge, they're the only vaguely mainstream party to be calling for the WTO to be replaced.

I'm not sure that many on the left actually understand how core this aspect of the situation is to the environmental movement, who've been fighting the WTO since it's inception.



*largely written by a died in the wool UK socialist with vast amounts of international development experience, to put that into context.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> *largely written by a died in the wool UK socialist with vast amounts of international development experience, to put that into context.



Who was that?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Who was that?


Phil O'Keefe


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2015)

I really don't think that's right.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'm not sure that many on the left actually understand how core this aspect of the situation is to the environmental movement, who've been fighting the WTO since it's inception.


tbf, there have also been many on the green movement who've not grasped this either, particularly so in recent years since Blair altered the meaning of sustainable development in UK legislation, resulting in lots of environmental graduates being taught that version rather than the original version, and missing a lot of the social and political context, and the way in which neoliberalism must really be viewed as being incompatible with environmentalism.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I really don't think that's right.


I was taught by him for 3 years in the mid 90s, so have a pretty good idea what I'm on about.

Which bit don't you think's right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I was taught by him for 3 years in the mid 90s, so have a pretty good idea what I'm on about.
> 
> Which bit don't you think's right?


The bit that says he largely wrote the the Brundtland report.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The bit that says he largely wrote the the Brundtland report.


largely might be pushing it, but he was one of the main authors of the report and heavily influenced its direction, and these sections in particular.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> largely might be pushing it, but he was one of the main authors of the report and heavily influenced its direction, and these sections in particular.


Actually I'm going to go back to my original position, I'm pretty sure that Phil O'keefe was responsible for writing and/or editing the bulk of the report on behalf of the World Commission on Environment and Development, or at least the key bits of it relevant to this discussion. There was an editing committee, and expert committees, as well as the main Brundlant Committee, so I'm not saying it was all him, but he heavily influenced it - he certainly talked about the all night editing sessions, thrashing out the exact wording of the text and definition etc. with the authority of someone who was right at the heart of it.

There's no chance that the report itself was written or even edited by the main committee of dignatories, someone (or a small team) with a real grasp of the entire subject matter had to do the actual writing and editing, and from my recollection Phil was right at the heart of that process.

Who else would be able to write a 300 page report of that depth than someone who's now written 30 books, 200 academic papers and 1000 contract reports mostly on the subjects covered in the Brundtland report?

He was involved in a lot of research and report writing for the WCED and the UNEP from the 70s onwards, so it makes sense that he'd be heavily involved in the most important report the WCED released.

Stuff like this are pure O'Keefe IMO:-


> I. The Concept of Sustainable Development
> 4 The satisfaction of human needs and aspirations in the major objective of development. The
> essential needs of vast numbers of people in developing countries for food, clothing, shelter,
> jobs - are not being met, and beyond their basic needs these people have legitimate aspirations
> ...



And it's those bits I'm really referring to as being the key texts that define what sustainable development means, and how it requires reduced inequality, and ensuring that the needs of all members of society are met, and that all have the opportunity to improve their lives / have their lives improved for them.

It's also refuting the fucking stupid element of green thinking that assumes that sustainability must mean zero growth.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 1, 2015)

Fair point to bring up the Brundtland report. I don't think it matters much who actually wrote it though.

My view is that while it was definitely a step in the right direction, it still (or maybe this was implementation in the context of neo-liberal capitalism taking hold) didn't address the fundamental problem of capital controlling development investment and hence optimising for different outcomes to those envisaged by the Brundtland report.

Thanks for putting me in mind of it again though. I'd kind of mentally filed it away under 'dustbin of history' since about 2001 or so, but probably worth taking another look at it in the present context.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 1, 2015)

Does it really form the basis of Green Party analysis and policy though? 

Doesn't show up at all when you search their site.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Fair point to bring up the Brundtland report. I don't think it matters much who actually wrote it though.
> 
> My view is that while it was definitely a step in the right direction, it still (or maybe this was implementation in the context of neo-liberal capitalism taking hold) didn't address the fundamental problem of capital controlling development investment.
> 
> Thanks for putting me in mind of it again though. I'd kind of mentally filed it away under 'dustbin of history' since about 2001 or so, but probably worth taking another look at it in the present context.


Well, it never got implemented. The RIO earth summit agreements and agenda 21 were a pale imitation of it, and it then got further watered down at national levels.

Basically if Brundtland had been implemented then the WTO would have been enacted with a remit that gave at least equal weighting to environmental and social concerns as it did to free trade, and the last couple of decades would have seen a very different model of global development.

Thing with it was, that Brundtland basically overstepped their remit from the UN, which initially was focused entirely on environmental issues (and tbf, prior to Brundtland the environmental movement was largely divorced from social considerations, it was really Brundtland that changed this).



> "8. Suggests that the Special Commission, when established, should focus mainly on the following terms of reference for its work:
> (a) To propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development to the year 2000 and beyond;
> (b) To recommend ways in which concern for the environment may be translated into greater co-operation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of economic and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually supportive objectives which take account of the interrelationships between people, resources, environment and development;
> (c) To consider ways and means by which the international community can deal more effectively with environmental concerns, in the light of the other recommendations in its report;
> (d) To help to define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and of the appropriate efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment, a long-term agenda for action during the coming decades, and aspirational goals for the world community, taking into account the relevant resolutions of the session of a special character of the Governing Council in 1982;"[5]



My reading of it is that O'Keefe (and associates) was fairly instrumental in the move to entwine the environmental, social and economic aspects of the situation into one overarching strategy, and insist that we can't sort out the environmental issues without tackling the social and economic issues as well.

They were then pretty much sidelined in the run up to Rio, as were key parts of their analysis which would have resulted in not just the local agenda 21 stuff, but also transnational bodies to enforce environmental and social agreements on transnational capital as opposed to the WTO that does the opposite.

It's a long time since I read it, but Tears of a Crocodile was his response to what he saw as the massive wasted opportunity of Rio.


----------



## elbows (Jan 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I've always been of the opinion that the WTO was set up by global capital in direct opposition to the movement towards sustainable development which had just been given a global mandate (for a watered down version at least) at the Rio Earth Summit, prior to the WTO being formed with a mandate that ran completely counter to sustainable development principles.



I know I've argued with you about this before and don't wish to repeat the argument in its totality, but I still think this is too much an oversimplification at best, and just plain wrong at worst.

Its not like there was nothing around with a similar mandate before the WTO. The WTO is built on GATT. GATT has been around since shortly after the second world war ended, and it was originally supposed to include an international trade organisation until the US congress got in the way of that bit. Regardless of that setback, they managed to get it working as an agreement with institutional support for decades. A GATT ministerial meeting in 1982 didn't go very well, and the global economic situation wasn't looking too healthy at the time either. Many capitalist agendas were in effect. So there was a lot of business to attend to, so they decided to take on a large agenda. This overrunning round of negotiations from 1986-94 delivered the WTO and much else.

This makes it very hard for me to come up with a narrative that simply places a growing awareness of sustainable development issues at the very heart of the creation of some evil new beast called the WTO. Rather it was a refresh of a long-existing system, that served a large number of agendas that were on the table at the time. As usual, some stuff was fudged/compromised in a manner that didn't end up serving their agendas properly, so they had more work to do. And it hasn't gone very well since really, the Doha round seems stalled to the point that much of todays trade liberalisation agenda is being served by regional agreements instead, due to international deadlock in key areas.


----------



## elbows (Jan 1, 2015)

Besides, although the Brundtland report does delve into some realms that would be incompatible with the agendas in play at the WTO, there is plenty in it which could have been adopted without meaning any more in practice than the various agreements we've actually seen come to fruition, greenwashing, etc.

For example in chapter 3, the Brundtland report deals specifically with multilateral trade forums.



> 2.4 The Mandates of Multilateral Trade Forums
> 
> 55. Although a number of UNCTAD research projects have considered the links between trade and environment, these issues have not been taken up systematically by intergovernmental organizations. The mandates of these organizations - principally GATT and UNCTAD - should include sustainable development. Their activities should reflect concern with the impacts of trading patterns on the environment and the need for more effective instruments to integrate environment and development concerns into international trading arrangements.
> 
> 56. International organizations dealing with trade will find it easier to reorientate their activities if each nation designates a lead agency with a broad mandate to assess the effects of international trade on sustaining the environmental and resource base of economic growth. This agency could be responsible for raising sustainability issues in the work of UNCTAD, GATT, OECD, CMEA, and other relevant organizations.



Thats not such a threatening concept that it requires the creation of a new trade organisation in order to thwart. Rather, whether you are sticking with the old institutions or happen to be in the middle of creating a new one, just make sure it pays the right amount of lip-service to sustainable principals, without actually upsetting the applecart. Plus no matter the detail of the institutional setup, its the political and economic considerations of nations involved that will drive agendas, along with capital etc. So even if Brundtland principals had been widely adopted across the board, a failure of political will by powerful nations or collections of less powerful ones at any later stage could still lead to deadlock. Given the amount of deadlock we've seen with both subsequent trade negotiations and climate change negotiations, even when dealing with stuff that is watered down a lot, its somewhat hard to imagine that Brundtland report recommendations could have achieved substantially different results.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

elbows said:


> I know I've argued with you about this before and don't wish to repeat the argument in its totality, but I still think this is too much an oversimplification at best, and just plain wrong at worst.
> 
> Its not like there was nothing around with a similar mandate before the WTO. The WTO is built on GATT. GATT has been around since shortly after the second world war ended, and it was originally supposed to include an international trade organisation until the US congress got in the way of that bit. Regardless of that setback, they managed to get it working as an agreement with institutional support for decades. A GATT ministerial meeting in 1982 didn't go very well, and the global economic situation wasn't looking too healthy at the time either. Many capitalist agendas were in effect. So there was a lot of business to attend to, so they decided to take on a large agenda. This overrunning round of negotiations from 1986-94 delivered the WTO and much else.
> 
> This makes it very hard for me to come up with a narrative that simply places a growing awareness of sustainable development issues at the very heart of the creation of some evil new beast called the WTO. Rather it was a refresh of a long-existing system, that served a large number of agendas that were on the table at the time at the time. As usual, some stuff was fudged/compromised in a manner that didn't end up serving their agendas properly, so they had more work to do. And it hasn't gone very well since really, the Doha round seems stalled to the point that much of todays trade liberalisation agenda is being served by regional agreements instead, due to international deadlock in key areas.


Of course its' a simplified point, this is a message board not a masters thesis. You can't deny thought that there were 2 opposing narratives going on at the same time, and the formation of the WTO in this form was the point where neoliberalism won that battle of the ideologies. 

There was GATT lead by the rich capitalist countries of the west that resulted in the WTO in 94, and there was the brundtland inspired sustainable development movement coming more from the UN, and largely from the global south, which culminated in the UN Earth Summit at Rio.

Obviously Bruntland was an attack on GATT and neoliberalism, so GATT had to be going on at the same time to be attacked, but essentially the Earth Summit and agenda 21 were agreed at a UN level in a relatively democratic way, whereas the WTO was launched as a multilateral agreement between the richest nations alone to use their economic clout to force their will over the rest of the planet.

The neoliberalists actually got a key point into the earth summit agreement.



> Principle 12. Supportive and Open International Economic System
> States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.



The WTO essentially was them enshrining this part of the Rio agreement on their own on their own terms, with them fully in charge of setting the agenda, and ensuring that the rest of the Rio agreement couldn't be implemented effectively.

We could have had a WTO that set basic environmental and social criteria as a requirement for membership, with the rich nations using the access to their markets as the carrot to level the rest of the world upwards so that all member countries had strict environmental and social criteria. Instead the did the opposite, viewing the developing nations as being countries that were ripe for exploitation of their environment and lack of social protection laws so the multinationals could cut their costs and increase profits.

So essentially the formation of the WTO was the neoliberalists of the rich North / West winning over the counter current favouring sustainable development that had most support in the global south.

That's a rough sketch outline of my reading of the situation anyway.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

elbows said:


> Besides, although the Brundtland report does delve into some realms that would be incompatible with the agendas in play at the WTO, there is plenty in it which could have been adopted without meaning any more in practice than the various agreements we've actually seen come to fruition, greenwashing, etc.
> 
> For example in chapter 3, the Brundtland report deals specifically with multilateral trade forums.
> 
> ...


it would have needed proper buy in from the rich developed nations to have made it work, but had the WTO had environmental and social standards at it's core at least on a level with free trade, then things would have been very different.

Think of how the EU has human rights as a basic core principle that all countries need to sign up to as a prerequisite for membership, and has negotiated agreements on air pollution, working times etc. etc. across the membership.

The WTO explicitly says it's not for doing that.



> The WTO is only competent to deal with trade. In other words, in environmental issues its only task is to study questions that arise when environmental policies have a significant impact on trade. The WTO is not an environmental agency. Its members do not want it to intervene in national or international environmental policies or to set environmental standards. Other agencies that specialize in environmental issues are better qualified to undertake those tasks.


----------



## elbows (Jan 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> You can't deny thought that there were 2 opposing narratives going on at the same time, and the formation of the WTO in this form was the point where neoliberalism won that battle of the ideologies.
> 
> There was GATT lead by the rich capitalist countries of the west that resulted in the WTO in 94, and there was the brundtland inspired sustainable development movement coming more from the UN, and largely from the global south, which culminated in the UN Earth Summit at Rio.



I can deny it. There is simply no way I can subscribe to the idea that there were two simple opposing narratives, or that the creation of the WTO was the point where neoliberalism won.



> Obviously Bruntland was an attack on GATT and neoliberalism, so GATT had to be going on at the same time to be attacked, but essentially the Earth Summit and agenda 21 were agreed at a UN level in a relatively democratic way, whereas the WTO was launched as a multilateral agreement between the richest nations alone to use their economic clout to force their will over the rest of the planet.



Bruntland was not an attack on GATT at all. It had implications, sure, but it did not set itself up as being opposed to the concepts of anti-protectionism and free trade that GATT embodied. It called for a change of focus that was radical and unlikely to be adopted, but it did not call for the destruction of the institution, just at it did not call for the replacement of the World Bank and the IMF with something else, just for them to adjust some of their priorities and programmes.

I am not going to defend the creation of the WTO as being democratic or fair, but nor can I characterise it as simply being an agreement between the richest nations alone. The sort of trade agreements that GATT and WTO are there to create and protect do not get to exist if they are simply decided on by rich nations. Rather, it is necessary to make the right noises, the right concessions, etc, in order to get the necessary range of nations on side. All the time, repeatedly, every round, by hook or by crook, or even by promising to do the right thing.

Indeed it has been the failure of certain nations to live up to WTO commitments they made to developing nations during the Uruguay round that has contributed so significantly to the failure of the Doha round to achieve its agenda. So its creation was no kind of permanent victory.

The creation of the WTO did nothing to protect neoliberalism from the long-term implications of sustainability agendas and all related issues. Nor did it manage, beyond the honeymoon period, to paper over the cracks that form from the gradually changing geographic balances of economic, trade, resource etc power we are seeing.  



> So essentially the formation of the WTO was the neoliberalists of the rich North / West winning over the counter current favouring sustainable development that had most support in the global south.
> 
> That's a rough sketch outline of my reading of the situation anyway.



I suppose one of the reasons I want to harp on about this stuff is because I don't like the implications of painting this simple a picture. The two sides thing, whether the split be north-south, WTO-Rio, or whatever, seems to do a dangerous disservice to the agendas and the nature and stage of capitalism, investment, industrialisation etc in many of the countries in question, and indeed issues of capital that are not tied to specific nations per-se.


----------



## elbows (Jan 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> it would have needed proper buy in from the rich developed nations to have made it work, but had the WTO had environmental and social standards at it's core at least on a level with free trade, then things would have been very different.
> 
> Think of how the EU has human rights as a basic core principle that all countries need to sign up to as a prerequisite for membership, and has negotiated agreements on air pollution, working times etc. etc. across the membership.
> 
> The WTO explicitly says it's not for doing that.



I do share your frustration that holistic approaches have not been taken, and without that most stuff ends up a sham.

But I can't really point the lions share of blame at single institutions like the WTO for that. If we really took the holistic approach to all these matters then the implications are almost infinite, and probably involve kissing goodbye to capitalism and present structures of power. 

Given that the WTO can't even avoid having its main agendas totally stalled for many years over issues directly relating to trade, its no wonder that many nations didn't feel like adding greatly to the quagmire by increasing its remit into more controversial areas.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

elbows said:


> I can deny it. There is simply no way I can subscribe to the idea that there were two simple opposing narratives, or that the creation of the WTO was the point where neoliberalism won.


Neoliberalism and sustainable development are polar opposites, one insists that free trade should be the core principle that trumps all others, the other insists that trade, environmental protection, and social protection should have equal weight.

Both were being discussed at a global level at the same time but via different routes (GATT vs UN), one ended up being enshrined in a multilateral agreement with huge economic clout and legal penalties in a way that precluded the other from co-existing effectively.

Please tell me which bit of this you disagree with, as I really can't see it.


----------



## elbows (Jan 1, 2015)

They are not polar opposites. There is some overlap. Neoliberalism is an extreme, but one that as an agenda in practice is comfortable with the idea that utterly free markets very rarely exist, and  its proponents are usually satisfied with something slightly different, that involves at least compromises between different interests.

I will pick a couple of parts of the Rio 92 Declaration to illustrate areas of obvious overlap, that get in the way of me painting WTO and Rio as two diametrically opposed forces. Because the language of neoliberalism hardly fails to make its mark here.



> Principle 12
> 
> States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. *Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.*
> 
> Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.





> Principle 16
> 
> National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and *without distorting international trade and investment.*


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

ffs please don't quote the bits of RIO that were specifically put into Rio by the neoliberalists as evidence of an overlap between sustainable development and neoliberalism.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 1, 2015)

elbows said:


> They are not polar opposites. There is some overlap. Neoliberalism is an extreme, but one that as an agenda in practice is comfortable with the idea that utterly free markets very rarely exist, and  its proponents are usually satisfied with something slightly different, that involves at least compromises between different interests.


OK, maybe not exactly polar opposites, but there is a massive chasm between their 2 positions.

Compromise could have been reached between the 2 positions, but it would have had to result in something like the WTO but with the environment and social factors being given equal weight to free trade as opposed to being allowed as long as they didn't interfere with free trade.

As the neoliberalists went ahead and set up the WTO and specifically precluded that from happening, they basically stopped a similar sustainable development organisation from happening, as sustainable development would need to take equal account of all 3 factors, it can't work if it's just environmental and social issues being addressed on their own (which would be what would happen as the WTO already had trade wrapped up).

So by setting the WTO up the neoliberalists did kill the potential for a multilateral sustainable development organisation with any real clout to exist.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ffs please don't quote the bits of RIO that were specifically put into Rio by the neoliberalists as evidence of an overlap between sustainable development and neoliberalism.



My quoting of that stuff is a direct consequence of your oversimplified narratives that paint a picture of Rio UN verses WTO. Its not that simple is it, there is significant overlap in language and ideas, especially when business is conducted via the UN, not in spite of it.

The WTO did not invent the capital-friendly doppelganger of sustainable development that we loathe, nor its slimey language. 

I am mocking the idea that one multi-lateral agreement is cast in the demon role, and the other as hero. Bollocks to the other UN stuff too, some of it had promise here and there but it was no less subservient to the forces that corrupt the meaning of sustainable development at the end of the day.

To be quite specific, I cannot take any international conference statements on sustainable development seriously if they emerge at a time when NONE of the nations involved look like they are actually embracing the agenda in a full and meaningful way back home. The nations that backed the 'good guys' in your version of events were hardly embracing the full implications of the Brundtland report at all. They had a number of agendas including trying to right some historical wrongs on the global trade and power front. Therefore I am suggesting that the political will to do the right thing in terms of sustainability was not on vivid display at the time, there was no beautiful plan that the WTO's formation thwarted, at least none that had any serious sponsors at this level.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

free spirit said:


> So by setting the WTO up the neoliberalists did kill the potential for a multilateral sustainable development organisation with any real clout to exist.



As is probably clear by now, I am suggesting that the potential that existed then is exaggerated, as is the WTO's ability to get in the way of such potential, either then or at any point where political will for this agenda emerges.

If the will exists, such things could be incorporated into the WTO at any time. But really I see the WTO as a symptom, not something that was effectively deployed to thwart an agenda. Plus the WTO is a bit broken anyway, so whilst neoliberal agendas are very far from dead, the WTO has hardly been effective in silencing the critics and keeping meaningful sustainability off the agenda.

I don't think they even bought themselves time with these antics, I think this was time they already had, and they've not got themselves into a position to weather the storm any better if/when that time runs out.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> My quoting of that stuff is a direct consequence of your oversimplified narratives that paint a picture of Rio UN verses WTO. Its not that simple is it, there is significant overlap in language and ideas, especially when business is conducted via the UN, not in spite of it.
> 
> I am mocking the idea that one multi-lateral agreement is cast in the demon role, and the other as hero. Bollocks to the other UN stuff too, some of it had promise here and there but it was no less subservient to the forces that corrupt the meaning of sustainable development at the end of the day.


it's a bit off though when I've already quoted the exact same passage a few posts earlier and pointed out that the neoliberalists had already got in and subverted the process at Rio, resulting in the rio agreement being a heavily watered down version of the original brundtland ethos.

It should be pretty clear that I'm in no way holding up Rio as being the definitive true form of sustainable development.

It was however at least a lot more democratic than GATT.



elbows said:


> To be quite specific, I cannot take any international conference statements on sustainable development seriously if they emerge at a time when NONE of the nations involved look like they are actually embracing the agenda in a full and meaningful way back home. The nations that backed the 'good guys' in your version of events were hardly embracing the full implications of the Brundtland report at all. They had a number of agendas including trying to right some historical wrongs on the global trade and power front. Therefore I am suggesting that the political will to do the right thing in terms of sustainability was not on vivid display at the time, there was no beautiful plan that the WTO's formation thwarted, at least none that had any serious sponsors at this level.


fucks sake can you stop inventing a straw man to argue against.

I'm fully aware of the short comings of the rio earth summit agreement and raised them prior to your intervention, I really don't need your help to point them out to me as if I wasn't aware of them.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> As is probably clear by now, I am suggesting that the potential that existed then is exaggerated, as is the WTO's ability to get in the way of such potential, either then or at any point where political will for this agenda emerges.


is it easier to integrate social and environmental concerns at the heart of a multilateral trade agreement before it's signed, or years down the line when the previous text had specifically excluded those elements from the remit of that organisation?

I'm not saying it would definitely have happened if the WTO hadn't come into existence, what I am saying is that the formation of the WTO with that remit pretty much precludes it from ever happening, and that those who formulated the WTO remit did this deliberately knowing full well what it meant for the movement towards sustainable development as a key principle for governing global economic development.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

free spirit said:


> it's a bit off though when I've already quoted the exact same passage a few posts earlier and pointed out that the neoliberalists had already got in and subverted the process at Rio, resulting in the rio agreement being a heavily watered down version of the original brundtland ethos.
> 
> It should be pretty clear that I'm in no way holding up Rio as being the definitive true form of sustainable development.
> 
> It was however at least a lot more democratic than GATT.



Sorry, it wasn't intentional, its just the way the disagreement evolved and the order I did research in.

I suppose one of my points is that the neoliberal didn't subvert the process, the process was by its very nature always going to take that agenda into account. Neoliberalism needs to be defeated elsewhere before the potential really opens up on this front, or at least that was the case back then. And if neoliberalism does become genuinely vulnerable on this front, they have not constructed an effective shield in the WTO.



> I'm fully aware of the short comings of the rio earth summit agreement and raised them prior to your intervention, I really don't need your help to point them out to me as if I wasn't aware of them.



I felt the need to point out some of the shortcomings in order to demonstrate that the WTO was not required in order to thwart this stuff.

I'm sorry if the argument gets tedious at times, but I'm trying to make the most of the opportunity to point out that the WTO has not been a roaring success. And that even without the 'burden' of a full agenda of genuine sustainable development being embraced, we've still reached a point where full international agreement is getting harder to achieve.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> Sorry, it wasn't intentional, its just the way the disagreement evolved and the order I did research in.
> 
> I suppose one of my points is that the neoliberal didn't subvert the process, the process was by its very nature always going to take that agenda into account.


One issue with this discussion is that there is no single clear cut definition of neoliberalism, it's meaning has changed over time, and there are various streams within it, some of which are more compatible with sustainable development than others.

The stream of neoliberalism that want's essentially to remove all government imposed restrictions on trade entirely isn't compatible with sustainable development.



elbows said:


> I felt the need to point out some of the shortcomings in order to demonstrate that the WTO was not required in order to thwart this stuff.


The WTO would likely have existed regardless, it wasn't set up purely to spite the sustainable development movement, however the way it was set up, and the remit it was given specifically preclude the environmental and social elements of sustainable development from ever forming part of it's role.

A lot of the same negotiators who were at Rio were also involved in the final phases of the GATT talks to establish the WTO, so it's not as if they were unaware of this, therefore I can only conclude that this was a very deliberate decision, and that they made it knowing what the consequences would be for sustainable development.



elbows said:


> I'm sorry if the argument gets tedious at times, but I'm trying to make the most of the opportunity to point out that the WTO has not been a roaring success. And that even without the 'burden' of a full agenda of genuine sustainable development being embraced, we've still reached a point where full international agreement is getting harder to achieve.


I'd argue that in part the problems in negotiating the Doha round actually stem from the WTO not adopting sustainable development principles, and viewing free trade in complete isolation from the social and environmental consequences.

The opening up of the agricultural markets of developing countries has the potential to have huge social and environmental consequences, as does the dismantling of the EU and US farm subsidy system, but the WTO process prevents these potential consequences being factored into the discussions properly, resulting in the effected countries refusing to agree to them.

The fact the WTO has not been a roaring success would in my view be because it was set up wrong, has the wrong remit, and essentially it's continued failure to secure agreement on the doha round is perhaps the most likely route by which these fundamental issues might end up being properly addressed. I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

free spirit said:


> is it easier to integrate social and environmental concerns at the heart of a multilateral trade agreement before it's signed, or years down the line when the previous text had specifically excluded those elements from the remit of that organisation?



Thats partly why I gave a dull history lesson earlier - the WTO was not built from scratch, the core trade agreement was still GATT, just refreshed. And other new stuff with GATS, which was arguably the main thing that made neoliberal moist and happy at the time.

Yes it would be opportune to get issues of genuine sustainability woven into the fabric of an organisation at a time when it is undergoing change anyway. The problem is that the changes well underway already by that point were being driven by very different interests.

In practical terms I'd suggest that integrating new concerns into an agreement is a mission thats success depends far more on how much genuine will to take on board the new concerns exists, than on whether its a brand new agreement or an update performed years later.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

As an indication of the impact the WTO has had on sustainable development, a few years ago a scandinavian* government initiative to promote the concept of buying locally produced food to reduce food miles was kaiboshed by the EU because they feared it would break WTO rules and could result in the EU being taken to arbitration and losing.

Since then this fairly key ethos of sustainable development has been excluded from pretty much all government, council etc promotional budgets for sustainable development - other than a few who probably didn't get the memo.

* I forget which one.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'd argue that in part the problems in negotiating the Doha round actually stem from the WTO not adopting sustainable development principles, and viewing free trade in complete isolation from the social and environmental consequences.



Good, because thats been one of my main points. That the WTO has failed to thwart the sustainable agenda because its failed to provide alternative solutions to problems, or to act as any sort of pressure-release system when negotiations between nations get bogged down on these fronts. It is wide open for criticism, and despite paying vague lip-service to the term sustainable development since its inception, it has done nothing to protect the neoliberal agenda from pressure on the sustainability front.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> In practical terms I'd suggest that integrating new concerns into an agreement is a mission thats success depends far more on how much genuine will to take on board the new concerns exists, than on whether its a brand new agreement or an update performed years later.


but in practical terms it would have needed the agreement of half the number of countries if it was done up front compared to it being done now.

There was significant support for Brundlant in some quarters, they just weren't the quarters that were deeply involved in the GATT talks. Those who didn't support it just got on and set the WTO up without needing their support, then effectively gave them the choice of joining or not joining.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> Good, because thats been one of my main points. That the WTO has failed to thwart the sustainable agenda because its failed to provide alternative solutions to problems, or to act as any sort of pressure-release system when negotiations between nations get bogged down on these fronts. It is wide open for criticism, and despite paying vague lip-service to the term sustainable development since its inception, it has done nothing to protect the neoliberal agenda from pressure on the sustainability front.


well, it's played a major part in thwarting it for 2 decades. I'm sure at some point that the edifice of the WTO will come crashing down, and this can all be reconsidered, but I'd have preferred that to have happened in the 90s.

There's been huge opportunities missed since then for developing countries to have skipped the stage of development that resulted in millions of deaths from air an water pollution, and the poverty wages, long hours and sweat shop working conditions.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

Name some countries that were well up for it then, so I can research in the right direction. Cheers.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> Name some countries that were well up for it then, so I can research in the right direction. Cheers.


it's 25 years ago, pre internet and it's 2 in the morning, so it's unlikely I'm going to produce a list of names for you.

but what would make you think there weren't?

The brundtland report was signed off by a commission with representatives from 22 countries, the rio summit had some countries arguing for pretty much full implementation of brundtland.

This didn't all entirely come about in a vacuum, it happened because it had support from some quarters - it wouldn't have even merited a UN sponsored global conference if it didn't.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 2, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Does it really form the basis of Green Party analysis and policy though?
> 
> Doesn't show up at all when you search their site.


just to return to this, the green party policy might not specifically reference brundtland by name, but it's clearly heavily influenced by it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 2, 2015)

Thing is though, I don't see anything in the Green principles that says something like 'We're all fucked unless control of the means of production is wrested from capital, so ultimately we stand for doing that ... '

It's more stuff like 'we don't like GDP as a way of measuring wealth so we'll legislate something else' and 'we don't think property owners should be able to ignore the views of others with a stake in how their property is used, so property laws should include duties as well as rights ...  '

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/philosophical-basis.html

This is fundamental stuff IMO. The Brundtland recommendations are all very well, but while investment remains, directly or indirectly, under the control of capital, it's not going to be optimised for the needs of humans or nature, or for anything but more accumulation.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

free spirit said:


> it's 25 years ago, pre internet and it's 2 in the morning, so it's unlikely I'm going to produce a list of names for you.
> 
> but what would make you think there weren't?
> 
> ...



You didn't have to produce it last night, any time will do. It doesn't have to be comprehensive either, just give me something.

Or don't worry about it. Which is fine because, by asking for a list of countries, I'm actually leading this one into the same unilluminating territory as the look at Peak Oilers analysis warned about earlier - an obsession with how different nations were positioning themselves and competing with each other, to the exclusion of analysis of how capital and related forces were adapting to events and defining outcomes. 

This was deliberate on my part, as I sought to demonstrate that the things you say were possible and had momentum in the 80's and early 90's were somewhat off in their own world. Yes the ideas had big implications for capital if they were adopted, but I am suggesting that there was no prospect of them being adopted then for that very reason.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 2, 2015)

All very interesting (genuinely - I'm not being sarcastic) but I'm not seeing much there that helps us decide how shit the green party is and why


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> <snip>
> 
> Yes the ideas had big implications for capital if they were adopted, but I am suggesting that there was no prospect of them being adopted then for that very reason.



Totally agree with the above, but ...

On the other hand they _were _an important input into the pre-2001 anti-globalisation movement's thinking. Even though there were fundamental issues due to capital remaining in control of investment and trade flows in the Rio model, they were at least something with a degree of international support (albeit nominal due to capital etc), that clearly articulated the essential connection between economic justice and sustainability, which could act as a basis on which to organise and challenge capital's moves (see e.g. Genoa, Seattle etc).

Until everybody got distracted by a bunch of wars anyway.

The post-2008 Occupy movement by contrast seems to have far less coherent analysis (with extra lizards), and as I suggested earlier, without a mass anti-capital political movement driving it, "Green" is just another brand choice in neo-liberal electoral politics / business as usual.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 2, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> All very interesting (genuinely - I'm not being sarcastic) but I'm not seeing much there that helps us decide how shit the green party is and why



If I may?

They're pissing away a fantastic opportunity, by letting UKIP corner the protest vote, due to being a bunch of irrelevant, interfering, lentil-gobbling, middle-class do-gooders in the minds of most of the people experiencing the harsh reality of austerity policies.

They're also (along with the corpses of the left, but the Greens are guiltier in my eyes because they still have a pulse) letting a bunch of lizard-botherers and far-right fuckwits dominate the extra-parliamentary anti-austerity movement (see above post) ...

Fucking pathetic really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2015)

For the Greens here - what does this policy mean on the doorstep?  

Take it from 'Short Term Policies' on, from the rather badly worded: "We will replace existing British Immigration law with an Immigration law which does not discriminate directly on the grounds listed above" onwards.


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Totally agree with the above, but ...
> 
> On the other hand they _were _an important input into the pre-2001 anti-globalisation movement's thinking. Even though there were fundamental issues due to capital remaining in control of investment in the Rio model, they were at least something with a degree of international support (albeit nominal due to capital etc), that clearly articulated the essential connection between economic justice and sustainability, on the basis of which to organise and challenge capital's moves (see e.g. Seattle). Until everybody got distracted by a bunch of wars anyway.
> 
> The post-2008 Occupy movement by contrast seems to have far less coherent analysis (with extra lizards), and as I suggested earlier, without a mass anti-capital political movement driving it, "Green" is just another brand choice in neo-liberal electoral politics / business as usual.



Yes, I do not mean to knock their implications on that front. I've mostly been responding to the idea that this stuff was such a threat that the WTO had to be created quick-sharp to deal with it. I'm not suggesting the stuff was no use on any front. There is also a danger that my reading of the situation fails to pay enough attention to the power of ideas, even if they are not realisable at that time, they are still seeds that may grow into something interesting one day.

On a personal level I'm sad that bad timing with where my head was at meant I missed this stuff - I read about it and watched bits on TV, but by the time I was in a position to learn all sorts of details via the internet, momentum seemed to be fading. The emphasis at the time seemed to be on the horrible implications of GATS, and I was reading some apparently leaked 'LOTIS group' minutes online that contained elite language that was somewhat humorous to decode. But then things started to fade out and the agenda was shaken ala Blairs 'the kaleidoscope has been shaken, lets rearrange the world before the dust settles' post-9/11 shit. I would be interested in reading a post-mortem, not that I am suggesting the movement is totally dead, but what else happened to cause this beyond the obvious war stuff?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2015)

Enabling cameron to undermine UKIP/protest votes that damage tories.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Enabling cameron to undermine UKIP/protest votes that damage tories.



Yeah.
Enabling him to bottle it "on principle". The give away being...


> He has also told his allies he would be happy to see no debates at all during the election campaign itself


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> but the Greens are guiltier in my eyes because they still have a pulse


Good, they'll have something to eat then


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2015)

I'd imagine they'd all be pleased to let the debates quietly disappear.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2015)

Not Farage - hence this sabotage.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine they'd all be pleased to let the debates quietly disappear.


Not Farage...nor I suspect Miliband, as expectations for him would be so low that he'd probably prosper.


----------



## Scumbaggio (Jan 8, 2015)

The greens will just end up acting in the same manner as the lib dems if they ever get a significant number of seats.

Principles will be enthusiastically defenestrated.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2015)

> He said he did not see how "some minor parties *like the Liberal Democrats* and UKIP" could take part in the leaders' debates, but not the Greens.



made me lol anyway


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2015)

Cameron is arguing for the inclusion of the leader of a party that has not saved a single by-election deposit in this parliament.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Cameron is arguing for the inclusion of the leader of a party that has not saved a single by-election deposit in this parliament.


eastliegh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2015)

They didn't stand.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> eastliegh?



Not standing a candidate at all is pushing the generally accepted notion of saving their deposit!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not standing a candidate at all is pushing the generally accepted notion of saving their deposit!


It is strictly speaking true though


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It is strictly speaking true though



Strictly speaking, no...unless we're talking composting toilets here?


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It is strictly speaking true though


Eh? in that case, i've saved my deposit in every singe election since 1977.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 8, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They're pissing away a fantastic opportunity, by letting UKIP corner the protest vote, due to being a bunch of irrelevant, interfering, lentil-gobbling, middle-class do-gooders in the minds of most of the people experiencing the harsh reality of austerity policies.


This is on the level of "you smell of wee".
Urban 75 is pretty monotonous in telling everyone else why they are wrong about everything (ever) and is utterly certain it is full of unbridled political geniuses, but I do not see the slightest hint they are doing anything that registers outside its self congratulatory bubble.

At least a large portion of normal people know the lentil gobblers exist.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> Eh? in that case, i've saved my deposit in every *singe* election since 1977.


Primate democracy?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2015)

ferrelhadley said:


> This is on the level of "you smell of wee".
> Urban 75 is pretty monotonous in telling everyone else why they are wrong about everything (ever) and is utterly certain it is full of unbridled political geniuses, but I do not see the slightest hint they are doing anything that registers outside its self congratulatory bubble.
> 
> At least a large portion of normal people know the lentil gobblers exist.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> View attachment 66061


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> Eh? in that case, i've saved my deposit in every singe election since 1977.


Yes, and I have since '76


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 9, 2015)

ferrelhadley said:


> This is on the level of "you smell of wee".
> Urban 75 is pretty monotonous in telling everyone else why they are wrong about everything (ever) and is utterly certain it is full of unbridled political geniuses, but I do not see the slightest hint they are doing anything that registers outside its self congratulatory bubble.
> 
> At least a large portion of normal people know the lentil gobblers exist.



Indeed they do, so much so that the Greens are neck and neck with the Lib Dems for fourth place in recent polls. See e.g. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9129

But ...


> ... what we’re seeing is an anti-government vote that had previously been going to the Labour party by default is now finding many homes and showing itself in rise of the Green party, the SNP and UKIP. The public’s lack of confidence in Ed Miliband and Labour isn’t manifesting itself in them running back to the Conservative party for safety… it’s manifesting itself in them going off to find more attractive oppositions to vote for.



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/date/2014/12

UKIP however are doing _far_ better at connecting with voters and are the third place party by a substantial margin. Why do you think that is?

If the Greens aren't failing in the ways that I describe in my last few posts above (not just the one you quoted), what alternative interpretations would you prefer that we consider?


----------



## co-op (Jan 9, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> UKIP however are doing _far_ better at connecting with voters and are the third place party by a substantial margin.
> 
> Why do you think that is?



Because there's plenty of evidence that most people will commit more readily to preserve rights which they feel are being lost or are under attack, than they will to win future, as-yet-non-existent, theoretical benefits? 

The Labour and Conservative parties are doing "far better at connecting with voters" than UKIP - perhaps we should be embracing their ability to enmesh themselves in the real lived lives of ordinary people and derive meaningful policies from that connection?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 9, 2015)

co-op said:


> Because there's plenty of evidence that most people will commit more readily to preserve rights which they feel are being lost or are under attack, than they will to win future, as-yet-non-existent, theoretical benefits?
> 
> The Labour and Conservative parties are doing "far better at connecting with voters" than UKIP - perhaps we should be embracing their ability to enmesh themselves in the real lived lives of ordinary people and derive meaningful policies from that connection?



They aren't though are they?

Both major parties and the LibDems are shedding support. As far as I can tell, the issues that are causing this are closely tied to their rigid adherence to neoliberalism.

For example: austerity, immigration, precarity and a general loss of trust that they'll represent anyone's interest except for: banks, big business and neoliberal institutions like the EU.

Which to me opens up the question, why are UKIP doing so much better than the Greens at picking those straying voters up?

(Obviously also, there's another set of questions about goals and ability to deliver, which is what my earlier posts were taking issues with ... but let's do this one first)


----------



## newbie (Jan 9, 2015)

ukip have easily identifiable villains to blame- the eu and immigration, the greens point at amorphous _consumerism_ which means us, all of us?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2015)

you killed the polar bears


----------



## newbie (Jan 9, 2015)

that's a grossly unreasonable and offensive thing to suggest. I'm going to vote for the ones who stop our swans being eaten.


----------



## tbtommyb (Jan 9, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Which to me opens up the question, why are UKIP doing so much better than the Greens at picking those straying voters up?



Because if you're a disillusioned Tory voter and someone suggests voting UKIP no-one says otherwise. But if you're a disillusioned left voter and someone says 'vote Green' there's always someone to come along and say 'crowd of cunts, vote for xyz marginal/TUSC, they'll never win but at least you're true to the cause'.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 9, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> Because if you're a disillusioned Tory voter and someone suggests voting UKIP no-one says otherwise. But if you're a disillusioned left voter and someone says 'vote Green' there's always someone to come along and say 'crowd of cunts, vote for xyz marginal/TUSC, they'll never win but at least you're true to the cause'.



That might be true to some degree on Urban, but do you really think it's true out there in the real world?

I'm not at all convinced that it is.

I don't think many of the people in question care that much about being 'true to the cause' but I think they may care quite a bit about: austerity, precarity and other things that make their lives directly worse.


----------



## tbtommyb (Jan 9, 2015)

dp


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2015)

its not even that true on urban- loads of people on here have indicated green as the only left of labour vote. Crossover with the same who voted lib dem has yet to be closely analysed


----------



## tbtommyb (Jan 9, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> That might be true to some degree on Urban, but do you really think it's true out there in the real world?
> 
> I'm not at all convinced that it is. I don't think many of the people in question care that much about being 'true to the cause' but do care about: austerity, precarity etc.


so I think UKIP's success is down to a large part to their grassroots, word of mouth popularity. there's never any equivalent on the left.

the greens aren't doing so well because they haven't had that word of mouth growth since the 1990s.

but to your wider point yeah i agree that for many people on the suffering edge of austerity the Greens aren't the natural party to turn to.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its not even that true on urban- loads of people on here have indicated green as the only left of labour vote. Crossover with the same who voted lib dem has yet to be closely analysed



I've definitely seen some figures showing the highest proportion of GPEW support is in the under 25 range where the highest proportion of the UKIP support is in the over 45 or so range. Or something like that.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its not even that true on urban- loads of people on here have indicated green as the only left of labour vote. Crossover with the same who voted lib dem has yet to be closely analysed



I'm not sure that anyone here has said they're the *only* left of labour vote (though someone is welcome to correct me), rather that they are the left of labour party* most likely to get a significant vote, which is slightly different.

As an example, in the recent council elections Labour won by miles in my ward and a few of the others in my area (no surprise there) but the Greens came second, well ahead of TUSC (and Tories, Lib-Dems and UKIP, can't remember the order all of them were in).

Not suggesting this example demonstrates anything conclusive, but I'd be surprised if anyone can point out many places where eg TUSC are the closest left challengers to labour ahead of the greens.

*Obviously this depends on accepting that they *are* left of labour, and I guess some people would dispute that, but that's a seperate question


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 10, 2015)

Might be easier to talk about specific analyses and policies rather than 'left', although it makes things rather more long winded in order to avoid circular arguments about what 'left' is supposed to mean.

For example, if I want an electorally significant party to vote for who stand clearly for re-nationalisation of public services then the Greens are my only option.

If I also want a clear stand against capital controlling the means of production, which I regard as key to both economic justice and ecological sustainability, I have no electorally significant options at all.

More awkwardly, if I want a clear promise to leave the neoliberal institution of the EU, I have no electorally significant option that I'm willing to vote for even as a protest.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Might be easier to talk about specific analyses and policies rather than 'left', although it makes things rather more long winded in order to avoid circular arguments about what 'left' is supposed to mean.
> 
> For example, if I want an electorally significant party to vote for who stand clearly for re-nationalisation of public services then the Greens are my only option.
> 
> ...



Agree with all of that - I was simply talking in terms of "left of Labour" rather than "genuinely and meaningfully left".

But in terms of specific policies on offer, there is currently only one electorally significant party offering re-nationalisation of public services, and no electorally significant party offering either a clear stand against capital controlling the means of production or a clear promise to leave the EU on the basis that it's a neoliberal institution. 

In terms of policies offered by parties which are electorally significant, the latter two are non-starters ATM 

ETA: I think I must have pressed post midway through typing - hopefully it's complete now...


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Might be easier to talk about specific analyses and policies rather than 'left', although it makes things rather more long winded in order to avoid circular arguments about what 'left' is supposed to mean.
> 
> For example, if I want an electorally significant party to vote for who stand clearly for re-nationalisation of public services then the Greens are my only option.
> 
> ...


so just like everybody else you have to compromise when you decide whether to vote and if so which party to vote for.  I don't suppose there's anyone in the country for whom there is a party which reflects every one of their views, and the further you get from the mainstream the less likely it becomes. Especially for those of us on the left who object to neoliberalism and the malignancy of capital. There's a reasonable degree of agreement about fundamentals amongst many on this board yet I'm prepared to bet that there's zero possibility of collectively agreeing a single manifesto.  Or even two, or three... there's too many faultlines. The Greens have argued endlessly about their positions for a few decades now, they are where they are because that's where they've got to without falling to bits.

Mind, I think actually _supporting_ a party for electoral purposes is a concept too alien to actually contemplate.  All I've ever been able to muster enthusiasm for is to vote to keep the tories out.


----------



## tbtommyb (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> so just like everybody else you have to compromise when you decide whether to vote and if so which party to vote for.  I don't suppose there's anyone in the country for whom there is a party which reflects every one of their views, and the further you get from the mainstream the less likely it becomes.



it's almost as if our parliamentary system is structured to keep out all but a narrow set of views.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

maybe, if by structured you mean voting system, whips, access to election broadcasts and so on.  Or maybe the reason non-mainstream parties stay on the fringe is that they simply can't gain traction amongst the population because they don't offer what people want. The GPs position on consumerism inevitably alienates a huge portion of the population, for whom shopping and the acquisition of stuff are prime pleasures. The tories offering tax cuts- more of *your* money in *your* pocket to spend on what *you* want- is mainstream, while seeking to reduce consumption and choice is inevitably seen (by both left and right) as an elitist fringe trying to impose on everybody else.


----------



## tbtommyb (Jan 10, 2015)

But consumerism is an artificial construction itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2015)

So? How are you going to sell that on the doorstep?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> so just like everybody else you have to compromise when you decide whether to vote and if so which party to vote for.  I don't suppose there's anyone in the country for whom there is a party which reflects every one of their views, and the further you get from the mainstream the less likely it becomes. Especially for those of us on the left who object to neoliberalism and the malignancy of capital. There's a reasonable degree of agreement about fundamentals amongst many on this board yet I'm prepared to bet that there's zero possibility of collectively agreeing a single manifesto.  Or even two, or three... there's too many faultlines. The Greens have argued endlessly about their positions for a few decades now, they are where they are because that's where they've got to without falling to bits.
> 
> Mind, I think actually _supporting_ a party for electoral purposes is a concept too alien to actually contemplate.  All I've ever been able to muster enthusiasm for is to vote to keep the tories out.



Well, I'll probably vote for them as the least worst electorally significant option.

My MP is 'Mad' Frankie Field, so they're the obvious way to register a vote to the left of _him_ in May, but his massive majority means they usually don't bother standing here.

However, there's a lot of stuff that I'd like to see the green movement and to the extent it has anything to do with that movement, the GPEW, do rather differently hence my earlier posts on the subject.

Edited to add: looks like they are putting a candidate up against Mad Frankie this May.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So? How are you going to sell that on the doorstep?


depends how you frame it.

Ask people if they like the fact that many washing machines, cookers, microwaves, tvs, stereos, computers etc are designed to only last a few years, meaning you might only get 5 years life out of your brand new kit whereas it could be designed and built so that most of it lasts 10-20 years, and I reckon most people would click, and start banging on about how long stuff used to last.

Or how much energy some devices work whereas others can use 10% of the energy to do the same thing, saving them hundreds of pounds on energy costs.

That sort of message will work well with most people, best to steer clear of criticising shoes, fashion etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 10, 2015)

free spirit said:


> depends how you frame it.
> 
> Ask people if they like the fact that many washing machines, cookers, microwaves, tvs, stereos, computers etc are designed to only last a few years, meaning you might only get 5 years life out of your brand new kit whereas it could be designed and built so that most of it lasts 10-20 years, and I reckon most people would click, and start banging on about how long stuff used to last.
> 
> ...



Generally on the doorstep people want to talk (if at all) about local services, tax and prices, jobs, crime etc. Plus not for very long. While your point is a valid argument, I don't believe people would have enough time to go into it there and then.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Generally on the doorstep people want to talk (if at all) about local services, tax and prices, jobs, crime etc. Plus not for very long. While your point is a valid argument, I don't believe people would have enough time to go into it there and then.


well, maybe not, but if someone asked then that'd be the line I'd take. Fuck knows if that's GP line or not, but I've got 20 years experience discussing environmental issues with people outside of GP, so that'd be how I'd approach it.

I doubt that's a core campaigning point for the GP either, just there manifesto seems to be so detailed that there will be loads of those sorts of points within it


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

andysays said:


> But in terms of specific policies on offer, there is currently only one electorally significant party offering re-nationalisation of public services, and no electorally significant party offering either a clear stand against capital controlling the means of production or a clear promise to leave the EU on the basis that it's a neoliberal institution.


no point leaving the EU on that basis if we stayed in the WTO, and GP do seem to be clearly indicating that they would intend to leave the WTO, or at least reform it.

On the EU, for me it's too simplistic to view it as purely being a neoliberal institution. It's also been world leading in many fields of environmental regulation, social protection, and human rights, which doesn't fit neatly with the neoliberalist tag.

The way things have been in the UK, it's not as if the EU has been ahead of us in neoliberalist terms, we're probably the furthest down the neoliberal road of any major country in the EU, or the world really. We seem to view it as a badge of pride to have opened up pretty much all public sector services to the multinationals to mae profit from, allowed any and all of our industrial companies to be sold the foreign buyers, including the ports which even the USA baulked at.

So I tend to view the EU as actually having been more of a brake on the UK's neoliberalist governments, with most other EU governments being less neoliberalist than ours on pretty much all issues other than currency union.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, I'll probably vote for them as the least worst electorally significant option.
> 
> My MP is 'Mad' Frankie Field, so they're the obvious way to register a vote to the left of _him_ in May, but his massive majority means they usually don't bother standing here.
> 
> ...



There's plenty of their policy that doesn't inspire.  I was in the right place at the right time to participate, albeit from the sidelines, in the gestation of the Green Party as it evolved from the Ecology party but I drifted away because there was insufficient red with the green. 30 years on I have to give credit where it's due, they have held their party together despite a wide range of different hues of green along with a kaleidoscope of red, blue, yellow and black, all in there jockeying to reposition party policies. If any one faction- eg the clear stand against capital requested above- had become dominant the party would have fractured and fallen to bits.  It's an ideal protest vote, but gok what would happen if they ever actually gained more than transient local power.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Ask people if they like the fact that many washing machines, cookers, microwaves, tvs, stereos, computers etc are designed to only last a few years, meaning you might only get 5 years life out of your brand new kit whereas it could be designed and built so that most of it lasts 10-20 years, and I reckon most people would click, and start banging on about how long stuff used to last.


Probably the wrong thread but that argument strikes me as approaching 50 years out of date, wrongheaded and electorally a complete non-starter.  Very few people want to be expected to use a 1995, or even 2005, computer, TV, stereo or phone. Not only is the functionality poor by modern standards, but also the energy consumption is far too great.  

Given the general rate of change of technology (see Moores Law), in 2015 building devices for longevity or repairability is senseless, they need to be designed for minimal input energy and materials and maximum recyclability. In any case the mean time between failure of most equipment (things without moving parts) is so great that stuff is thrown away as obsolete long before it's actually worn out.




> Or how much energy some devices work whereas others can use 10% of the energy to do the same thing, saving them hundreds of pounds on energy costs.


quite so


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> Probably the wrong thread but that argument strikes me as approaching 50 years out of date, wrongheaded and electorally a complete non-starter.  Very few people want to be expected to use a 1995, or even 2005, computer, TV, stereo or phone. Not only is the functionality poor by modern standards, but also the energy consumption is far too great.
> 
> Given the general rate of change of technology (see Moores Law), in 2015 building devices for longevity or repairability is senseless, they need to be designed for minimal input energy and materials and maximum recyclability. In any case the mean time between failure of most equipment (things without moving parts) is so great that stuff is thrown away as obsolete long before it's actually worn out.
> 
> ...


have the conversation, you'll find your assumption to be wrong among a lot of the population, particularly older generations.

There are arguments about energy efficiency improvements, but as an example, with the solar PV systems we install we get the majority of our work on the basis of quality and lifespan of components we use vs saving a few hundred quid up front to buy cheap tat that won't last 10 years.

Yes some people want to always have the latest tech, but most don't give a toss about that, they just want kit they buy to work and stay working for a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

a chunk of infrastructure, like PV, is somewhat different from consumer gadgets.  



free spirit said:


> Yes some people want to always have the latest tech, but most don't give a toss about that, they just want kit they buy to work and stay working for a reasonable amount of time.


sure, that's certainly true, for differing values of 'reasonable'- few people call a cooker obsolete after 3 years but phones are a different matter.  

In any event, you were talking about building a political platform around this, arguing the point on doorsteps, as though it's self evidently true for all technologies.  Which it clearly isn't.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> a chunk of infrastructure, like PV, is somewhat different from consumer gadgets.


depends on our outlook on it, but say a stereo - my dad bought good quality speakers in the 70s that still sound shit hot now, there's an amp from the early 80s, cd player from the early 90s, tape player from the 80s....

most equipment for most people is absolutely fine until it breaks, they have no desire to spend hundreds of pounds every 3-5 years replacing something that should have lasted 20 years plus if it hadn't had deliberately shoddy build quality.




newbie said:


> In any event, you were talking about building a political platform around this, arguing the point on doorsteps, as though it's self evidently true for all technologies.  Which it clearly isn't.


bollocks. Why do people insist on doing this on here? read my posts and you'll clearly see that I said no such thing, actually said the complete opposite.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

free spirit said:


> well, maybe not, but if someone asked then that'd be the line I'd take. <snip>
> 
> I doubt that's a core campaigning point for the GP either<snip>


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

don't be daft, everybody can read #968, your response to butchers asking about selling it on the doorstep.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

free spirit said:


> depends on our outlook on it, but say a stereo - my dad bought good quality speakers in the 70s that still sound shit hot now, there's an amp from the early 80s, cd player from the early 90s, tape player from the 80s....
> 
> most equipment for most people is absolutely fine until it breaks, they have no desire to spend hundreds of pounds every 3-5 years replacing something that should have lasted 20 years plus if it hadn't had deliberately shoddy build quality.



and you base a political campaign on your dad?  sure,  speaker technology hasn't changed much, but what is this antediluvian stuff about 'tape players' and 'cd'?  That may appeal to some people but are you really advocating that we should all use a bunch of boxes piled on top of each other, none of which have sensible interfaces for USB, Bluetooth, NAS or Youtube?  I'm afraid I think your view of 'most people' is a bit off.

and none of that deals with my point anyway- consumer gadgets shouldn't be 'built to last' as such, except in that mtbf is high, it should be built for recycling.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> don't be daft, everybody can read #968, your response to butchers asking about selling it on the doorstep.


yes, 


butchersapron said:


> So? How are you going to sell that on the doorstep?


and I gave an overview of how it could be discussed on the doorstep in an accessible way if someone were to ask about it.

I didn't state that I thought a political platform should be built around it, nor that it's self evidently true for all technologies.

You just imagined that bit and attempted to attach your imagined interpretation of what I'd said to my words.

I think it's a valid aspect of things to have a policy on, and worthy of discussion, but it'd not be in the top 10 of their policies I'd expect the GP to raise themselves on the doorstep, maybe in the top 20 at a push.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> and you base a political campaign on your dad?


I'm not building a political campaign on anything I'm having a fucking discussion on an internet forum ffs.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

and your policy is that we should use 20 year old PCs (running Windows 95) and tape players?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> and your policy is that we should use 20 year old PCs (running Windows 95) and tape players?


No.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

But then I also don't see that windows needed to stop support for XP when it was still functional for a lot of people and businesses, and resulted in fuckloads of perfectly functional PCs and networks being scrapped for no other reason than XP was support was ending, and they weren't capable of running the latest windows systems, most of which are worse than XP for many things.

People should have the choice of upgrading everything to the latest generation tech if they want, but not be forced to do it every 3-5 years because their previous kit simply won't work any more because it was designed for built in obsolescence - eg using cheap shit capacitors where the majority will die in that timescale, rather than better capacitors that would mostly last 10 years. As an example.

Not everyone wants to be forced to upgrade to the latest tech all the time, especially if that was MP3, which is a terrible level of sound quality compared to cd, vinyl etc.


----------



## Wilson (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> and you base a political campaign on your dad?  sure,  speaker technology hasn't changed much, but what is this antediluvian stuff about 'tape players' and 'cd'?  That may appeal to some people but are you really advocating that we should all use a bunch of boxes piled on top of each other, none of which have sensible interfaces for USB, Bluetooth, NAS or Youtube?  I'm afraid I think your view of 'most people' is a bit off.
> 
> and none of that deals with my point anyway- consumer gadgets shouldn't be 'built to last' as such, except in that mtbf is high, it should be built for recycling.



My amp and speakers have stickers on the back which say that they were last serviced in 1986, my computer's audio lead plugs straight in.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

Wilson said:


> My amp and speakers have stickers on the back which say that they were last serviced in 1986, my computer's audio lead plugs straight in.


innit - and why is that?

because the industry agreed an industry standard audio input plug format that has remained the same for decades because it works.

vs now where every manufacturer seems to have their own special versions of microusb leads, power leads etc. all directly designed to try to lock people in to their brand when buying peripherals.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

Wilson said:


> My amp and speakers have stickers on the back which say that they were last serviced in 1986, my computer's audio lead plugs straight in.


So your amp may well be using a linear power supply rather than a switch mode one, with energy usage somewhat higher than more modern equipment.  Is that a good thing?  Might be, might not, without some serious sums to work it all out it's hard to know whether keeping it in service is an environmentally better idea than sending it into the WEEE and buying something more efficient.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

free spirit said:


> innit - and why is that?
> 
> because the industry agreed an industry standard audio input plug format that has remained the same for decades because it works.


most modern equipment uses minijacks, not phonos.  why? because materials and manufacturing costs are lower, as is the footprint, and there's no difference in performance. However phonos are still reasonably commonplace, though their role is diminishing, partly because there are so few requirements for analogue audio interconnection except for mics or low impedance outputs designed for headphones.

Other analogue interconnections are also disappearing- Scart, DIN (the previous audio format in use for decades), VGA and so on. There is a reduction is power consumption as a result.



> vs now where every manufacturer seems to have their own special versions of microusb leads, power leads etc. all directly designed to try to lock people in to their brand when buying peripherals.



you don't like the modern world.  ok.  But it's going to keep on keeping on, and you'll just have to get used to it   While some manufacturers still try to lock their customers in with proprietary cabling they're much more likely to respond to genuine improvements through better technology.  You seem to want to attempt to construct some sort of politics around a generation of tech that you felt comfortable with.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> So your amp may well be using a linear power supply rather than a switch mode one, with energy usage somewhat higher than more modern equipment.  Is that a good thing?  Might be, might not, without some serious sums to work it all out it's hard to know whether keeping it in service is an environmentally better idea than sending it into the WEEE and buying something more efficient.


to be clear, do you actually think that built in obselesence is a positive thing?

I'd love to see you selling that on the doorstep.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

> According to research by WRAP, the average consumer expects a washing machine to last six years before it needs replacing.
> 
> *It has also found that a product’s lifetime is one of the highest buying considerations,* just behind reliability and quality, but more important than price. It’s something that the Which?


and yet over the last decade the average lifespan of a new washing machine has fallen from 10 years to 7, with many of the cheaper models being more like 3-4 years, so someone could end up having to buy 3 washing machines in a decade instead of 1. Even if that 1 had cost 50% more it's still have been half the cost over all.

Personally I think at least the manufacturers should have to give the average expected lifespan or cycle number of their machines clearly on the label so people can make an informed choice. I also think minimum warranties of a year on white goods is a bad joke. 

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think this actually is something political that could genuinely make a significant difference to people's lives.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

I'm not selling anything, I'm responding to your sales pitch.

'built in obselesence' is a tired concept that doesn't have much current application, because most modern equipment is made of components and materials with mtbf measured in the hundreds of thousands or millions of hours. Since most consumer electronics no longer has moving parts it seldom wears out and requires replacement. For most gadgets, there ain't much that goes wrong.  They're mostly a bit fragile, so they get broken, but that's a slightly different matter. 

Explicitly building for a 20 years lifetime is pretty meaningless for most consumer electronics, simply because it'll be obsolete long before it wears out anyway.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 10, 2015)

Our new Green councillor has made an impact in and around the ward, mostly by giving the local Labour party a hard time about their shit response to issues of austerity. E.g. bedroom tax, chasing poll tax arrears, closure of services and all that sort of stuff.

It's obviously easier to be a critic in such cases than to have to set an austerity budget, but I suspect a focus on mitigating the pain felt from the sharp end of austerity goes down on the doorstep rather better than stuff about consumerism would.


----------



## newbie (Jan 10, 2015)

free spirit said:


> and yet over the last decade the average lifespan of a new washing machine has fallen from 10 years to 7, with many of the cheaper models being more like 3-4 years, so someone could end up having to buy 3 washing machines in a decade instead of 1. Even if that 1 had cost 50% more it's still have been half the cost over all.
> 
> Personally I think at least the manufacturers should have to give the average expected lifespan or cycle number of their machines clearly on the label so people can make an informed choice. I also think minimum warranties of a year on white goods is a bad joke.
> 
> Actually the more I think about it, the more I think this actually is something political that could genuinely make a significant difference to people's lives.


washing machines have a lot of moving parts, they fall to bits.  If you build them with more and higher quality materials, they'll cost more and last longer.

But it's not a static technology. I have no great expertise but from memory, 10 years or so ago there was no ABC energy rating on washing machines, they heated the water to higher temperatures and used more water than modern machines.

FWIW, in the last 10-15 years the house next door has had 4 new kitchens, complete, as new people have moved in.  In each case they've ripped out the previous one and thrown it all away.  I can't possibly justify that, I think it's completely mad, but it reinforces my view that there's little point making stuff to last 20 years.  That's not what people vote with their feet for.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> I'm not selling anything, I'm responding to your sales pitch.
> 
> 'built in obselesence' is a tired concept that doesn't have much current application, because most modern equipment is made of components and materials with mtbf measured in the hundreds of thousands or millions of hours. Since most consumer electronics no longer has moving parts it seldom wears out and requires replacement. For most gadgets, there ain't much that goes wrong.  They're mostly a bit fragile, so they get broken, but that's a slightly different matter.
> 
> Explicitly building for a 20 years lifetime is pretty meaningless for most consumer electronics, simply because it'll be obsolete long before it wears out anyway.


To counter that, lifespan is one of the key factors people look for when buying washing machines (and presumably most similar goods), and lifespan is the key factor that has been eroded in the last decade.

if you really don't think this is an issue that resonates with a large number of people, you might need to get out more. There's a huge section of the population who've lived in the same house for years, have the same kit for years, don't consider upgrades unless it breaks, and they're also far more likely to actually vote than the tech savvy latest fad generation who move house regularly that you're describing.

It should be up to the owner of the equipment to decide if their kit was now obsolete and in need of replacement, not for the manufacturer to decide that they were going to make cheap tat under the same old badge, that they know will mostly last half as long, and therefore result in twice as many sales per decade from the same customers. At least if the manufacturs do make that decision then the customer should have a way of being informed about it so they can make an informed choice on the matter when spending their hard earned money on a new dishwasher, washing machine etc.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 10, 2015)

newbie said:


> washing machines have a lot of moving parts, they fall to bits.  If you build them with more and higher quality materials, they'll cost more and last longer.
> 
> But it's not a static technology. I have no great expertise but from memory, 10 years or so ago there was no ABC energy rating on washing machines, they heated the water to higher temperatures and used more water than modern machines.





> Based on this assessment, until there is a significant step-change in the energy performance of washing machines available to the market, WRAP recommends that machines are designed for easy repair and to ensure that repaired or refurbished machines continue to operate for a long time.


WRAP



newbie said:


> FWIW, in the last 10-15 years the house next door has had 4 new kitchens, complete, as new people have moved in.  In each case they've ripped out the previous one and thrown it all away.  I can't possibly justify that, I think it's completely mad, but it reinforces my view that there's little point making stuff to last 20 years.  That's not what people vote with their feet for.


There is a market for cheap tat, but people should be entitled to know and be able to compare lifespans when making their purchase decision, as there are also millions upon millions of households who stay in the same house for decade after decade.

The majority of people over the age of 40 or so don't move house once until they possibly end up in a retirement home or similar, and where the average time between moving house is around 20 years, vs 3 years for those in their early 20s.


----------



## newbie (Jan 11, 2015)

what is this 'cheap tat' you've introduced into the conversation? 

Obviously there are substandard products, but in this day and age that seldom means shorter lifespan.... is a cheap TV or stereo more likely to fall apart and die than a more expensive one, really?  Stuff tends to be cheap because it's designed to a lower spec, but it'll work as designed for as long as higher spec kit.

The key factor is moving parts, equipment built without moving parts tends to carry on working.  Except for its battery, which will wear out. The next most likely point of failure is connectors- laptops, phones etc suffer from worn connectors, and sure there's some element of price sensitivity in that- but only up to a point. Expensive kit may take use and abuse better than cheap, but building everything to a highly robust spec just makes it expensive and you have to ask whether there's any point.



free spirit said:


> It should be up to the owner of the equipment to decide if their kit was now obsolete and in need of replacement, not for the manufacturer to decide that they were going to make cheap tat under the same old badge, that they know will mostly last half as long, and therefore result in twice as many sales per decade from the same customers.



I don't recognise that, I really don't. Kit becomes obsolete before it wears out and that's all it needs to do- there is no point in over-engineering a product so it lasts for 20 years when the customer will replace it after a couple because they want cool new features.  

What products have their number of sales per decade' determined by manufacturers designing them to fall to bits prematurely?  It'd be really interesting to know what proportion of the stuff in the huge recycling skip at the tip has failed or worn out, and what still works just as well as it ever did but is no longer wanted because it's been replaced with something more modern.

Expectation of 'lifetime' differs for different types of technology, landline telephones are expected to last maybe 3,4,5 or more times as long as mobiles, and that's not because mobiles get abused more, it's because even a 3 year old mobile seems pretty prehistoric to a very large swathe of the population.  3 years is long in the tooth for a PC but not for a TV or radio.  

You've mentioned WRAP.  Their findings are interesting, and not to be dismissed.  But let's be clear, washing machines are a somewhat different beast to phones, TVs, PCs and most other gadgets.  They use a great deal of materials and energy in their manufacture, they're big and heavy and energy intensive to transport, so there's a significant advantage to keeping them operational. And (belieing what I said earlier) it appears lower temperature washes and so on haven't reduced energy usage by much. So modern machines don't have great advantages over older ones. 

And, of course, they're almost entirely moving parts, so they go wrong.  And they're relatively easy to take apart and fix.  So you can't really extrapolate from washing machines to many other gadgets.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 11, 2015)

tbh I don't think you know very much about the subject.

As an example, the same chinese factories turn out 3 different grades of LED lights. The LED's are the same, they look the same, have the same brightness, but the lower cost ones have cheap shit drivers, and poor quality heat sinks, so they overheat and die far faster than the more expensive versions with the better drivers and better heat sinks. The difference in lifespan is dramatic.

The washing machine manufacturers themselves are clear that the average lifespan has reduced from 10 years to 7 years over the last decade due to the use of cheaper materials, and the bottom end machines will last a lot less than the average as they compete at the bottom end on price.



> What products have their number of sales per decade' determined by manufacturers designing them to fall to bits prematurely? It'd be really interesting to know what proportion of the stuff in the huge recycling skip at the tip has failed or worn out, and what still works just as well as it ever did but is no longer wanted because it's been replaced with something more modern.


This isn't something I've just made up on the spot. The lifespan of these machines has been dramatically reduced by many of the manufacturers partly in order to compete on price, and to reflect demand from sectors that do want to replace it every 3-5 years or just don't care (new build housing developers, kitchen firms etc) but partly because they know this will increase their overall sales across the industry as 3 times as many washing machines will be needed in the same time period.

Approximately 30% of waste electrical goods at council waste sites are in working condition according to WRAP, a bit less for large white good, more for smaller consumer electronics.

Of the broken items only 12% said they wouldn't repair it because they don't want it any more, so effectively 88% of those with broken items would have happily kept their broken item if it wasn't broken.



> And, of course, they're almost entirely moving parts, so they go wrong. And they're relatively easy to take apart and fix. So you can't really extrapolate from washing machines to many other gadgets.


Dishwashers, hoovers, dumble dryers, fridges, freezers, cookers, microwaves.

And yes TVs. Some people will want to upgrade etc. but for most they'll happily have the same TV for a long time.

I agree that replacing very old kit with new high efficiency kit is often beneficial environmentally and economically, but much less so if that new kit is going to fail within a few years of operation, as the embeded energy from the manufacturing and transport is so high, and the potentially for further dramatic energy reductions are lower. Once you're using an inverter driven well insulated fridge, there's only going to be incremental energy savings in future, same with an LED TV, and the embeded energy cost of manufacture is often a lot higher for more complex equipment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2015)

free spirit said:


> no point leaving the EU on that basis if we stayed in the WTO, and GP do seem to be clearly indicating that they would intend to leave the WTO, or at least reform it.



Which smacks of naivety. What makes the GP think that reform of the WTO is possible, or that the price of leaving the WTO is a price that the people of the UK can afford?



> On the EU, for me it's too simplistic to view it as purely being a neoliberal institution. It's also been world leading in many fields of environmental regulation, social protection, and human rights, which doesn't fit neatly with the neoliberalist tag.
> 
> The way things have been in the UK, it's not as if the EU has been ahead of us in neoliberalist terms, we're probably the furthest down the neoliberal road of any major country in the EU, or the world really. We seem to view it as a badge of pride to have opened up pretty much all public sector services to the multinationals to mae profit from, allowed any and all of our industrial companies to be sold the foreign buyers, including the ports which even the USA baulked at.
> 
> So I tend to view the EU as actually having been more of a brake on the UK's neoliberalist governments, with most other EU governments being less neoliberalist than ours on pretty much all issues other than currency union.



You rightly mention "environmental regulation, social protection, and human rights", but wrongly claim that they don't "fit neatly with the neoliberalist tag". What fits with the neoliberalist tag is whatever facilitates the aims of capitalism best in that particular geopolitical environment - it's why neoliberalism is as prepared to accept minimal worker and populace rights in "western" democracies as it is to deny those rights to people in the "global south".


----------



## elbows (Jan 11, 2015)

free spirit said:


> if you really don't think this is an issue that resonates with a large number of people, you might need to get out more. There's a huge section of the population who've lived in the same house for years, have the same kit for years, don't consider upgrades unless it breaks, and they're also far more likely to actually vote than the tech savvy latest fad generation who move house regularly that you're describing.



I don't like the way thats worded, making it sound like the later generations move house a lot for the same fickle consumerist reasons that they may upgrade their kit a lot.

The young are bound to move more because they haven't settled down and there are more legit reasons to move house, such as size of family increasing, workplace location changing, and the horrible school admission postcode lottery.


----------



## elbows (Jan 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which smacks of naivety. What makes the GP think that reform of the WTO is possible, or that the price of leaving the WTO is a price that the people of the UK can afford?



Especially given the shocking state of our balance of trade. 

I find t very hard to talk about consumer frenzies and built in obsolescence in isolation due to the way these things are tied so strongly to questions of income, credit, 'what jobs the masses can be occupied with' etc. 

Its certain an appropriate topic for this thread, since its perfect territory to explore the gap between green idealism and the standards of living and employment prospects of the masses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2015)

elbows said:


> Especially given the shocking state of our balance of trade.
> 
> I find t very hard to talk about consumer frenzies and built in obsolescence in isolation due to the way these things are tied so strongly to questions of income, credit, 'what jobs the masses can be occupied with' etc.



What interests me when people start banging on about consumer culture is that they generally proceed as if it is, at oldest, a post-war phenomenon, yet the likes of Veblen and Adorno were talking about it decades before then, and yes, you can't divorce the artefacts and the *demand* for artefacts produced within and to serve that culture from the broader tropes of capitalism within which we all exist.



> Its certain an appropriate topic for this thread, since its perfect territory to explore the gap between green idealism and the standards of living and employment prospects of the masses.



And boy is it a gap - one made more visible by the fact that the GP haven't effectively taken the neoliberal shilling yet, and so still radiate a somewhat socialistic aura from some directions, so the space between ideal and reality isn't as disguised.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 11, 2015)

Vote Green for Windows XP and Nokia 3110s.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 11, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Vote Green for Windows XP and Nokia 3110s.



I had an XP machine downstairs for internet/music/films, but I've replaced it with a chromebox because of the ending of XP support and the security issues that rises, was still working fine and no real need for replacement. I don't read FS as saying that I wouldn't be allowed to upgrade it if I wanted, but that I shouldn't be forced to by planned obscelence. I think Newbie is right in many ways about making consumer electronics for recycling not durability because the tech changes quickly, but actually I'd be happy with an XP machine for the functions my old one had, and I think my dad still has a 3110, or a similar model anyway... if all you want to do is text & phone, that end of nokia is (or was anyway, been a long time personally), really good and could keep being used forever, why not? It has the capability that the user needs.

So.. vote green if you don't want to be forced to "upgrade" your Windows XP machine or Nokia 3110 with all the energy use and waste that is involved in doing so ... I think would be more accurate.


----------



## elbows (Jan 11, 2015)

Your failure to save the planet by installing linux on the xp box has been noted


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2015)

Xp was loads better than any of the operating systems that have come out since for the stuff iuse my computer for (mostly internet, watching videos and CAD) - doesn't drain the memory anything like Vista, 7 and 8. 

The greens are still well shit though. Worse than ukip.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 11, 2015)

elbows said:


> I don't like the way thats worded, making it sound like the later generations move house a lot for the same fickle consumerist reasons that they may upgrade their kit a lot.
> 
> The young are bound to move more because they haven't settled down and there are more legit reasons to move house, such as size of family increasing, workplace location changing, and the horrible school admission postcode lottery.


I'm not saying they're moving house for fickle reasons, but a lot of the same generation who do move house regularly are also into the whole consumerist upgrading to the latest generation iphone for entirely fickle reasons.

My point being that there are also huge sections of the population who this doesn't apply to.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which smacks of naivety. What makes the GP think that reform of the WTO is possible, or that the price of leaving the WTO is a price that the people of the UK can afford?


oh piss off, I'm not naive about it, I've been campaigning against the WTO since it's formation, so I know all about how locked in to it we are, I'm just pointing out that anyone who bangs on about pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons without also wanting to pull out of the WTO hasn't got a clue what they're on about.

But I'd argue that it would be less damaging to pull out of the WTO than it would to pull out of the EU, and also that the only way of either pulling out of the WTO with minimal consequences, or reforming it would be via the EU. And I can see the possibility that the EU might seek to reform the WTO more in it's own image, with the introduction of environmental, social and human rights protection to the WTO, which in my view would / could make it a much more acceptable institution that could enforce the roll out of human rights, social and environmental protection around the world rather than the current situation where it largely seeks to reverse this process.

So for those reasons I think anyone arguing for pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons has got it arse about tit.



ViolentPanda said:


> You rightly mention "environmental regulation, social protection, and human rights", but wrongly claim that they don't "fit neatly with the neoliberalist tag". What fits with the neoliberalist tag is whatever facilitates the aims of capitalism best in that particular geopolitical environment - it's why neoliberalism is as prepared to accept minimal worker and populace rights in "western" democracies as it is to deny those rights to people in the "global south".


depends on your definition of neoliberalism, which really is a pretty wooly term that encompasses a few streams, some that can accept those levels of social and environmental protection, others that seek to remove state regulation wherever it exists.

While neoliberalism can maybe accommodate such social, environmental and human rights protections, there's no way that they could be described as actually being core neoliberalist principles or policies. They came about (and were protected from the neoliberalist) due to the strong social democratic forces that also exist within the EU, as well as to some degree the growing green representation within the EU over the last 3 decades - much more so than have existed in the UK in that period.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2015)

free spirit said:


> oh piss off, I'm not naive about it...



I haven't said that you're naive, twat, I've said that the Green Party are. 



> I've been campaigning against the WTO since it's formation...



Yeah, so have lots of us, in fact I got active on such issues back with the M.A.I. remember that? Seems like the Pols forgot, given that TTIP is pretty much a rehash.



> ...so I know all about how locked in to it we are, I'm just pointing out that anyone who bangs on about pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons without also wanting to pull out of the WTO hasn't got a clue what they're on about.



Or perhaps they're acknowledging the differential in difficulty of leaving the one from the other.



> But I'd argue that it would be less damaging to pull out of the WTO than it would to pull out of the EU, and also that the only way of either pulling out of the WTO with minimal consequences, or reforming it would be via the EU. And I can see the possibility that the EU might seek to reform the WTO more in it's own image, with the introduction of environmental, social and human rights protection to the WTO, which in my view would / could make it a much more acceptable institution that could enforce the roll out of human rights, social and environmental protection around the world rather than the current situation where it largely seeks to reverse this process.
> 
> So for those reasons I think anyone arguing for pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons has got it arse about tit.



While it probably would be less damaging to withdraw from the WTO, it would also likely be far more difficult, given how thoroughly the WTO's principles have infiltrated business (whereas at least a part of the EU's principles are based around subsidiarity rather than the _diktat_ of a supra-national committee.



> depends on your definition of neoliberalism, which really is a pretty wooly term that encompasses a few streams, some that can accept those levels of social and environmental protection, others that seek to remove state regulation wherever it exists.
> 
> While neoliberalism can maybe accommodate such social, environmental and human rights protections, there's no way that they could be described as actually being core neoliberalist principles or policies. They came about (and were protected from the neoliberalist) due to the strong social democratic forces that also exist within the EU, as well as to some degree the growing green representation within the EU over the last 3 decades - much more so than have existed in the UK in that period.



Neoliberalism is a single philosophy that acts as a chameleon. It pretty much does what it can get away with in various geopolitical locations.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't said that you're naive, twat, I've said that the Green Party are.


fair enough, I read that a different way.



ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, so have lots of us, in fact I got active on such issues back with the M.A.I. remember that? Seems like the Pols forgot, given that TTIP is pretty much a rehash.


Indeed, and green campaigners were a major part of the successful movement to oppose that in coalition with trade unions, anarchists, socialists etc. I even remembered what MAI stood for without having to look it up.

What really gets me about all this is how this coalition has been split into it's component parts all fighting each other at least as much as we fight the real enemy, when it's obvious that we'll never defeat these neoliberalist policies and institutions while we remain at each other's throats.

IMO the neoliberalists played the infiltrate, divide and conquer process to a T here, but we all allowed them to, being more than happy to rip each other to shreds rather than actually work together to continue to defeat the next incarnation of the MAI, and push home our temporary victory back then.



> Or perhaps they're acknowledging the differential in difficulty of leaving the one from the other.


maybe, but I regularly see the same sort of people railing against the EU with no mention of the WTO - there's an entire party named after pulling out of the EU, which contains not a single mention of the WTO on it's about us page, for example.



> While it probably would be less damaging to withdraw from the WTO, it would also likely be far more difficult, given how thoroughly the WTO's principles have infiltrated business (whereas at least a part of the EU's principles are based around subsidiarity rather than the _diktat_ of a supra-national committee.


There'd be no point in seeking to change the rules without also seeking to change the business ethos at the same time, and it's precisely because the WTO ethos has infiltrated the top levels of business (and vice versa) that it's the WTO ethos that needs to be changed in order for anything else significant to change.

We'll never get away from this profit at all costs situation while it's essentially enshrined within the WTO, to the exclusion of global efforts to improve environmental or social protection.



> Neoliberalism is a single philosophy that acts as a chameleon. It pretty much does what it can get away with in various geopolitical locations.


That's as maybe, but it remains the case that protection of human rights, social rights, and environment via statutory legislation can never be described themselves as being neoliberalist policies. They do not exist in the EU as a result of neoliberalism, neoliberalism by itself created the WTO, which specifically excludes those areas from it's remit, had the neoliberalists alone created and formed the EU in their image those transnational social and environmental protections would never have existed.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 12, 2015)

BigTom said:


> I think Newbie is right in many ways about making consumer electronics for recycling not durability


I'm in no way disagreeing with that idea, but it'd not be a priority to discuss it in terms of a policy position being as it's an argument that the greens (and other supporting MEPs) have theoretically already had and won in the EU, and is already being implemented via the EU wide WEEE regulations that make the suppliers and manufacturers of pretty much all electronics goods responsible for the end of life recycling costs of their products. If it proves that these regulations are ineffective, then it'll need revisiting, but with targets of 65-85% recycling or reuse rates for all waste electrical goods produced it'd seem to be a pretty good starting point.

That said, I have just checked GP policy on this, and it does seem to be conspicuous by it's absence, from being specifically mentioned, which does seem like an odd omission / oversight, as it is a pretty core principle, and is something that needs to be monitored to ensure the WEEE regulations are having the desired effect (which there is some evidence isn't entirely the case in terms of how and where the stuff is being sent for recycling).



> NR311 To induce industry to invest in resource saving technology by:
> 
> minimising waste during manufacturing pro processes; cesses;
> the manufacture of long life products which can be repaired or reused;
> ...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 12, 2015)

10% off rail fares.

10%

Cunts.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 12, 2015)

BigTom said:


> So.. vote green if you don't want to be forced to "upgrade" your Windows XP machine or Nokia 3110 with all the energy use and waste that is involved in doing so ... I think would be more accurate.



Nobody forced you to upgrade from XP, you chose to do so because there was another product that suited you better. How would a Green government deal with this? Make Microsoft support XP forever?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 12, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Nobody forced you to upgrade from XP, you chose to do so because there was another product that suited you better. How would a Green government deal with this? Make Microsoft support XP forever?


That's extremely disingenuous, I didn't make a free choice, and xp suited me better than chromeOS does.

A green govt couldn't make ms keep support (although iirc uk govt is paying millions to ms for continued xp support), I was responding to you saying vote green for xp and 3110s, not like you were talking serious policy either, just what the idea/spirit of the party is on this topic.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 12, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> 10% off rail fares.
> 
> 10%
> 
> Cunts.



This thread is about why the Green Party are shit, not why you are a mentalist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2015)

free spirit said:


> fair enough, I read that a different way.
> 
> 
> Indeed, and green campaigners were a major part of the successful movement to oppose that in coalition with trade unions, anarchists, socialists etc. I even remembered what MAI stood for without having to look it up.
> ...



it doesn't help Green Party politics that, differing from the other parties taking the electoral route, their base is still primarily in "activist" mode. This is a good thing in and of itself, but creates tensions between Green Party ideals and what's actually politically possible under our current "democratic" system. That tension is eminently exploitable.



> IMO the neoliberalists played the infiltrate, divide and conquer process to a T here, but we all allowed them to, being more than happy to rip each other to shreds rather than actually work together to continue to defeat the next incarnation of the MAI, and push home our temporary victory back then.



Unfortunately, post-Blair, neoliberalism is a default benchmark for what constitutes "electoral politics" in wards and constituencies. It's easy to divide and rule if everyone has to conform to *your* rules, and as B & H has shown, if you have to play to someone else's set of rules, it's very hard to exercise your ideals - you end up exercising theirs.
As for TTIP, I'd go as far as to say that the mainstream media are waltzing around it, rather than actually engaging the subject. I haven't seen very many mainstream critiques, and the less mass media debate, the fewer people outside of the activist community become _au fait_ with the plans, and the fewer people protest. Part of the success against M.A.I. was that the activist base wasn't just "the usual suspects", it was everyone from proper blue shires Tories to socialists to pensioners to students, all realising "if this happens, our futures aren't safe".
And what have we had for the last 15 years or so? The gradual ceding of the public sector to the private, so that now TTIP seems a mere formality, something that merely codifies what already happens. 



> maybe, but I regularly see the same sort of people railing against the EU with no mention of the WTO - there's an entire party named after pulling out of the EU, which contains not a single mention of the WTO on it's about us page, for example.



That party you mention, though, is extremely (and I mean "extremely as in they make Blair & co look like dilettantes") Atlanticist as well as being neoliberal. If Sked were still in charge, I've no doubt, as a libertarian, he'd have a lot to say about the WTO - he certainly used to - but Farage is a creature of neoliberalism, so sees no contradiction in playing John Bull on one hand, while accommodating neoliberal economics on the other.



> There'd be no point in seeking to change the rules without also seeking to change the business ethos at the same time, and it's precisely because the WTO ethos has infiltrated the top levels of business (and vice versa) that it's the WTO ethos that needs to be changed in order for anything else significant to change.



Unfortunately, as the G77 found out, you have to exert an asymmetric amount of pressure to force any change within the WTO. It's still a creature of the west in general, and of the US in particular, with all the ideological and historical baggage (and arrogance) that goes with it.



> We'll never get away from this profit at all costs situation while it's essentially enshrined within the WTO, to the exclusion of global efforts to improve environmental or social protection.



The problem being that while the WTO enshrines a lot of the avoidance and failures of social and environmental protection, those failures pre-date it, and are an issue as old as industrial society. They're so inculcated that we still have people - individuals, voters - who don't see that dumping raw sewage or chemical waste in a river is a hiding to nothing. We still have the old saws about eco-systems effectively "self-cleansing" being trotted out, and similar arrant bullshit beliefs.
To address those attitudes, to actually get people worldwide annoyed or scared enough to be able to exert political influence, we'd need a Fukushima or a Bhopal every couple of weeks, because otherwise people will carry on saying "well, it's not *that* bad, is it?" even while their groundwater is being infiltrated by fuck knows what, and their kids are suffering from respiratory problems.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2015)

From a brilliant 6 part piece on Bradford's Eco-Peterloo



> The local Green party had been contacted about the eco destruction taken part in the area but they never even bothered to reply. Worse, they then commented on local Leeds radio (April 2014) that it was kind of necessary to cut down a splendid tree lined street in Victorian Saltaire; a performance so pusillanimous that even the radio commentator was exasperated..........


----------



## andysays (Jan 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> it doesn't help Green Party politics that, differing from the other parties taking the electoral route, their base is still primarily in "activist" mode. This is a good thing in and of itself, but creates tensions between Green Party ideals and what's actually politically possible under our current "democratic" system. That tension is eminently exploitable...



Out of interest, exploitable by who, and to what ends? I guess there are a number of possible answers, but what did you have in mind?



ViolentPanda said:


> ...That party you mention, though, is extremely (and I mean "extremely as in they make Blair & co look like dilettantes") Atlanticist as well as being neoliberal. If Sked were still in charge, I've no doubt, as a libertarian, he'd have a lot to say about the WTO - he certainly used to - but Farage is a creature of neoliberalism, so sees no contradiction in playing John Bull on one hand, while accommodating neoliberal economics on the other...



I may be wrong, but I assumed free spirit was talking about No2EU, who are (as far as I know) the only party arguing that we should leave the EU because of its neo-liberal nature. 

UKIP's reasons for leaving have absolutely nothing to do with opposition to neo-liberalism, they just want proper British neo-liberalism rather than the Euro version, as if it's a distinction worth making...


----------



## free spirit (Jan 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> I may be wrong, but I assumed free spirit was talking about No2EU,


correct


----------



## free spirit (Jan 15, 2015)

Green party membership has now overtaken UKIP and the Lib Dems after gaining 2k in the last 24 hours.

The figures do combine the E&W, scottish and Northern Ireland Green parties, but even so that's a massive increase in membership, pretty much tripling in the last year to 44,713.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/15/green-party-membership-surge-leaders-debates

Question is, can they integrate this volume of new members and use them effectively for the election campaign... I suspect they'll struggle with this.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Vote Green for Windows XP and Nokia 3110s.


ive got xp and a non smart nokia...



fancy a fight?


----------



## tbtommyb (Jan 16, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Green party membership has now overtaken UKIP and the Lib Dems after gaining 2k in the last 24 hours.
> 
> The figures do combine the E&W, scottish and Northern Ireland Green parties, but even so that's a massive increase in membership, pretty much tripling in the last year to 44,713.
> 
> ...


I suspect they'll move from an arrangement where a large proportion are active to having a largely passive membership. Probably not a good thing in many ways


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2015)

i disagree. the more passive green party members are the better. less likely to be able follow through on their evil plans


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> i disagree. the more passive green party members are the better. less likely to be able follow through on their evil plans


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2015)




----------



## bemused (Jan 17, 2015)

I know Dave's insistence on having the Greens on the TV debates is more of a political ploy around not having a three against one debate, but I am surprised that Labour just don't simply agree to have them on the stage.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2015)

bemused said:


> I know Dave's insistence on having the Greens on the TV debates is more of a political ploy around not having a three against one debate, but I am surprised that Labour just don't simply agree to have them on the stage.


Just to clarify, I am 85% sure that I am not the Dave referred to in this post.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2015)

bemused said:


> I know Dave's insistence on having the Greens on the TV debates is more of a political ploy around not having a three against one debate, but I am surprised that Labour just don't simply agree to have them on the stage.



Not for any one party to agree/disagree; Ofcom's decision.


----------



## bemused (Jan 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not for any one party to agree/disagree; Ofcom's decision.



I'm pretty sure if one of the other parties said they weren't going to turn up either the broadcasters would sort it out.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2015)

bemused said:


> I'm pretty sure if one of the other parties said they weren't going to turn up either the broadcasters would sort it out.


You _may _be right, but you implied, incorrectly, that the exclusion of the greens was dependent upon Labour's not agreeing to their involvement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2015)

I recon camerons not up for it because he will have to sit there sharing a podium with no-one-agrees-with nick making him look bad


----------



## andysays (Jan 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You _may _be right, but you implied, incorrectly, that the exclusion of the greens was dependent upon Labour's not agreeing to their involvement.



Maybe bemused's post was ambiguously worded, but the point still remains that Labour could say "while we recognise that it's for OFCOM to make the decision, we wouldn't have any objection to the Greens playing some part in the debates, and we reckon Cameron is running scared".

And similarly, if the Greens had a bit more nouse, they could have said "while we would obviously like to play some part in the debates, we recognise that it's for OFCOM to make the decision, and we reckon Cameron is running scared".


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2015)

andysays said:


> Maybe bemused's post was ambiguously worded, but the point still remains that Labour could say "while we recognise that it's for OFCOM to make the decision, we wouldn't have any objection to the Greens playing some part in the debates, and we reckon Cameron is running scared".
> 
> And similarly, if the Greens had a bit more nouse, they could have said "while we would obviously like to play some part in the debates, we recognise that it's for OFCOM to make the decision, and we reckon Cameron is running scared".



Well, of course Miliband doesn't want the greens there at all...for obvious reasons...so there's no way that he's going to say anything other than cameron = 'frit'. But, that said, Miliband's fear of any attack from the left isn't the reason the the greens aren't there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not for any one party to agree/disagree; Ofcom's decision.





andysays said:


> Maybe bemused's post was ambiguously worded, but the point still remains that Labour could say "while we recognise that it's for OFCOM to make the decision, we wouldn't have any objection to the Greens playing some part in the debates, and we reckon Cameron is running scared".



Sort of/sort of not. Ofcom's rulings regarding what are major parties are soley concerning the official party political broadcasts - that's what their provisional ruling is about (final decision in march). They have nothing to do with any tv debates. The broadcasters can choose to have just the greens and the lib-dems if they want (and many would love to). But that will be challenged by the other excluded parties and one key element of that challenge will be that ofcom has ruled that they're a major party. And the broadcasters can use that ofcom ruling in their defence to justify keeping out non major parties. That's how ofcom have become powerful in this - not so sure this is a good thing.

I am enjoying desperate whining greens scared that their chance at cleggmania might pass them by, the desperate appeals to power that they're good boys and girls really, _go on, let us play._


----------



## andysays (Jan 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Sort of/sort of not. Ofcom's rulings regarding what are major parties are soley concerning the official party political broadcasts - that's what their provisional ruling is about (final decision in march). They have nothing to do with any tv debates. The broadcasters can choose to have just the greens and the lib-dems if they want (and many would love to). But that will be challenged by the other excluded parties and one key element of that challenge will be that ofcom has ruled that they're a major party. And the broadcasters can use that ofcom ruling in their defence to justify keeping out non major parties. That's how ofcom have become powerful in this - not so sure this is a good thing.
> 
> I am enjoying desperate whining greens scared that their chance at cleggmania might pass them by, the desperate appeals to power that they're good boys and girls really, _go on, let us play._



Thanks for the clarification on that.

But despite your last paragraph, I'm not convinced that this story is primarily about the "desperate whining greens" (though there's a touch of that), seems to me it's mostly about the Tories (and Cameron in particular) wanting to wriggle out of their previous commitment to party leader debate.

This is an interesting article, even if you don't swallow Rawnsley's line uncritically.

*Chances of a TV election debate? Choose between zilch and nada*
Badly burnt by what happened last time, the Tories set out to sabotage the negotiations right from the start


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2015)

Of course it's about Cameron wriggling, well one element of it is - i was just saying i've been enjoying another element -  the statesman like performances of greens since this started.


----------



## andysays (Jan 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it's about Cameron wriggling, well one element of it is - i was just saying i've been enjoying another element -  the statesman like performances of greens since this started.



Here's a link to Natalie Bennett's letter to Miliband, Clegg and Farage.

Dishonest attempt to conflate public interest with party interest? Definitely

I'm sure she'd be chuffed to hear she's got your approval as "statesmanlike", BTW, though she may not realise it's a backhanded compliment


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Sort of/sort of not. Ofcom's rulings regarding what are major parties are soley concerning the official party political broadcasts - that's what their provisional ruling is about (final decision in march). They have nothing to do with any tv debates. The broadcasters can choose to have just the greens and the lib-dems if they want (and many would love to). But that will be challenged by the other excluded parties and one key element of that challenge will be that ofcom has ruled that they're a major party. And the broadcasters can use that ofcom ruling in their defence to justify keeping out non major parties. That's how ofcom have become powerful in this - not so sure this is a good thing.



Yep, thanks for that.



> *Ofcom last week (8 January) published a consultation on the political parties it proposes as 'major parties' ahead of the May 2015 elections. The list of major parties is important for the allocation of party election broadcasts.*
> 
> This consultation does not determine the structure, format and style of any possible TV leaders' election debates. The decision on which leaders are represented in any broadcast debates is an editorial matter for broadcasters in agreement with the political parties taking part.



I should have read that before posting in response to bemused...apologies.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2015)

I'm not convinced Miliband's lot are scared of the Greens challenging them from the left, if anything an opportunity to present themselves as sensible and considered to swing voters would be useful at this stage


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2015)

Rob Ford suggested yesterday that the Green vote (and i suppose by extension, membership) is a young graduate vote - people finishing their studies in the post 2006/7 period and not getting the relatively privileged position they feel they are entitled to. Sort of a mirror of the the UKIP's lost relative privilege voters. And so the greens policies will/are aimed at continuing to appeal to this core vote and in protecting their interests above those of others in the way that the tories do with their pensioner vote. The difference of course is that there has been  massive rise in graduates with plenty more to follow. Anyone see anything in this? If even close will these frustrated young graduates interests clash with or mesh/support those of the wider working class/key voting blocs etc?

Anyway, i don't think i've ever met a green party member without a degree. Anyone have party membership demographics?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Anyway, i don't think i've ever met a green party member without a degree.


Tony Dyer maybe?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Tony Dyer maybe?


Good call.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2015)

Bumped into two mates of mine in separate incidents last night.both good working class lads who had reasonable pro working class politics  and disgusted with Labour. ones in the greens now and wasted a good  30 minutes trying to convince me that they were socialist and the other advised me that some recent youtube interview with Tommy Robinson was worth viewing as he spoke a lot of sense.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Rob Ford suggested yesterday that the Green vote (and i suppose by extension, membership) is a young graduate vote - people finishing their studies in the post 2006/7 period and not getting the relatively privileged position they feel they are entitled to. Sort of a mirror of the the UKIP's lost relative privilege voters. And so the greens policies will/are aimed at continuing to appeal to this core vote and in protecting their interests above those of others in the way that the tories do with their pensioner vote. The difference of course is that there has been  massive rise in graduates with plenty more to follow. Anyone see anything in this? If even close will these frustrated young graduates interests clash with or mesh/support those of the wider working class/key voting blocs etc?
> 
> Anyway, i don't think i've ever met a green party member without a degree. Anyone have party membership demographics?


depends how big your definition of working class is, but with ~50% of the kids now going to university there has to be a fair proportion of them at least coming from a working class background, and a lot ending up in call centres and the like after graduation.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Bumped into two mates of mine in separate incidents last night.both good working class lads who had reasonable pro working class politics  and disgusted with Labour. ones in the greens now and wasted a good  30 minutes trying to convince me that they were socialist and the other advised me that some recent youtube interview with Tommy Robinson was worth viewing as he spoke a lot of sense.



Shades of bolshiebhoy with that post mate


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Anyway, i don't think i've ever met a green party member without a degree. Anyone have party membership demographics?



And thinking about it, does Gosling have a (non-mail order/internet) degree?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> And thinking about it, does Gosling have a (non-mail order/internet) degree?


That particular goose has a proper degree - though i don't think he's had much to do with the greens for a while. Maybe didn't even come back after his suspension for massive homophobia. Which might explain how he got the RT gig and seems to fit in so well there.


----------



## Sirena (Jan 19, 2015)

I like this.  Very cheeky, very clever and it gets across a strong signal/wink to a potential female electorate


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 19, 2015)

Sirena said:


> I like this.  Very cheeky, very clever and it gets across a strong signal/wink to a potential female electorate


The common good? Fuck off.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2015)

I just thought I'd have a look at GP policy on energy and power generation, seeing as it's something I know a little about.

Didn't expect it to include rather strong endorsements of biomass and CCS...

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ey.html


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 19, 2015)

Brighton Greens had a meeting at the weekend & asked Kitcat to stand down 

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/...arty-asks-jason-kitcat-to-go-before-elections


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Brighton Greens had a meeting at the weekend & asked Kitcat to stand down
> 
> http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/...arty-asks-jason-kitcat-to-go-before-elections


No, not 'stand down'....

*HAVE A BREAK*


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> I just thought I'd have a look at GP policy on energy and power generation, seeing as it's something I know a little about.
> 
> Didn't expect it to include rather strong endorsements of biomass and CCS...
> 
> http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ey.html



It's somewhat less surprising once we get to the details rather than the bullet points. They have certain ideas about making biomass greener, and their CCS long-term plan is all about biogas.



> EN221 We will ensure energy produced from biomass, including biogas, yields reductions in greenhouse gas emissions using sustainable wastes and domestic feedstocks for which indirect substitution emissions can be shown to be minimal. We will ensure that biomass generation, uses sustainably-sourced fuels produced according to stringent sustainability standards and is as far as possible carbon neutral.





> EN250 We will assist in making carbon capture and storage (CCS) a reality by investing in the testing of commercial-scale CCS technology and will encourage bids for EU funding (such as NER300) to ensure that the UK secures a leadership position and competitive advantage in both the development and deployment of CCS technology.
> 
> EN251 If CCS is proven at a commercial scale, we will support deployment of the technology, on a specifically transitional basis, to existing sustainable biomass and gas power stations and existing incineration plant. We will support deployment on a long term basis for sustainable biogas generating plant.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2015)

how anyone could consider supporting a party that talks about 'securing leadership position and competitive advantage' is beyond me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> how anyone could consider supporting a party that talks about 'securing leadership position and competitive advantage' is beyond me.



I don't know why anyone would bother to vote for a government that sought to do the opposite?


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

We will ensure biomass is sustainable by continuing to hone our ability to spew shit from additional orifices such as our gobs, increasing the availability of burnable turds by 40% by 2030.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2015)

Language like that demonstrates better than anything else (to my mind) that the greens offer nothing - just middle management bullshit. More neo-liberal economics and managerial politics, but with some windfarms. Fuck that.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> how anyone could consider supporting a party that talks about 'securing leadership position and competitive advantage' is beyond me.


why not?

 should we not lead the world in any industrial technologies anymore?

just do the research then allow the chinese, german's, danes, americans, Japanese etc to actually bring it to market, then flog the technology we invented to the rest of the world because we don't do that sort of thing anymore?


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2015)

see above.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> It's somewhat less surprising once we get to the details rather than the bullet points. They have certain ideas about making biomass greener, and their CCS long-term plan is all about biogas.



Having already read the bits you have quoted (and then posted the link to that page), it is neither more nor less ‘surprising’.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> see above.


says you're clueless when it comes to UK industrial policy to me.

seeking to become world leaders in one of the leading power generation sources of the next generation would secure large numbers of high quality engineering and manufacturing jobs for a generation, and it is technology that we really are fucking good at, and have done a lot of research and development work on already.


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Having already read the bits you have quoted (and then posted the link to that page), it is neither more nor less ‘surprising’.



OK then. It was much less surprising to me once I bored myself with the detail.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:


> says you're clueless when it comes to UK industrial policy to me.
> 
> seeking to become world leaders in one of the leading power generation sources of the next generation would secure large numbers of high quality engineering and manufacturing jobs for a generation, and it is technology that we really are fucking good at, and have done a lot of research and development work on already.


I don't think you really understand what I was saying.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:


> says you're clueless when it comes to UK industrial policy to me.
> 
> seeking to become world leaders in one of the leading power generation sources of the next generation would secure large numbers of high quality engineering and manufacturing jobs for a generation, and it is technology that we really are fucking good at, and have done a lot of research and development work on already.



I agree - I don't think that the Greens are the party to deliver this - but it's essential that we develop the skills to create and provide affordable, sustainable energy for all - and if we're self sufficient so much the better.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> I don't think you really understand what I was saying.


no I do, I just think you're nitpicking on language while missing the fact that they're making an entirely valid point about the potential for the UK to become world leaders in a novel technology that has the potential to be rolled out around the world and secure tens thousands of UK engineering, manufacturing and construction jobs in the process.

The list of energy technologies that we've either invented or done a lot of the original r&d in, then failed to develop and just allowed those countries with proper industrial policies to steal from us, bring to market, and sell back to us and the rest of the world is far too long.

We used to be and could still be a world leading industrial and engineering powerhouse, and the remaining newrenewables and low carbon energy sources offer us probably the last chance in a generation to actually develop this sort of world leading technology that we can sell to the world ourselves on a large scale.

For starters, I'll give you fluidised bed coal power stations, low NOx CCGT's above 50MW, largescale offshore and onshore wind turbines, Nuclear (we sold one of the world's leading nuclear power plant developers about 2-3 years before deciding to have a new generation of nuclear plants built), solar PV, Thorium Molten Salt Reactors, Tidal Barrage.

To me that sentence actually shows the greens have someone writing that policy that at least vaguely knows what they're talking about, as they're able to quote the specific EU funding pots they'd target to support this development.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> We will ensure biomass is sustainable by continuing to hone our ability to spew shit from additional orifices such as our gobs, increasing the availability of burnable turds by 40% by 2030.


If only self-righteousness could be harnessed for the generation of electricity then the greens would have us energy self-sufficient using only renewables.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2015)

I'm not missing any facts, they just aren't relevant to the point I was making. Nitpicking if you insist, but personally I prefer my politics to read less like a powerpoint presentation to the board of the east midlands' second biggest paper merchant.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> More neo-liberal economics.


actually I'm going to take issue with this.

The neoliberalists don't give a fuck who develops and manufactures a technology, they'd just want to leave it to the global market to develop whereever had the most competitive manufacturing environment, and ignoring the fact that other countries aren't playing by those rules, and actually do support their industry, protect it from foreign take over, support it to develop new technologies, provide soft loans to bail them out when they're in danger of going bust etc etc.

Which is the opposite of what this sentence says.

For the neoliberalist version of this see the lib dem / tory reaction to the request for a soft loan by sheffield forgemasters to build the plant needed to manufacture the massive steel core housing's* for the new generation of nuclear plants they'd announced they were intending to have built in the UK. No loan, so we'll instead be getting shoddy Chinese workmanship because there is no UK manufacturing plant capable of building it (without that loan).


*I forget what it's actually called.


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> Language like that demonstrates better than anything else (to my mind) that the greens offer nothing - just middle management bullshit. More neo-liberal economics and managerial politics, but with some windfarms. Fuck that.



You have to scroll down their economic policy page a bit to get to the really wadical stuff. To be fair there is actually quite a lot of it, but at some point they admit that they can't actually do most of it so long as we remain part of the EU as it is today, lol.



> EC850 Many of the national level policies outlined here would be difficult if not impossible to pursue while the European Union pursues unsustainable and corporatist economic policies.



http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html

I suspect there is a gap between the policies on that page and the ones on the energy page because they are rather keen to try to make their energy numbers somewhat add up, such things being relatively easy to scrutinise and an obvious focus of mainstream attention towards their party. And since they want to ditch nuclear they are limited as to what else they can reject and still retain credibility. Whereas on the economics page they can go wild without serious scrutiny or ability to see if their numbers add up.


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:


> shoddy Chinese workmanship



Cunt.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> Cunt.


fuck off.

talk to any nuclear engineers working on these plants then come back to me on that. Nuclear plants require very very high grade steel work, sheffield would have been capable of producing that, the Chinese plants have apparently had issues with this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:
			
		

> shoddy Chinese workmanship





elbows said:


> Cunt.



Ah back on track of why the GP is shit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> Cunt.



and about 20 years out of date if the stuff I've dealt with is anything to go by. in the 90s you'd buy bulk from China in the knowledge that you'd have to do your own QC and about 20% of the units wouldn't be up to standard but it didn't matter cos they were offering stuff for so much less than anyone else. These days they'rethough not by as much and still cheaper and at least as good as their european counterparts. (I'm talking about components for machines used in the confectionary industry and more recently hydraulics and control unit components).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> and about 20 years out of date if the stuff I've dealt with is anything to go by. in the 90s you'd buy bulk from China in the knowledge that you'd have to do your own QC and about 20% of the units wouldn't be up to standard but it didn't matter cos they were offering stuff for so much less than anyone else. These days they'rethough not by as much and still cheaper and at least as good as their european counterparts. (I'm talking about components for machines used in the confectionary industry and more recently hydraulics and control unit components).



I'd rather stuff was made in the UK because jobs. The shoddy workmanship thing is a red herring


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:


> fuck off.
> 
> talk to any nuclear engineers working on these plants then come back to me on that. Nuclear plants require very very high grade steel work, sheffield would have been capable of producing that, the Chinese plants have apparently had issues with this.



Given Green Party policies regarding the WTO, import tariffs and related matters, the greenies need to be extra careful not to leave themselves open to accusations of protectionism should they ever be in a position to press for these changes. Sloppy generalisations about the standards of work produced by another nation would fall into that territory. Likewise the relations between local, national and global will be a challenge on so many levels, and will require much solidarity on fronts easily offended by crap sentiments expressed poorly.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> Given Green Party policies regarding the WTO, import tariffs and related matters, the greenies need to be extra careful not to leave themselves open to accusations of protectionism should they ever be in a position to press for these changes. Sloppy generalisations about the standards of work produced by another nation would fall into that territory. Likewise the relations between local, national and global will be a challenge on so many levels, and will require much solidarity on fronts easily offended by crap sentiments expressed poorly.



yes protectionism is a terrible idea


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

Or at least they will need to rescue the term protectionism by focusing on what/who it is protecting, and how not to leave others unprotected from the consequences. Same implications as my earlier point.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> Given Green Party policies regarding the WTO, import tariffs and related matters, the greenies need to be extra careful not to leave themselves open to accusations of protectionism should they ever be in a position to press for these changes. Sloppy generalisations about the standards of work produced by another nation would fall into that territory. Likewise the relations between local, national and global will be a challenge on so many levels, and will require much solidarity on fronts easily offended by crap sentiments expressed poorly.


it's not a sloppy generalisation it's a specific allegation about this specific technology.

or do you think that pressure vessels that are welded together as opposed to being fully cast in one piece are of the same quality?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'd rather stuff was made in the UK because jobs. The shoddy workmanship thing is a red herring



and because it's fucking stupid the way we waste fuel shipping stuff across the world just cos it's slightly more profitable - saves a few pence per 100 units or whatever - when we could make it down the road


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> yes protectionism is a terrible idea



But I'm speaking of what the Greens do and say and the pressures they will face, not what each of us think should be said and done and considered good or bad.

They have positioned themselves in a way that I think makes them vulnerable on this front if they were ever properly tested. They would be desperate to wriggle around accusations of protectionism, and might justify their policies in a manner that tries to please opposing ideologies, just as their policy documents contradict themselves in spirit at times.

It's not simply their fault though. There haven't been enough opportunities to test fair and sustainable trade concepts against the same pressures that the wider world of trade faces in practice. Even if some people on this forum have some avenues for expressing international worker solidarity and know some mistakes to avoid when trying to marry protection for local communities, workers and jobs with the plight of their international brethren, I'm not sure it gets woven into these sorts of discussions often enough.


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

For the Green Party to begin to escape the sort of criticisms I've levelled at it, it would have to decide exactly where it stood on the very concept of competition. Or, as the Blair years repeatedly tried to rebrand it 'choice'.

Because at the moment I think it avoided making that choice, ha. It is worshipping several contradictory gods, and it shows in the policy documents.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:


> it's not a sloppy generalisation it's a specific allegation about this specific technology.
> 
> or do you think that pressure vessels that are welded together as opposed to being fully cast in one piece are of the same quality?


actually it looks like that might be out of date info, they do now have the sort of capacity plant that forgemasters were aiming to build.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> and about 20 years out of date if the stuff I've dealt with is anything to go by. in the 90s you'd buy bulk from China in the knowledge that you'd have to do your own QC and about 20% of the units wouldn't be up to standard but it didn't matter cos they were offering stuff for so much less than anyone else. These days they'rethough not by as much and still cheaper and at least as good as their european counterparts. (I'm talking about components for machines used in the confectionary industry and more recently hydraulics and control unit components).


fwiw I've probably bought and installed £1/2 million worth of chinese solar panels in the last 5 years, along with a fair few inverters and other components, and a lot of European manufactured kit, so I actually do have a pretty good idea of the situation.

There are chinese factories with good environmental and social records, good quality control etc, and there are others that are desperately churning out whatever they can as cheaply as possible, trashing the environment in the process, treating their workers like shit, and using whatever dirt cheap components they can get hold of just to attempt to keep their heads above water and attempt to pay off the huge debt they've racked up setting up their factory.

Or there's the LED manufacturers who have 3 different grades of drivers and heat sinks for their LEDs, the bulbs look the same, but the quality ones will last several years, the cheap ones will struggle to last a year, but you'll never know which you're buying when buying the cheap ones, if you knock them down on price they'll just give you the shoddier version unless you're clear on which kit you expect to be in the units.

So if I talk about cheap shoddy chinese kit, then generally I'm referring to cheap shoddy chinese kit as opposed to implying that all chinese manufactured kit is cheap and shoddy.

There are also UK plants that really do suffer from shoddy workmanship as well, we had to stop buying panels from one UK manufacturer after a series of basic workmanship problems, but in this context sheffield forgemasters are one of the world's premier steel manufacturing plants and should have been backed by the UK government to enable them to manufacture the pressure vessels for the next generation of nuclear plants here and abroad, and yes I would have been more confident in the quality control at forgemasters.


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:


> it's not a sloppy generalisation it's a specific allegation about this specific technology.
> 
> or do you think that pressure vessels that are welded together as opposed to being fully cast in one piece are of the same quality?



I think I'd like a link to information that supports your claim. 

Anyway issues of whether something is the exact same quality is not necessarily the same as whether something can fairly be called shoddy. If the heat & pressure testing of the vessels is done properly and with a wide safety margin, and both types of manufacturing result in pressure vessels that more than adequately pass the tests, then the word shoddy hardly applies. So one of the reasons for wanting more information about your claim is to find out what the problems actually were.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2015)

Isn't this the part where generally speaking a fulsome apology is offered?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> yes protectionism is a terrible idea


isn't it just.

Imagine how bad it would be for a government to prevent it's major ports from being bought by foreign buyers, prevent it's major companies being bought by foreign buyers, prevent it's major manufacturers from going bust via the use of massive low interest government loans, didn't favour massive foreign owned conglomerates who're able to access cheaper finance due to their penchant for everything being PFI funded etc.

hmm, no wait, that's what pretty much all the major industrial countries do other than us. We're the muppets who's government has completely swallowed the neoliberalist bullshit entirely and don't seem to have noticed that nobody else is quite playing by the same rules.


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

free spirit said:


> So if I talk about cheap shoddy chinese kit, then generally I'm referring to cheap shoddy chinese kit as opposed to implying that all chinese manufactured kit is cheap and shoddy.



And do you have any evidence that the Chinese nuclear industry features any of the sorts of companies you are familiar with that knock out cheap shoddy stuff?



> There are also UK plants that really do suffer from shoddy workmanship as well, we had to stop buying panels from one UK manufacturer after a series of basic workmanship problems, but in this context sheffield forgemasters are one of the world's premier steel manufacturing plants and should have been backed by the UK government to enable them to manufacture the pressure vessels for the next generation of nuclear plants here and abroad, and yes I would have been more confident in the quality control at forgemasters.



What backing did Forgemasters require in order to manufacture the pressure vessels?


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

When I order electric cigarette components off Amazon, I have to be careful to avoid cheap fakes, and try and get the real ones that are also made in China. Gee, I do hope the reactor people don't have this problem when shopping for inverted flange peripheral core remangulation components.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> When I order electric cigarette components off Amazon, I have to be careful to avoid cheap fakes, and try and get the real ones that are also made in China. Gee, I do hope the reactor people don't have this problem when shopping for inverted flange peripheral core remangulation components.


‘Yebbut them Chinese inverted flange peripheral core remangulation components all look the same to me’


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2015)

elbows said:


> shopping for inverted flange peripheral core remangulation components.



Perverts


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2015)

Oh well, at least the reactor coolant pumps that Sheffield Forgemasters are making received some government money, to enable the new CHEAPER design.

*



			27 March 2013
		
Click to expand...

*


> Sheffield Forgemasters has secured two multi-million pound funding grants from the Government aimed at projects to boost its nuclear power capabilities and expertise.
> 
> The funding, totalling £2.15m, from the Government’s Technology Strategy Board, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, will be used on two projects being spearheaded by the award-winning, world leading Sheffield-based engineering company.
> 
> Just over £1m will go towards a £2.1m project with TWI and the University of Sheffield, to produce cast reactor coolant pumps. SFIL will deliver a lower cost, cast solution for the RCP to replace the current forged design. Successful qualification should result in major export orders for the UK.



It's a good thing they have the good name of Sheffield to carry the assurance of quality forwards into this product line. If a Chinese company were doing this people might be a bit suspect about quality issues.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> And do you have any evidence that the Chinese nuclear industry features any of the sorts of companies you are familiar with that knock out cheap shoddy stuff?


not directly, but in there are major issues in the steel supply chain in China. There's also the issue of the lack of transparency, so when discussing 14 problems discovered in chinese nuclear plants we get this



> Referring to a safety review of China’s nuclear power plants conducted in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown in Japan last year, he mentioned, in passing, that “problems in 14 areas have been found and need to be resolved.”
> 
> Some of them will take up to three years to fix, he added.
> 
> ...


Transparency isn't one of China's strong points, which to me isn't something that gives confidence when buying once in a generation equipment where even tiny defects can cause massive problems.

Then there are the multiple other instances of fatigue failures in chinese steel where issues such as corruption tend to get brought up.



> *A Series Of Bridge Collapses*
> 
> Since 2011, eight bridges have collapsed around the country, according to China's state-run media. The cases include one in April 2011, when a cable snapped on a suspension bridge in Western China's Xinjiang region, sending a chunk of roadway plunging onto a riverbank.
> 
> ...





> The *Qinghe Special Steel Corporation disaster* was an industrial disaster that occurred on April 18, 2007, in Tieling, Liaoning Province, China. Thirty-two people were killed and six were injured when a ladle used to transport molten steel separated from an overhead rail in the Qinghe Special Steel Corporation factory.
> 
> A subsequent investigation by the Chinese authorities found that the plant had been lacking any major safety features and was severely below regulation benchmarks, with the direct cause of the accident being attributed to inappropriate use of substandard equipment. The investigation also concluded that the various other safety failings at the facility were contributing factors. *The report went on to criticize safety standards all throughout the Chinese steel industry*.





> Samples of imported steel reinforcing bars from China have failed to meet British standards in independent laboratory tests.





> The Chinese government has called for a formal investigation, and *banned Chinese-made pipe for use in major power plant critical applications*. Bechtel China has also conducted an investigation.



etc.

Now I'm not saying that the Chinese factory manufacturing this pressure vessel is going to be anything like that, but it doesn't really inspire confidence about what's going on in the supply chain over there when we're talking about one of the most safety critical hardest to manufacture pieces of equipment there is, where even minor imperfections can have major impacts.

When the Chinese themselves are banning Chinese manufactured pipe from being used in their own power plants it should maybe give pause for thought.



elbows said:


> What backing did Forgemasters require in order to manufacture the pressure vessels?


£80 million loan.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> When I order electric cigarette components off Amazon, I have to be careful to avoid cheap fakes, and try and get the real ones that are also made in China. Gee, I do hope the reactor people don't have this problem when shopping for inverted flange peripheral core remangulation components.


you missed the bit where I was responding to this point



> (I'm talking about components for machines used in the confectionary industry and more recently hydraulics and control unit components)



poster claims experience based on the purchase of machines for confectionary and hydraulics = no problem.

poster responds by saying that they regularly buy and install large quantities of solar PV panels and inverters from China (ie at least equal level of recent experience) = take the piss.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

I hope the lubricant required to maintain such wriggling is bio-degradable.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 20, 2015)

This is very interesting and not just in the context of GPEW policy muddles. 


elbows said:


> <snip> There haven't been enough opportunities to test fair and sustainable trade concepts against the same pressures that the wider world of trade faces in practice. Even if some people on this forum have some avenues for expressing international worker solidarity and know some mistakes to avoid when trying to marry protection for local communities, workers and jobs with the plight of their international brethren, I'm not sure it gets woven into these sorts of discussions often enough.



Does anyone have any references to what they deem sound thinking in this area?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> I hope the lubricant required to maintain such wriggling is bio-degradable.



piss off, I was the one who bothered to go and double check my original statement and post up the correction prior to being challenged on it as I realised I was probably using out of date information. 

There are legitimate concerns over the reliance on China to supply out nuclear power stations with this type of safety critical kit, where even the minutest deformity could result in the plant having to be shut down early or worse, plus the impact on UK industry and UK jobs.

But it's interesting to see that you actually appear to have swallowed this neoliberalist line of it not mattering where stuff is produced, not mattering what sorts of working condistions, or environmental conditions, or regulatory regime, or press situation it's produced under, none of that has any impact on quality.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2015)

Its generally traditional to google whatever you're an expert on today_ before_ pompously expounding, but good on you for trying something new.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> piss off, I was the one who bothered to go and double check my original statement and post up the correction prior to being challenged on it as I realised I was probably using out of date information.
> 
> There are legitimate concerns over the reliance on China to supply out nuclear power stations with this type of safety critical kit, where even the minutest deformity could result in the plant having to be shut down early or worse, plus the impact on UK industry and UK jobs.
> 
> But it's interesting to see that you actually appear to have swallowed this neoliberalist line of it not mattering where stuff is produced, not mattering what sorts of working condistions, or environmental conditions, or regulatory regime, or press situation it's produced under, none of that has any impact on quality.



I haven't swallowed any of that neoliberalism stuff. 

I'll thank you not to indulge in face saving techniques that apparently require you to make up lies about my position in regards to neoliberalism, working conditions etc. Bring up all the decent points you want in order to justify your original crude slur about Chinese products, attempt to save face all you like, but don't invent a position for me.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> piss off, I was the one who bothered to go and double check my original statement and post up the correction prior to being challenged on it as I realised I was probably using out of date information.



Lets dwell briefly on your original defence. You invited me to 'talk to any nuclear engineers working on these plants then come back to me on that'. Which made me wonder if it was you I had an argument with about the arrogance of specialists and related matters some time ago. Pulling the 'I personally know people who are experts, you don't' trick. Blew up in your face in record time on this occasion. Google research, its not exactly perfect, but on this occasion it beat your out-of-date, badly remembered anecdotes from your carefully built-up personal network of experts. And it wasn't even my google research, it was your own. Ho ho.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 20, 2015)

Any thoughts on this?

Labour lead falls as Greens hit 20-year high in Guardian/ICM poll


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> Labour lead falls as Greens hit 20-year high in Guardian/ICM poll



I can't fully get my teeth into the implications of history-making high levels of support for parties beyond the traditional big ones until we've actually seen the real results at a general election rather than polls.

Meanwhile today the Telegraph have taken a look at the sort of green party policy documents that we've referenced in recent pages on this thread. Plenty for them to mock, express fear about, misrepresent. Note the choice of headline.

*Drugs, brothels, al-Qaeda and the Beyonce tax: the Green Party plan for Britain*
*They are on the cusp of an electoral breakthrough - and an examination of Green Party policy reveals a extraordinary list of demands*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html


----------



## Theisticle (Jan 20, 2015)

Did they scrutinise UKIP's barmy policies before Farage disowned it? 

Shitty tabloid stuff from the Telegraph.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> Lets dwell briefly on your original defence. You invited me to 'talk to any nuclear engineers working on these plants then come back to me on that'. Which made me wonder if it was you I had an argument with about the arrogance of specialists and related matters some time ago. Pulling the 'I personally know people who are experts, you don't' trick. Blew up in your face in record time on this occasion. Google research, its not exactly perfect, but on this occasion it beat your out-of-date, badly remembered anecdotes from your carefully built-up personal network of experts. And it wasn't even my google research, it was your own. Ho ho.


not really, the basis of the argument remains the same, and it was an argument first advanced by someone who'd worked as an engineer on previous nuclear builds so I'd take it far more seriously than anything you might come out with. I just got the specific reason wrong due to it being 4 years since that discussion.

The general point stands though, we'd be far better off to have this safety critical equipment being manufactured in the UK under UK regulations and quality control regimes rather than half way around the world in a country where corruption is rife, and there have been a series of major problems in the steel supply chain in recent years to the point where they've even had to ban the use of their own manufactured pipes in their own powerstations because of those very same quality control issues.

I don't think those who've had a problem with what I've said really have much of a clue about the situation tbh. It's been interesting though to see who has a problem with the idea of supporting UK industry, and apparently doesn't have any issue with even safety critical kit like this being manufactured anywhere else in the world regardless of the state of their industry and regulatory regimes. It'd seem they've bought into this aspect of the neoliberalist ideology a lot more than they'd have us believe from their other postings.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 20, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> Labour lead falls as Greens hit 20-year high in Guardian/ICM poll


On what, the (maybe) rising Green vote or the Guardian spin on it?

The Guardian have been peddling how bad Labour, and especially Miliband, whenever possible for the last five years.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> <snip> Meanwhile today the Telegraph have taken a look at the sort of green party policy documents that we've referenced in recent pages on this thread. Plenty for them to mock, express fear about, misrepresent. Note the choice of headline.
> 
> *Drugs, brothels, al-Qaeda and the Beyonce tax: the Green Party plan for Britain*
> *They are on the cusp of an electoral breakthrough - and an examination of Green Party policy reveals a extraordinary list of demands*
> ...



Sounds great. Who do I have to vote for to get those excellent policies again?


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> On what, the (maybe) rising Green vote or the Guardian spin on it?
> 
> The Guardian have been peddling how bad Labour, and especially Miliband, whenever possible for the last five years.



And the Guardian, like others, need a replacement for their shattered lib dem hopes.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> And they, like others, need a replacement for their shattered lib dem hopes.


Yep


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> And the Guardian, like others, need a replacement for their shattered lib dem hopes.


the only difference is the greens wear their sandals without socks.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I don't think those who've had a problem with what I've said really have much of a clue about the situation tbh. It's been interesting though to see who has a problem with the idea of supporting UK industry, and apparently doesn't have any issue with even safety critical kit like this being manufactured anywhere else in the world regardless of the state of their industry and regulatory regimes. It'd seem they've bought into this aspect of the neoliberalist ideology a lot more than they'd have us believe from their other postings.



Still misrepresenting my stance again then. My possible reputation round these parts for being a Fukushima bore may make the task of painting me as uninterested in nuclear safety critical kit and regulatory regimes trickier.

We could both save a lot of words if you'd simply express even a modicum of regret for your original choice of words.

Just because you don't want to deal with really tricky questions about how we marry local and national workers rights with those of workers abroad, and ideas about exactly how much, and what form, of competition between humans is beneficial as opposed to destructive, doesn't mean you should try to paint me as a sucker for neoliberal ideas.

But perhaps we've clashed on enough fronts here in recent weeks that I can build a picture of what you think to return the favour. You prefer a version of reality that features a dumbed down version of the WTO and the timing and reasons for its creation. You seem well aware of what nations and ideologies drive the WTO, but an excessive focus on the term neoliberalism may run the risk of ignoring lessons and motives from the historical period that encompassed both world wars and a depression. I don't tread lightly around terms like protectionism because I buy into the neoliberal agenda, but because I am aware of some of the ways competition between nations during times of economic duress previously escalated in ways that contributed to war. i.e. I am able to consider things like Bretton Woods not just for the neoliberal agendas they eventually enabled and saddled the world with, or for the fact the power was largely held within the institutions by the western victors of world war 2 (with some care taken to economically rehabilitate the main losers that time, unlike ww1), but also for those allegedly noble motives of preventing future war etc. e.g. some of the reasons that Tony Benn would waffle on about the UN charter all the time.

But that way easily lies a lot of potential Lib Dem or Green-compatible wank that certainly could be tainted by adherence to at least some of the commandments of neoliberalism. So maybe I'd rather take that sentiment you applied to sheffield forge, their workers, and this nation, and apply it with more obvious care to all workers around the global. Especially given the global nature of many of our problems, solutions and struggles. Which means kicking off when you make sloppy remarks about the quality of another nations produce, especially when your first justification for the remark goes down in flames.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> This is very interesting and not just in the context of GPEW policy muddles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wish I knew, I'm only at the stage of remember to ask these questions very sporadically, I've not made much effort to see what thought is out there.

So I really hope someone answers this, and haven't all been put off my my windy bun-fight.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> We could both save a lot of words if you'd simply express even a modicum of regret for your original choice of words.





> shoddy Chinese workmanship


nope, I've no issue with what I said at all in this respect, it succinctly explains the concerns I've elaborated on further since.



elbows said:


> *Just because you don't want to deal with really tricky questions about how we marry local and national workers rights with those of workers abroad*, and ideas about exactly how much, and what form, of competition between humans is beneficial as opposed to destructive, doesn't mean you should try to paint me as a sucker for neoliberal ideas.


how the fuck do you get to that position?

Either you've not read what I've said on this recently*, or you're completely misrepresenting my position, as I have specifically addressed that point.



elbows said:


> But that way easily lies a lot of potential Lib Dem or Green-compatible wank that certainly could be tainted by adherence to at least some of the commandments of neoliberalism. So maybe I'd rather take that sentiment you applied to sheffield forge, their workers, and this nation, and apply it with more obvious care to all workers around the global. Especially given the global nature of many of our problems, solutions and struggles. Which means kicking off when you make sloppy remarks about the quality of another nations produce, especially when your first justification for the remark goes down in flames.


absolute bullshit.

you don't do workers in other countries any favors by brushing under the carpet the problems they have in their countries that result in their products gaining a reputation for being shoddy even by their own government (I note you've conveniently failed to comment on that point).

This isn't about racism or any bullshit like that, it's about the structural issues within that country that lead to it having the worst air quality in the world, millions of internal migrants working in slave labour type conditions unable to complain or protest about them, incredibly bad water pollution issues, and quality control in the supply chain that's shot to pieces by corruption and inadequate regulation.

Your bollocks merely serves to ignore and perpetuate the problems - if the UK pulled out of a nuclear deal with China due to these concerns, maybe, just maybe that might do something to persuade them to sort this out, if the UK just goes ahead and ignores it all and awards them these huge contracts regardless of these concerns, then they'll have absolutely no reason to do anything to change the situation.

I can see little difference between your position and the neoliberalist position on this.

* actually, seeing as some of what I said on that was in discussions with you on the WTO, I'll have to go with the latter option. Unless you've really not understood the point being made.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

Workers of the world unite, ps. we think your stuff is shite.

Thats what I'm complaining about. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result you've decided that I'm a secret neoliberal and apologist for the Chinese regime. Well done.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> Still misrepresenting my stance again then. My possible reputation round these parts for being a Fukushima bore may make the task of painting me as uninterested in nuclear safety critical kit and regulatory regimes trickier.


yes, you should know better.

I'm not painting you as being uninterested in nuclear safety, I'm merely pointing that you've chosen to completely ignore the multiple problems that clearly exist in that area in the Chinese manufacturing supply chain that we're now reliant on to build our next generation of nuclear plants, for reasons I can only see as some form of muddled ideology... or more properly the next generation of plants China will be funding, building and profiting massively from in this country, they won't be ours in any way until it comes to the clean up costs and deaing with the long term waste disposal.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> Workers of the world unite, ps. we think your stuff is shite.
> 
> Thats what I'm complaining about. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result you've decided that I'm a secret neoliberal and apologist for the Chinese regime. Well done.


You're making out that the state of the regulatory regime, corruption, supply chain, working conditions, environmental regulations, and even multiple cases of failures due to quality control issues within the steel supply chain within that country should not be seen as casting any doubt over the reliable quality of the end product.

That is either a neoliberalist position, or you've arrived at the same position as the most extreme neoliberalists through some misguided ideology of your own.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I can see little difference between your position and the neoliberalist position on this.
> 
> * actually, seeing as some of what I said on that was in discussions with you on the WTO, I'll have to go with the latter option. Unless you've really not understood the point being made.



Next time you run into someone who has the discourtesy to laugh at your crude caricature of the WTO and its origins, don't make the mistake of thinking that simply must mean they are on the WTO's side or are blind to neoliberal agendas pissing at their door.

Also don't make the mistake of thinking I disagree with all of the points you've made. You are not going to paint me as utterly opposed to all of the sensible stuff that you come out with. I'm not going to take that phrase you came out with and use it to label you a nationalist, kindly return the favour and stop insinuating I'm a fucking neoliberal just because we disagree about some historical details and implications of language in the way we relate to other nations and peoples, and the economic and trade policies we deem acceptable as a result.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> Also don't make the mistake of thinking I disagree with all of the points you've made. You are not going to paint me as utterly opposed to all of the sensible stuff that you come out with. I'm not going to take that phrase you came out with and use it to label you a nationalist, kindly return the favour and stop insinuating I'm a fucking neoliberal just because we disagree about some historical details and implications of language in the way we relate to other nations and peoples, and the economic and trade policies we deem acceptable as a result.


I'm not, I'm pointing out quite clearly how your position is basically the same as the neoliberalist position on this specific subject.

It's got nothing to do with what your views are on the formation of the WTO, it's specifically the position you've taken on this thread.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> You're making out that the state of the regulatory regime, corruption, supply chain, working conditions, environmental regulations, and even multiple cases of failures due to quality control issues within the steel supply chain within that country should not be seen as casting any doubt over the reliable quality of the end product.



I've not made that out at all.

I've called you a cunt for compressing those issues into a shit phrase, a crude generalisation lazily spouted in a manner that I don't think sets us up to have a bright new global order that respects and gives power to those who deserve it and are presently denied it.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> I've not made that out at all.
> 
> I've called you a cunt for compressing those issues into a shit phrase, a crude generalisation lazily spouted in a manner that I don't think sets us up to have a bright new global order that respects and gives power to those who deserve it and are presently denied it.


so all this is merely over my precise choice of words is it?

tell you what, why don't you try summing it up in 3 words of your own choice instead, or should i have to write an essay to explain in detail every minor side point I want to make within a post just to satisfy your snide habit of picking at any minor issue in the precise wording of any post I make because you like to take me down a peg or 2 whenever you see the opportunity (I well remember your previous form on this).

Let me just repeat what you;ve said previously on this though, as actually you've not just questioned the term shoddy, you went further than that.


> Anyway issues of whether something is the exact same quality is not necessarily the same as whether something can fairly be called shoddy. If the heat & pressure testing of the vessels is done properly and with a wide safety margin, and both types of manufacturing result in pressure vessels that more than adequately pass the tests, then the word shoddy hardly applies. So one of the reasons for wanting more information about your claim is to find out what the problems actually were.



in nuclear terms if there is any minor flaw at all then it's shoddy, and if the regulatory regime is such that the test results you mention can't be 100% trusted then it's shoddy. There is no room for doubt.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'm not, I'm pointing out quite clearly how your position is basically the same as the neoliberalist position on this specific subject.
> 
> It's got nothing to do with what your views are on the formation of the WTO, it's specifically the position you've taken on this thread.



I will assume that the most obvious example of where this misreading of my position would come from would be the issue of protectionism.

I don't think I came out in favour or against protectionism. I think I just wanted to explore some of the issues that come with it. Especially when people are calling for protectionism in the name of fostering local industries that can then go on to export their products all over the world. I'm not even saying there is a total incompatibility/double standard there, or even anything wrong with it per se, just that such calls at least demonstrate where the dangerous ground is to be found when it comes to international trade. Competition, the rules of the game, global imbalances in power and worker equality.

The context in which I first mentioned protectionism may also be subject to misinterpretation. I was talking about why the Green party, given that they want to reform trade and economics in a manner that no longer externalises various costs (e.g. environmental), would probably be vulnerable to accusations of protectionism when it came to certain specific policies. I didn't mean that I think protectionism is a dirty word to me, though I clearly think it comes with baggage which I am always keen to explore. But it is obviously a dirty concept to the dominant ideology of today, at least when it suits powerful nations to label another actions as protectionism while still indulging in their own. So one of the problems the Greens would face if they ever got to try implementing certain policies, would be that various nations etc would cry 'protectionism' and try to foster great cynicism about the true motives of the Greens for bringing in that legislation. 

Why does it matter especially to the Greens that they are vulnerable on that front, given that protectionism can also be yelled at any other force that treads on neoliberal toes? Because lots of people are already rather paranoid and suspicious about Green agendas. When governments try to, for example, change consumption habits via taxation etc many people prefer to focus on the revenue raising motivations of the government and express cynicism about either the need or government desire to do something better about the environment. It seems reasonable to expect that related phenomenon would also occur when it comes to green policies that affect global trade.

Or perhaps you were confused by some of my more direct responses to your stuff about the sheffield company. I wasn't expressing a lack of solidarity for them, I was trying to demonstrate that because your crude stance was sharply pointed in a particular direction, it was trivial to rotate it back at you 180 degrees.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> tell you what, why don't you try summing it up in 3 words of your own choice instead, or should i have to write an essay to explain in detail every minor side point I want to make within a post just to satisfy your snide habit of picking at any minor issue in the precise wording of any post I make because you like to take me down a peg or 2 whenever you see the opportunity (I well remember your previous form on this).



Yes, I well remember you taking it personally on previous occasions.

Lets get this straight. I don't pick on you. I pick on a handful of points you've made over a period of several years, because I disagreed with the points strongly, or they got me thinking about points I would like to make. Sometimes during the course of that you puff yourself up in a way that makes taking you down a peg or two seem worthwhile to me, but its not something I am looking for when I first start the argument. The fact you've used that peg phrase makes me think you've remembered me openly admitting that I really enjoyed doing it on some previous occasion, and decided that meant that was my entire motivation during the entire argument, rather than simply being a side effect of your pomposity.

There are a wide spectrum of words, phrases and sentiments that can be expressed in quantities more than three but less than essay, that do justice to delicate concepts and balances of rights. I don't go following you around waiting for you to slip up according to my standards. On this occasion you said something that really pissed me off, so I responded in a rather crude way that was hardly a well-considered starting point to a intellectual debate. Look how far its come since then 

Think of all the interesting points you got to make during this argument.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

fuck me, is it that hard to grasp?

I'm specifically referring to your strong condemnation on this thread of any suggestion that there might be any cause for concern regarding the likely quality of the components coming from China vs those that Forgemasters could have been producing in the UK.

You've maintained this position despite me posting up clear evidence of the issues that do exist within the steel supply chain in China, the concerns about corruption, the regulatory regime, the impact of poor workers rights, lack of a free press to highlight any problems etc.

It is pretty much a core neoliberalist position to argue that none of the above matters, the market will decide, the market will provide, we can trust global corporations to get on with it without all that regulatory nonsense, drive prices down and crucially that quality won't suffer.

By taking issue with my concerns about the reliable quality of those products / the likely shoddy nature of them, you're also effectively agreeing that none of the above should be viewed as having any impact on the likely quality of the end product.

That specifically is what I've been saying is the position that you and others on this thread appear to be sharing with the neoliberalists.

But yes, there are also other elements of your position that do seem relatively sympathetic to the neoliberalists position.

And I also can't help but note that you've not addressed a single one of the examples I gave to back up my position


----------



## Idaho (Jan 20, 2015)

Just seen this thread. Is it worth reading 36 pages to find out why it has become a bun fight about nuclear power?

I'm guessing that the early jist was that the greens are a liberal sop and people voting for them this time are like the suckers voting lib dem last time?


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2015)

Christ, if you're going to ascribe positions no-one has to them, at least use the right word. Neoliberal. there's no -ist.

FWIW I'm just here to poke the weird fantasist.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> Yes, I well remember you taking it personally on previous occasions.
> 
> Lets get this straight. I don't pick on you. I pick on a handful of points you've made over a period of several years, because I disagreed with the points strongly, or they got me thinking about points I would like to make. Sometimes during the course of that you puff yourself up in a way that makes taking you down a peg or two seem worthwhile to me, but its not something I am looking for when I first start the argument. The fact you've used that peg phrase makes me think you've remembered me openly admitting that I really enjoyed doing it on some previous occasion, and decided that meant that was my entire motivation during the entire argument, rather than simply being a side effect of your pomposity.


You marked your own card long ago, and reminded me of that with your mentioning of the 'arrogance of specialism line', so let me refresh your memory on what you actually said about that.



> it is a principal that guides me, especially when faced with people initially trying to win an argument based on little more than their own apparent credentials. Experts end up in a bubble, formed by their own experiences and the relative isolation that comes from having a level of understanding that sets them apart from others. Its worse when their specialism is very narrow and deep. I make no apologies for attempting to occasionally shove them from the comfortable and well worm path which comes so easily to them. Complacency is not a great crime, it is inevitable, but it is not without consequence and ideally people should welcome the challenge of being made to work harder from time to time by gits like me. It's not like I'm on your case all day every day.





elbows said:


> I'll also take the opportunity to say that my sometimes unpleasant and less than loving approach is based largely on the idea that its almost always a good thing for humanity that individuals be challenged and taken down a peg or two, especially when discussing a subject they have become very knowledgable and complacent about. If the only way I know how to get people justify their stance in more detail is to be a rude git then unfortunately so be it, I've got my issues that I cannot remove from my debating style.



Basically you feel entitled to / that you have some sort of duty to deliberately troll posters who actually do know what they're talking about because of some notion about the 'arrogance of specialism' and how specialist should always be challenged and taken down a peg or 2 regardless of whether you or they are actually right or wrong on the subject.

You do it deliberately to provoke a specific reaction, and as shown here you even ignore anything that doesn't fit with your mission to take them down a peg or 2 - eg completely ignoring the detailed post I made with multiple examples of what the issues actually are that are of concern.



elbows said:


> There are a wide spectrum of words, phrases and sentiments that can be expressed in quantities more than three but less than essay, that do justice to delicate concepts and balances of rights. I don't go following you around waiting for you to slip up according to my standards. On this occasion you said something that really pissed me off, so I responded in a rather crude way that was hardly a well-considered starting point to a intellectual debate. Look how far its come since then
> 
> Think of all the interesting points you got to make during this argument.


Think of all my time that you deliberately wasted yet again by being a prick on a mission to take anyone down a peg or 2 who might have a vague clue what they're talking about.

I'll put this in terms you might understand - your approach when you do this is virtually identical to that of the Watt's up with that crowd. You're also wrong, you don;t just do it when people puff themselves up and rely on their credentials, you've also entirely ignored the long post I made with multiple examples to back up my concerns, just as the Watt's crowd ignore any evidence posted up to support a position and continue to attack that position and that person from a position of ignorance rather than actually stopping and adjusting their position in light of that evidence, or even acknowledging it.


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2015)

I would complain about you desperately seeking old quotes from unrelated threads, except I think those quotations do as much to back up my points and stance, then and now, as they do to explain your weird conclusion that I can be written off as a troll. If the only way you can live with my criticisms is to dismiss me as a troll whose got it in for you then thats your business.

All of the points that you made that I did not respond to were because I didn't feel they were central to the point. And why would I bother to respond to them when you are busy attaching every dirty label to me that you can? Neoliberal, troll, now apparently I am identical to the Watts Up crowd. These are desperate attempts to undermine me so that my criticisms don't sting so much. Tough shit, I'm not here to pander to your sense of self.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Think of all my time that you deliberately wasted yet again by being a prick on a mission to take anyone down a peg or 2 who might have a vague clue what they're talking about.



I can see why you might regret your decision to spend so much time defending yourself. A doomed mission indeed.

You seem to have missed the meaning of one of the words in the phrase 'arrogance of specialism/specialists'. I'm not fighting a broad crusade against knowledgable people, seeking to degrade the reputation of the information they provide. Rather I'm keen to expose the blind spots and the lazy assumptions that their positions of knowledge may lead them toward, even if only on occasion. Arrogance and complacency, and the dismissal of others who have not had the opportunity to work with the same level of detail, and people, on a routine basis. It keeps coming up when I'm arguing with you because once we've got into an argument, you try to pull knowledge rank on me, and you often do it while wearing clown shoes.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> Christ, if you're going to ascribe positions no-one has to them, at least use the right word.  Neoliberal. there's no -ist.


neolberalist - a supporter of neoliberalism.

a neoliberalist position is the position of a supporter of neoliberalism, in the same way that a capitalist position would be a position of supporter of capitalism.

But thanks for the nitpicking contribution.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

Wazzuppp?

Trust me, I'm an expert.

Ok Daddy, with this paternalism you are really spoiling us. 

No cliches about Greens were harmed during the making of this dribble.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2015)

According to who? Unlike our most expert googler not to include a link to his research.

Oh yeah. Some shoddy wiki dictionary.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

elbows said:


> Arrogance and complacency, and the dismissal of others who have not had the opportunity to work with the same level of detail, and people, on a routine basis.



Oops I nearly forgot....

The idea that when you have specialists, their own interests in an issue, policy decision etc may vary from the multitude by virtue of their position, rather than the pure merits of their knowledge. And that the multitude must guard against the implications of this, by continually testing the experts to ensure their advice and wisdom is not corrupted by self-interest.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

elbows said:


> It keeps coming up when I'm arguing with you because once we've got into an argument, you try to pull knowledge rank on me, and you often do it while wearing clown shoes.


That's mainly your own insecurity on show. I will pretty much always back up my knowledge if challenged on it rather than just pulling knowledge rank, if you then completely ignore or misunderstand the evidence produced to back up my original points then yes maybe I will point out that you don;t know what you;re talking about. Tbh though for all the good it seems to do I may as well just cut to the chase.

Why would you want me not to reference where I'd first got these concerns from - does it not make any difference if they've come from some random down the pub, or a nuclear engineer with several decades first hand experience of building and working in UK nuclear plants?

You'll also note that I wasn't actually claiming personal specialist knowledge there, as this isn't my specialist field, though I have enough of a related background to understand the issues involved.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 21, 2015)

I'd like to canvass opinions on velocipedist/motorist kerbside interactions


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> According to who? Unlike our most expert googler not to include a link to his research.
> 
> Oh yeah. Some shoddy wiki dictionary.


is nit picking all you're good at, or do you actually have a meaningful contribution to make?

And please do explain how you;d prefer me to back up statements and opinions without giving links to evidence to support my position.

You appear to have missed the fact that I've not made up my position on the basis of google searches, I'll use the google searches to produce the evidence to back up my position if someone decides to challenge it, as that's the simplest way of doing it.

But it appears I can't win on this, either I can just assert my knowledge and expertise on a subject, and piss elbows off, or I can use google to produce evidence to support my position, and provide the links for people to follow to enable them to make up their own minds, and piss you off.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> That's mainly your own insecurity on show. I will pretty much always back up my knowledge if challenged on it rather than just pulling knowledge rank, if you then completely ignore or misunderstand the evidence produced to back up my original points then yes maybe I will point out that you don;t know what you;re talking about. Tbh though for all the good it seems to do I may as well just cut to the chase.



Your evidence that demonstrates I don't know what I am talking about does feature rather a lot of total misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position.

Come on, your original attempt to backup your claim was a dud, and you've been overcompensating ever since. Relax, you made a boo-boo, don't worry about it. I'm very knowledgeable about fuckups, I've made enough myself, perhaps I'm an expert in the field of fuckups and that qualifies me to talk down to you on these matters if I start to lose the actual argument.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> But it appears I can't win on this, either I can just assert my knowledge and expertise on a subject, and piss elbows off, or I can use google to produce evidence to support my position, and provide the links for people to follow to enable them to make up their own minds, and piss you off.



Yeah, you truly are a real martyr to the causes of science and saving the planet. The barbarian hordes are at the gates, trying to urinate on these concepts, and with only your wit to guard the precious knowledge and scientific principals from this onslaught I think we are in trouble.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

elbows said:


> Oops I nearly forgot....
> 
> The idea that when you have specialists, their own interests in an issue, policy decision etc may vary from the multitude by virtue of their position, rather than the pure merits of their knowledge. And that the multitude must guard against the implications of this, by continually testing the experts to ensure their advice and wisdom is not corrupted by self-interest.


I'd not have so much of an issue with this if you actually took on board the points made and evidence produced to back them up, instead of ignoring anything that gets in the way of you trying to take them down a peg or two.

as I said, you and Watts have a lot in common in your ethos and approach, you both have an absolute distrust of anyone professing expertise in a subject and think you should be able to judge what they're saying based not on years of structured training and education followed by years of research and work in the field, but just on what you've managed to teach yourself about the subject from a few internet articles and forum discussions.

It's also a lot of what's wrong with UK government IMO, the notion that nobody who actually knows what they're doing should ever be allowed near the top of the decision making process. All decisions should ultimately be made by generalists with PPE degrees rather than specialist engineers or scientists, resulting in civil servants and ministers making massive decisions on complex areas that they barely understand and often even ignoring the opinions of the experts they have deigned to consult.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

elbows said:


> Your evidence that demonstrates I don't know what I am talking about does feature rather a lot of total misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position.
> 
> Come on, your original attempt to backup your claim was a dud, and you've been overcompensating ever since. Relax, you made a boo-boo, don't worry about it. I'm very knowledgeable about fuckups, I've made enough myself, perhaps I'm an expert in the field of fuckups and that qualifies me to talk down to you on these matters if I start to lose the actual argument.


If I've lost the argument how come you refuse to actually pass comment at all on the evidence produced to back up my argument? 

or was this really all you could muster?



> I hope the lubricant required to maintain such wriggling is bio-degradable.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> an absolute distrust of anyone professing expertise in a subject and think you should be able to judge what they're saying based not on years of structured training and education followed by years of research and work in the field, but just on what you've managed to teach yourself about the subject from a few internet articles and forum discussions.



There you go again. I do not profess absolute distrust in expertise. I am simply aware of some of the pitfalls that go with that territory, especially when chumps like you decide that such expertise gives special status to the opinions and politics of the experts.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> If I've lost the argument how come you refuse to actually pass comment at all on the evidence produced to back up my argument?



Because those were later attempts by you to salvage something from the stinking corpse of your original point. Your original own-goal proved that your sloppy cliches were very much sponsored by faulty information when you first made them, and anything that followed was a wriggle.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

Blessed are the technocrats, for they know best eh.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> is nit picking all you're good at, or do you actually have a meaningful contribution to make?


I'm not really that interested in your tedious squabble - my entry to the thread was to complain about the language used in a green party policy document, which I think demonstrates their commitment to business as usual - a mild tweaking within the rules, but no challenge to the way things MUST apparently be done. For this, I'm apparently a 'neoliberalist' (sic)

FWIW I too would prefer things like these nuclear power component thingys to be made in the UK, but not because I want the British to be world leaders in some field or the other or to compete economically, but simply because I'd rather that money raised by taxing people in the UK was spent on wages in Sheffield than wages in China. Doesn't really need to be anything more than that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2015)

> ...the authority of specialists and which always serve the specialization of authority.





> A role successfully adopted ensures promotion in the spectacular hierarchy, the rise from a given rank to a higher one.... Specialists are those initiates who supervise initiation. The always partial expertise of specialists is a component part of the systematic strategy of Power, Power which destroys us even as it destroys itself.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

elbows said:


> Because those were later attempts by you to salvage something from the stinking corpse of your original point. Your original own-goal proved that your sloppy cliches were very much sponsored by faulty information when you first made them, and anything that followed was a wriggle.


how the fuck do you work that out then brainiac?


free spirit said:


> No loan, so we'll instead be getting shoddy Chinese workmanship because there is no UK manufacturing plant capable of building it (without that loan).





free spirit said:


> talk to any nuclear engineers working on these plants then come back to me on that. *Nuclear plants require very very high grade steel work, sheffield would have been capable of producing that, the Chinese plants have apparently had issues with this*.


That is what I originally said on the subject.

This is what the chinese government has to say on the use of Chinese manufactured steel pipes in their high pressure steam pipes in their own power plants that you've so far refused to pass any comment on.


> The Chinese government has called for a formal investigation, and *banned Chinese-made pipe for use in major power plant critical applications*. Bechtel China has also conducted an investigation.



I also gave examples of 14 as yet unspecified faults in chinese nuclear plants, some of which were serious enough to require 3 years work to rectify, and multiple examples of bridge collapses and similar incidents due to inferior quality steel being recertified and passed off as high grade steel.

Now to me all of that qualifies as solid evidence to support my initial claims about the shoddy nature of Chinese steel and my concerns about it being used in UK nuclear plants.

To you (and others) it's apparently not even worthy of discussion, and you prefer to concentrate instead on attacking me for a later post that I almost immediately retracted before any of you had even passed comment on it. That to me is just a dishonest way of debating and shows you have little interest in debating the actual subject, and were purely motivated by the opportunity to lay into me for whatever reason.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

oh joy, another clueless fucker seeking to justify their clueless state.

tell you what, let's just forget all about science and engineering, we'll let bob from down the pub design the bridges, the landlord can take a turn at designing the next satellite launch platform, elbows can design the nuclear plants, but only for a few months at a time as they might be in danger of gaining some specialist knowledge at some point and we can't be risking having anyone who knows what they're doing involved in anything in any way can we.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2015)

Wow. What?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2015)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 21, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> View attachment 66656


Not authoriteh, _toolbelt_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> neolberalist - a supporter of neoliberalism.
> 
> a neoliberalist position is the position of a supporter of neoliberalism, in the same way that a capitalist position would be a position of supporter of capitalism.
> 
> But thanks for the nitpicking contribution.



killer b is right, though. Common usage makes a neoliberal a supporter of neoliberalism. I've only ever seen "neoliberalist" used by you. Do you call Tories "Conservativists"?


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2015)

Its not even common usage, its just not even an actual word.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

I confess, free spirit has found me out, I am a secret neoliberalator, and worshipper of capitalismatory wankonomicalism.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> That is what I originally said on the subject.
> 
> This is what the chinese government has to say on the use of Chinese manufactured steel pipes in their high pressure steam pipes in their own power plants that you've so far refused to pass any comment on.
> 
> ...



I've touched on these points in a few ways in the past (e.g. testing of pressure vessels), but am more than happy enough to deal with more of them now.

Am I right in thinking that the power station where the pipe rupture was coal-fired rather than nuclear?

Am I allowed to question how fair it is to bring up the '14 unspecified faults in Chinese nuclear plants' for the purposes you have, without cluing people into the wider context (global post-Fukushima desire to fix some things that were previously ignored) or the number and nature of faults detected in other countries? Or for that matter, the idea that governments were keen to find some relatively minor faults in order to create the perception that everyone was taking Fukushimas implications real seriously, getting stuff done, not being afraid to find faults.

Are you in favour of nuclear power? Because at least one earlier post by you expressed sentiments about stuff needing to be 100%, no room for error with nuclear stuff. It really is bullshit to suggest that 100% quality situation exists or can ever exist in any country, whether we apply it to quality of components, testing and certification regimes, installation botches, design faults, maintenance regimes or training. It will be better in some countries and at some companies than others, and there is nothing wrong with exposing the worst offenders, but such acts really require you to get your facts straight from the offset, and care not to indulge in excessive boasts about the manufacturing prowess of our own nation. Especially given that our nation is associated with the complete mess made of the MOX fuel deal with Japan because of fraudulent certification issues.

I am not in favour of nuclear power, or nuclear submarines that Sheffield Forgemasters are also involved with, and I don't think I can let issues of employment for workers totally trump those concerns, I cannot support the positioning of the UK as a major supplier to the global nuclear power industry. That doesn't mean forgetting about the workers, it means this isn't the way I would choose to help them. Not that I believe me or any other single individual, with low stakes in direct matters such as how those workers earn a living, should ever get to determine the fate of such things.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

elbows said:


> I've touched on these points in a few ways in the past (e.g. testing of pressure vessels), but am more than happy enough to deal with more of them now.
> 
> Am I right in thinking that the power station where the pipe rupture was coal-fired rather than nuclear?


yes, but the ban applied to all power stations as I understand it, and the problems had it been a in the wrong part of a nuclear plant would have been many times worse.




elbows said:


> Am I allowed to question how fair it is to bring up the '14 unspecified faults in Chinese nuclear plants' for the purposes you have, without cluing people into the wider context (global post-Fukushima desire to fix some things that were previously ignored) or the number and nature of faults detected in other countries? Or for that matter, the idea that governments were keen to find some relatively minor faults in order to create the perception that everyone was taking Fukushimas implications real seriously, getting stuff done, not being afraid to find faults.


you can bring up anything you want, it's just dishonest to ignore the post entirely as you'd done for an entire day.

I'd point out that virtually all the chinese plants were less than 10 years old, and the secrecy point where nobody outside the government knows what the defects are.



elbows said:


> Are you in favour of nuclear power? Because at least one earlier post by you expressed sentiments about stuff needing to be 100%, no room for error with nuclear stuff. It really is bullshit to suggest that 100% quality situation exists or can ever exist in any country, whether we apply it to quality of components, testing and certification regimes, installation botches, design faults, maintenance regimes or training. It will be better in some countries and at some companies than others, and there is nothing wrong with exposing the worst offenders, but such acts really require you to get your facts straight from the offset, and care not to indulge in excessive boasts about the manufacturing prowess of our own nation. Especially given that our nation is associated with the complete mess made of the MOX fuel deal with Japan because of fraudulent certification issues.
> 
> I am not in favour of nuclear power, or nuclear submarines that Sheffield Forgemasters are also involved with, and I don't think I can let issues of employment for workers totally trump those concerns, I cannot support the positioning of the UK as a major supplier to the global nuclear power industry. That doesn't mean forgetting about the workers, it means this isn't the way I would choose to help them. Not that I believe me or any other single individual, with low stakes in direct matters such as how those workers earn a living, should ever get to determine the fate of such things.


no I'm not in favour of nuclear, however I am in favour of at least some level of joined up government thinking on the matter, so if we're definitely going to have new nuclear plants built then the government should support UK industry to gear up to supply as much of it as possible rather than just deciding to let the Chinese do the financing and supply of most of it.

I also do think there are serious questions to be asked about the reliability of the supply chain in China, based not on racism or patriotism, but on a build up of multiple stories of multiple related issues that have come out of China in recent years, along with an understanding of where those issues are likely to come from in a country that has rampant corruption issues, poor worker protection, poor environmental protection, poor regulation etc.

Obviously you'll never get to 100% perfection, but as a parallel, maybe have a think about why virtually all jet engines are manufactured by either Rolls Royce, GE or Pratt & Whitney, and why none of the major passenger plane manufacturers have ditched them in favour of the potential for cheaper Chinese manufactured alternatives. What applies to Jet engines should also be applied to Nuclear power plants IMO, the potential consequences of any failures are just to high to contemplate even slightly higher levels of risk of component failure.

I would agree that there are issues with UK regulation, and IMO these are getting rapidly worse as the standards of university teaching fall, regulators save money by not sending their inspectors on the industry leading CPD courses they used to all attend, inexperienced regulators take over from those retiring after overseeing decades of nuclear builds etc. A lot of which is down to both the neoliberalist thing of cutting regulation, and IMO to a degree the sort of anti-specialist sentiment you've expressed, that also is in vogue across government and politics to the point where DECC is headed by 4 economists (IIRC), and only has a single engineer on their entire management group, and very few engineers or scientist within the specialist departments, so they barely understand the stuff they're supposed to be deciding upon and regulating.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> Wow. What?


in response to the quotes Butchers posted. No idea if he actually supports that position or not, I just thought I'd point out the sheer idiocy of the position of attacking the concept of specialists and apparently imagining that a world without any specialist would somehow be a better world because there'd be nobody to tell anyone else they can;t build their house, bridge like that or it will fall down, nobody to instruct them on how to manufacturer any complex technology etc.instead houses would just randmly fall down, complex kit just wouldn't end up being invented or manufactured etc.

It's the sort of nonsense position that taken to extremes results in a Khmer Rouge style massacre of all academics / specialists, and IIRC that didn't work out too well for Cambodia.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2015)

> It took Mama and Galya two weeks to walk to Kiev [in 1919]. They deliberately dressed to look like beggars; in actual fact, this is what they were. Galya went without glasses, and walked holding on to Mama's shoulder, like a blind woman. No one would have believed them to be poor if Galya had worn her glasses. Everyone treated people in glasses suspiciously in those violent times. They thought them cunning enemies, and hated them bitterly. It is amazing that this distrust of people wearing glasses has persisted up to the present time.
> 
> Konstantin Paustovsky, The Story of a Life


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 21, 2015)

elbows said:


> And the Guardian, like others, need a replacement for their shattered lib dem hopes.


Continuing their love in for the Greens


> Olivia Cropper is a 34-year‑old mother of one who lives in Hove, and works in the complaints department of one of the big banks. “I’m not particularly leftwing,” she says, and she is probably right: up until 2010, she tended to vote for the Liberal Democrats.






			
				Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said:
			
		

> “Well, I think we’re incredibly idealistic. Even when we’re elected, we tend to be idealistic. We have a practical idealism. But we’re probably getting in loads of other people from other political parties, who are used to – perhaps, I’m only guessing – a bit more compromise. There might be pressure on us to be a bit less pure. It might be the route to being a major party in Britain; it might be the way that you get on. But a lot of us old-timers might find that painful.”


Practical idealism of employing scab labour


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> in response to the quotes Butchers posted. No idea if he actually supports that position or not, I just thought I'd point out the sheer idiocy of the position of attacking the concept of specialists and apparently imagining that a world without any specialist would somehow be a better world because there'd be nobody to tell anyone else they can;t build their house, bridge like that or it will fall down, nobody to instruct them on how to manufacturer any complex technology etc.instead houses would just randmly fall down, complex kit just wouldn't end up being invented or manufactured etc.
> 
> It's the sort of nonsense position that taken to extremes results in a Khmer Rouge style massacre of all academics / specialists, and IIRC that didn't work out too well for Cambodia.



They never did that, though.  Disproportionate harsh treatment (including death) but not _all_, anyway.  And that was in the context of the (Soviet-derived) Chinese understanding of the 'red-expert' problem of industrialisation.  It's not a nonsense position per se (indeed there is much that is admirable in that kind of thinking in the sense of wanting to overcome inequalities and divisions of labour), just it was combined with a Leninist praxis, and in Cambodia's case was executed in a much more extreme and coarse way.  On that score, they thought they could overcome the problems even seen in China, which still saw the rise of specialists and their positions over other people, privileged bureaucratic groups etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Continuing their love in for the Greens


Note the insistence on defining what she is. She says is isn't something and they say that she probably isn't. But they get to choose for her. The arrogance.


----------



## rich! (Jan 21, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> The common good? Fuck off.


It's a bit Dumbledore


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> yes, but the ban applied to all power stations as I understand it, and the problems had it been a in the wrong part of a nuclear plant would have been many times worse.



Indeed it would. I'd like to think that safety/testing standards would be much higher for a nuclear plant, but I can't treat that idea as a safe assumption, especially depending on what part of the nuclear power station the parts were destined for. I expect more attention is paid to the core and the main steam outlet pathways than more ancillary parts, but whether that 'more attention' is enough attention I cannot claim with any certainty.



> you can bring up anything you want, it's just dishonest to ignore the post entirely as you'd done for an entire day.



Given how posts by both of us during this argument somewhat swamped the thread, I don't think either of us should accuse the other of dishonesty for skipping some points for a while here and there. Neither of us gets to be sole decider of what the point of this argument was, its a shared collection of points like it or not, and I wasn't ignoring the points that mattered to me, or ignoring all of yours, just some, sometimes.



> I'd point out that virtually all the chinese plants were less than 10 years old, and the secrecy point where nobody outside the government knows what the defects are.



I have nothing nice to say about secrecy in general or the level the Chinese government take it to. The level of transparency in the nuclear industry may be better than that, but isn't exactly famous for being great on this front, especially when things go bad.



> no I'm not in favour of nuclear, however I am in favour of at least some level of joined up government thinking on the matter, so if we're definitely going to have new nuclear plants built then the government should support UK industry to gear up to supply as much of it as possible rather than just deciding to let the Chinese do the financing and supply of most of it.



Thats a position I can understand, I have mixed feelings about it but I think I've already given enough clues as to why.



> I also do think there are serious questions to be asked about the reliability of the supply chain in China, based not on racism or patriotism, but on a build up of multiple stories of multiple related issues that have come out of China in recent years, along with an understanding of where those issues are likely to come from in a country that has rampant corruption issues, poor worker protection, poor environmental protection, poor regulation etc.



My initial main point was about being careful about how that is done. The language annoyed me because I don't think it did justice to these issues, certain subsequent details you brought to the discussion did.

I've run out of time so will stop at that for now.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 21, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Continuing their love in for the Greens
> 
> 
> 
> Practical idealism of employing scab labour



_Ideally we wouldn't hire scab labour, practically we have to. Ideally we are social democratic eco-lefties, practically we'll be neoliberal scum._


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2015)

difficult decisions.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 21, 2015)

Also just seen this



> Oakeshott described the donations as “doing his bit to save our country from a Tory government cringing to Ukip”. The peer also disclosed he has given a further £10,000 for the campaign to re-elect Caroline Lucas, the Green MP in Brighton.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 22, 2015)

elbows said:


> My initial main point was about being careful about how that is done. The language annoyed me because I don't think it did justice to these issues, certain subsequent details you brought to the discussion did.
> 
> I've run out of time so will stop at that for now.


I still can't think of a better word to sum up all the issues.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 22, 2015)

back to the Green Party. There were queries a while back over what the make up was of all these new members, if they were left wing etc.

In the Yorkshire and Humberside Green Party at least, I reckon this survey of new members gives a pretty good indication that other than a few who're more motivated by environmental issues and don't mention their left / right orientation, they're pretty much solidly joining the party as left wingers (or left of centre) due to it's relatively left wing policies.



> *What prompted you to join*? Despair with the Labour party.





> *What prompted you to join*?  I could no longer work out what the Labour Party is for and since I want greater equality, a concern for the environment, re-nationalisation of the railways, etc,etc, etc, and since the Labour Party no longer seems concerned withe these matters, I thought I would join a party that does share this perspective.





> *What prompted you to join*? Greens prioritising social (not just environmental) policies





> *What prompted you to join*? Disillusionment with LibDem policies, actions and profile.  *What do you hope to see?*   Positive change that addresses inequality, sustainability and neoteric economics.





> *What prompted you to join*? Living wage policy.   Tired of tactical voting, rising inequality seems to be of no interest to other parties.





> *What prompted you to join*? Wanted to support a credible radical political movement so needed to fight the destructive and elitist corporate interests which increasingly prevail and appear to have captured the established parties.





> Life long labour supporter, even used to canvass and leaflet drop with father in the early 80's. Became very disillusioned around 2000, particularly so in the lead up to the Iraq war. I actually feel the mantra 'Things can only get better' was subconsciously resonating. Really started to feel that the interests of those involved in politics were self-serving or at the very least pandering to big business and the banks.





> Complete disillusionment with the Labour Party and real concern about the threat to future generations around the world unless our lifestyles are not modified.





> *What prompted you to join*?	Disillusionment and anger at the right wing neoliberalism of ALL the mainstream parties. There is no right and left in politics, only right, even further right and verging on fascism. Greens are the only hope! Time to put my money where my mouth is.





> *What prompted you to join*?	Disillusionment and anger at the right wing neoliberalism of ALL the mainstream parties. There is no right and left in politics, only right, even further right and verging on fascism. Greens are the only hope! Time to put my money where my mouth is.


etc

Look to be a fair few experienced activists from labour and lib dem, as well as former green party members rejoining as well, not just students.

So unless this region is completely unrepresentative for some reason, I'd say it's pretty clear that my previous assumption was right, that the vast majority of new members are joining from a relatively left wing perspective. It also looks like there are more former labour members joining than lib dems.

I think this won't include many of the recent surge in membership of the last few weeks.

ps I've joined, though still sussing out if I think they're going to be worth actually putting some campaigning work into locally. They look to be the most deserving of support of any of the (English) parties to me.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 22, 2015)

> Brighton and Hove could soon be seen in a new light as proposals for the £26 million overhaul of street lighting in the city are revealed.
> 
> Proposals to be discussed by councillors tomorrow could see more than 15,000 street lights and 8,000 of their supporting columns replaced or updated.
> 
> http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11737405.Shining_a_light_on___26m_lamp_posts/



It's fucking shit like this that boils my piss, whilst they also consider 100% cuts to ALL community & voluntary sector groups which includes ALL youth services!!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2015)

Ladbrokes have shortened odds on tory wins in five seats with significant Green 'surge'...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2015)

Can i point out that in the two west country seats there the rising green vote is mostly due to downsizing guardian journos and that type of incomer.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can i point out that in the two west country seats there the rising green vote is mostly due to downsizing guardian journos and that type of incomer.



Artisan crisp sandwich with your organic craft ale?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2015)

Them's the buggers.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 22, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can i point out that in the two west country seats there the rising green vote is mostly due to downsizing guardian journos and that type of incomer.



I went to see Bennett speak in Penzance before Christmas. It was packed and the only person I recognised was making the tea for the venue. She also appeared to be the only person under thirty apart from possibly the Green Party stooge taking photos and a few screeching brats.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 22, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It's fucking shit like this that boils my piss, whilst they also consider 100% cuts to ALL community & voluntary sector groups which includes ALL youth services!!


street lights are the new arse wasps


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2015)

I wonder if the climate camp cohort, now in their mid/late 20's have been joining, some sound people there, imo.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 22, 2015)

SO the Greens are going to be in the debates now. Cleggmania redux


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> SO the Greens are going to be in the debates now. Cleggmania redux


DUP pissed that it's only a 'seven-way' clusterfuck.


----------



## JTG (Jan 22, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can i point out that in the two west country seats there the rising green vote is mostly due to downsizing guardian journos and that type of incomer.


In Bristol NW?! Where?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> SO the Greens are going to be in the debates now. Cleggmania redux



#Iagreewithtarquin


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2015)

> In the first of a series of articles Anne Barr describes the life and character of one of Sheffield Green Party’s most respected supporters. Well into his 90s Herbert Rouse has been a valued supporter for over 10 years and has helped out on various campaigns in Sheffield. Anne is working on a series of portraits of Sheffield Green Party’s wide range of diverse, passionate and committed supporters from all walks of life.
> 
> by Anne Barr
> 
> ...



Not all Tarquins, a former joiner, labour party socialist, WW2 vet.


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2015)

> Sheffield Green Party membership rises 30% in four days. over 168 new members
> 
> http://sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/2015/01/19/sheffield-green-party-membership-rises-30-in-four-days/



Quite a rise


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

treelover said:


> I wonder if the climate camp cohort, now in their mid/late 20's have been joining, some sound people there, imo.



A lot of my erstwhile colleagues from the climate camp stuff seem to be backing the Greens. I'm not, personally. I wish the Greens well as the best of a bad bunch but I do worry about people who used to be involved in ground-level direct action throwing their weight behind a political party instead.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jan 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> A lot of my erstwhile colleagues from the climate camp stuff seem to be backing the Greens. I'm not, personally. I wish the Greens well as the best of a bad bunch but I do worry about people who used to be involved in ground-level direct action throwing their weight behind a political party instead.






I would agree but unless we want another 5 years of Red/Blue/Yellow/Purple neo-liberal conservative fuckfestery in the absence of a genuine left of center party with mass appeal the Greens are the best of a very bad choice


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2015)

that's what we're getting either way tbf.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 23, 2015)

How is voting Green going to stop "another 5 years of Red/Blue/Yellow/Purple neo-liberal conservative fuckfestery"?

Leaving aside their own actions in Brighton and Leeds, they simply won't be able to form a government will they? And it's highly unlikely that they'll even be in a position to form a coalition. They are likely to lose the one seat they do have this parliament and probably won't get any others.


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 23, 2015)

There has to be some value in having a left-ish party having some momentum and associated media coverage surely, even if only to prevent the UKIP factor dragging the political centre even further rightwards? I don't have any illusions that the Greens are going to change the world, but in the absence of anything better, supporting them could have short term tactical value?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 23, 2015)

Sure, I can recognise the logic of that position even if I don't agree with it. But that's a very different kettle of fish to saying that by voting Green you'll stop the formation of a neoliberal government (of whatever stripe) after the next election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> There has to be some value in having a left-ish party having some momentum and associated media coverage surely, even if only to prevent the UKIP factor dragging the political centre even further rightwards? I don't have any illusions that the Greens are going to change the world, but in the absence of anything better, supporting them could have short term tactical value?


concern for the environment is not a 'left' issue. It's a basic human issue yes, but its not what keeps people on the breadline awake at night


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> concern for the environment is not a 'left' issue. It's a basic human issue yes, but its not what keeps people on the breadline awake at night


Oh come on, concern for the environment is not the Green Party's only policy. I share your scepticism that the Greens can effectively appeal to people on the breadline by the way. But they do have policies that are to the left of Labour and they are certainly being perceived as left wing, as that Telegraph hatchet job shows. There does seem to be some evidence that left-leaning types are in the ascendency in the GP rather than the deep greens. A surge of support for a party that at least claims to be anti-austerity, pro-public services, affordable housing, railway nationalisation etc must be positive in terms of the wider political climate, surely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2015)

I just can't get past how they have acted in the seat they did win, its smiley faced recycle or else.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> concern for the environment is not a 'left' issue. It's a basic human issue yes, but its not what keeps people on the breadline awake at night


The thing is that it should be. Things like good and cheap public transport, clean and safe community spaces, affordable and decent quality housing are both "basic human issues" and environmental issues.  But instead what happens all too often is that "environmental" issues become some sort of disconnected moral stance rather than something that is effecting people's everyday lives. That quote BA posted earlier in the week on the commiteriat thread illustrates the process perfectly.


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I just can't get past how they have acted in the seat they did win, its smiley faced recycle or else.


I know they've been shit in Brighton. I suspect they might very well be shit if elected elsewhere. I don't think that's necessarily the point though, a 'green surge' at this moment is a good counterweight to UKIP and keeps some left wing ideas in the mainstream media. 

If I was in Scotland I'd be supporting the SNP, even though I loathe Salmond and hate some of the shit they've done. Watched that Trump film the other day and am still seething. Anyway I haven't made my mind up re the Greens, I am just pondering if getting behind them is the best thing to do at this particular moment, absolutely without illusions...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2015)

I stopped seeing electoral politics as worthwhile ages ago tbf, I follow it like a game, but in regards to m and mine, no. Politics is done to us not by us etc etc

none of them have any room to move either, not snp or green. It's the same old shit in a different package


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 24, 2015)

If you want to vote to stop another Tory government then vote for the party best able to stop them in your constituency. There is no other choice.

(Obviously you may want to avoid voting for a party that might enable another Tory led coalition as well so that probably rules out Libdems and Greens and means its only worth voting Labour, SNP, or Plaid)


----------



## BigTom (Jan 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> concern for the environment is not a 'left' issue. It's a basic human issue yes, but its not what keeps people on the breadline awake at night


Tbf, greens seem pretty focused on the economy and being anti austerity, from what I see on Twitter (work feed so obviously follow all the local greens).

If I thought the pressure was there to force capital to accept this, I'd maybe vote green, but it isn't, or labour would have headed back that way.


----------



## co-op (Jan 24, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> I know they've been shit in Brighton.



They had no choice but to be shit, local govt in the UK now has been so stripped of autonomy and power that it is nothing more than a rubber stamp for decisions made in Whitehall. It no longer matters who runs a local authority, it could be the IWCA or whoever, you either implement austerity or you are sacked. Local authorities no longer raise their own revenue - except via minor tweaks of the Council Tax (which is any event a regressive tax on the poor, so any revenue raised here is re-distributive to the rich), they are utterly dependent on central govt for their money. Even the money they get is now largely ringfenced so they get no choice over what they spend it on, and thanks to New Labour's "best practise" stuff, they don't even get any choice over _how_ they spend it on the things they are not allowed to choose...it's utterly stitched up. And probably explains why so few bother turn out for local elections any more - it's a farcical exercise.

Which probably means it's a tactical mistake for outsider parties of the left to run for local govt, but if you don't do that it's almost impossible to build a vote to challenge at Parliamentary level (whether that would get you round the problem is another question).

The only parties that can coherently run a local council in the England now are those that support the whole neo-liberal agenda.


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2015)

Then refuse to implement austerity and be sacked. Simple really.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> Then refuse to implement austerity and be sacked. Simple really.


“We wholeheartedly object to the ovens, but whilst the ovens are here we will endeavour to ensure that they are operated as efficiently and effectively as possible.”


----------



## newbie (Jan 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If you want to vote to stop another Tory government then vote for the party best able to stop them in your constituency. There is no other choice.
> 
> (Obviously you may want to avoid voting for a party that might enable another Tory led coalition as well so that probably rules out Libdems and Greens and means its only worth voting Labour, SNP, or Plaid)


quite so.  In almost all constituencies this notion of voting _for_ is naive in the extreme.  Vote _against_ the greater evil, which is always the Tories, no matter how bad Labour is the Tories are worse.


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2015)

What purpose, in the absence of any real power, does running for council serve? Refusing to implement austerity is a high risk strategy - you'd risk both power being removed by pickles and possibly rejection by the electorate. 

But what's the point otherwise? What's the point in claiming to have principles if they're just going to be put aside when in power for the sake of... What? The opportunity to fine-tune the decline and destruction of your community? Fuck that.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 24, 2015)

If you live as I do in an ultra-safe nuLabour seat and have an MP like 'Mad Frankie' Field, then it makes sense to me at least to vote Green to put some small amount of leftward pressure on him.

It may not count for much, it may even be worthless, but if I have a vote, then I feel obliged to use it.

I'd agree though, that making it count for something one day is outside the scope of the neo-liberal version of democratic process and far more important.


----------



## co-op (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> Then refuse to implement austerity and be sacked. Simple really.



I didn't mean to defend their choice to take power, just pointing out that there aren't even "tough choices" in local govt these days, there are _no_ choices. You either implement neo-liberalism at the front line level or you get out of the game. Whether you'd get any political gains out of setting an illegal budget and getting sacked is another question I think parts of the Brighton Green Party look like they're starting to think this way - http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1174...endanger_livelihoods_and_could_cost_lives___/.


----------



## newbie (Jan 24, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> If you live as I do in an ultra-safe nuLabour seat and have an MP like 'Mad Frankie' Field, then it makes sense to me at least to vote Green to put some small amount of leftward pressure on him.
> 
> It may not count for much, it may even be worthless, but if I have a vote, then I feel obliged to use it.
> 
> I'd agree though, that making it count for something one day is outside the scope of the neo-liberal version of democratic process and far more important.


in your constituency, as in mine (Chuka Umunna), the incumbent Labour is the greater evil, the Tories stand almost no chance.  So voting against makes sense.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 24, 2015)

newbie said:


> in your constituency, as in mine (Chuka Umunna), the incumbent Labour is the greater evil, the Tories stand almost no chance.  So voting against makes sense.


It makes sense in salving your concience maybe but assuming you mean voting Green or some other left it doesn't make any other sense


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2015)

My choices will be Labour, Green, Rape Apologist, or Rape Apologists Party.  I think I'll be voting Green - the ones who will be clearly the most left wing in the leaders debates.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> Then refuse to implement austerity and be sacked. Simple really.


Aye, don't implement attacks on the community, doing so while squawking mealy mouthed platitudes is no better than doing so while going on about benefits cheats or immigrants.


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2015)

co-op said:


> I didn't mean to defend their choice to take power, just pointing out that there aren't even "tough choices" in local govt these days, there are _no_ choices. You either implement neo-liberalism at the front line level or you get out of the game. Whether you'd get any political gains out of setting an illegal budget and getting sacked is another question I think parts of the Brighton Green Party look like they're starting to think this way - http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1174...endanger_livelihoods_and_could_cost_lives___/.


if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre. What would they lose by setting an illegal budget and getting sacked? We've already established they have no power.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre.


In Bristol this has manifested itself in GP-coopting millionaire mayor George Ferguson's _literal_ policy of artisan bread and circus skills workshops.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2015)

belboid said:


> My choices will be Labour, Green, Rape Apologist, or Rape Apologists Party.  I think I'll be voting Green - the ones who will be clearly the most left wing in the leaders debates.




it's depressing that I have to ask as there are many (for they are legion etc) Respect or lib dem when you say rape apologists


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 24, 2015)

I'd put a farthing on SWP.


----------



## co-op (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre. What would they lose by setting an illegal budget and getting sacked? We've already established they have no power.



Yep I think this is the obvious logic - maybe try and use it to make clear to people the extent to which 'their' council has zero power? I can't understand how parties like the Brighton GP end up trying to run a council, it seems utterly pointless on one level and damaging and stupid on another. At least if the unelected officers are running the place or Eric Pickles or whoever, they can't dodge the blame for what's going on.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> it's depressing that I have to ask as there are many (for they are legion etc) Respect or lib dem when you say rape apologists





CNT36 said:


> I'd put a farthing on SWP.


An SWP AND a Respect. 

If I were Tom include those I'd never consider voting for, I think we could quite easily call both the Tories nd the kippers rape apologists as well.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre. What would they lose by setting an illegal budget and getting sacked? We've already established they have no power.



I reckon if a Labour or Green council had set a deficit budget, the tories would have left it for a few months, then come riding in on their high horse bleating about irresponsible labour/lefties trying to spend their way out of a debt crisis, cut the council harder than it would have been, saying that if only labour/green/lefties had been responsible then they wouldn't have had to have cut so much etc. That's what I'd do in their position, and it would have been bad for those arguing against austerity.
Personally I wouldn't take control of a council as an anti-austerity party, probably not run enough candidates to do so, and abstain from any budget votes, or not run at all - but the parties are tied to the idea that you build through getting council seats, which then translate into parliamentary seats, so that won't happen.


----------



## treelover (Jan 24, 2015)

co-op said:


> I didn't mean to defend their choice to take power, just pointing out that there aren't even "tough choices" in local govt these days, there are _no_ choices. You either implement neo-liberalism at the front line level or you get out of the game. Whether you'd get any political gains out of setting an illegal budget and getting sacked is another question I think parts of the Brighton Green Party look like they're starting to think this way - http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1174...endanger_livelihoods_and_could_cost_lives___/.





> At a Brighton and Hove Green Party general meeting last weekend, 56 of the 57 members present voted in favour of a motion calling on the party not to support any 2015/16 budget which would make cuts to services.



56 out of 57 is an impressive number, have they had a change of heart as from what I have read the Greens in Brighton have been quite right wing, bin strikes, etc.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> Then refuse to implement austerity and be sacked. Simple really.


There was a significant part of the Greens at the time arguing precisely this. They were comprehensively ignored by the elected councillors, Brighton Green Party and the leadership of the party, not least Natalie Bennett. It's also when I left. Whether the wider party has learnt anything from Brighton I doubt, I'd be amazed if they didn't do exactly the same wherever they have local council success.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> What purpose, in the absence of any real power, does running for council serve?


For councillors from the mainstream parties, the purpose seems to be getting yourself noticed, and positioning yourself for a climb up the party's greasy pole.  It's certainly not majorly about public service anymore.


----------



## co-op (Jan 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> For councillors from the mainstream parties, the purpose seems to be getting yourself noticed, and positioning yourself for a climb up the party's greasy pole.  It's certainly not majorly about public service anymore.



TBH from my experience the ambitious types who are using it as the first slimey shuffles up the greasy pole are completely out-numbered by the very modest and sincere types who genuinely believe they are doing their best to help their local communities and (if they are of the left) can't quite face the consequences of admitting that the whole thing has become a charade - it would often be to undermine a whole lifetime's pov that winning these elections matters and is the foundation of democracy etc.


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> I reckon if a Labour or Green council had set a deficit budget, the tories would have left it for a few months, then come riding in on their high horse bleating about irresponsible labour/lefties trying to spend their way out of a debt crisis, cut the council harder than it would have been, saying that if only labour/green/lefties had been responsible then they wouldn't have had to have cut so much etc. That's what I'd do in their position, and it would have been bad for those arguing against austerity.


I know that's what the tories would _try_ to do - but I think this is an argument that needs to be had isn't it? Why so sure we'd lose it?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> I know that's what the tories would _try_ to do - but I think this is an argument that needs to be had isn't it? Why so sure we'd lose it?



Because I don't think you'd be able to stop the tories from taking over the council and cutting services/budgets harder than was planned. I think it would be very easy for them to use that example in their narrative as if it's a real world example that has direct relevance to a national strategy of social democratic investment - the household budget analogy was really annoyingly effective, I think this would be even more so, though it's just as wrong.


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2015)

Hm, I suppose that's a point - I was thinking on a local level such a confrontation would give a platform for anti-austerity arguments: but even if you carried it locally, it could still be used against us nationally without a mass movement prepared to counter their lies.

All fantasy anyway I suppose.


----------



## newbie (Jan 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It makes sense in salving your concience maybe but assuming you mean voting Green or some other left it doesn't make any other sense


So long as votes for minor parties don't let the tories in, the justifications for them don't matter much.  I tell myself there's a tiny virtue in using the electoral process to show the mainstream that there's opinion to the left of labour, and that, like most demonstrations or protests, there's a sort of symbolic solidarity with others, a visible expression that each of us is not quite alone in our eccentric views.


----------



## treelover (Jan 24, 2015)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...r-vivienne-westwood-donate-300000-green-party

Vivienne Westwood to donate 300,000 to the Greens!


----------



## treelover (Jan 25, 2015)

For better or worse Natalie Bennet just got demolished by Andrew 'Brillopad' Neil on the Sunday Politics. She was just out of her depth and couldn't justify in financial terms many of their flagship policies, which just seemed to be 'aspirations' for a time long in the future. She should have stuck to concrete ones like re-nationalising the railways.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2015)

treelover said:


> For better or worse Natalie Bennet just got demolished by Andrew 'Brillopad' Neil on the Sunday Politics. She was just out of her depth and couldn't justify in financial terms many of their flagship policies, which just seemed to be 'aspirations' for a time long in the future. She should have stuck to concrete ones like re-nationalising the railways.




e2a: jump to 4.18 for the interview only.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2015)

treelover said:


> For better or worse Natalie Bennet just got demolished by Andrew 'Brillopad' Neil on the Sunday Politics. She was just out of her depth and couldn't justify in financial terms many of their flagship policies, which just seemed to be 'aspirations' for a time long in the future. She should have stuck to concrete ones like re-nationalising the railways.



She doesn't get to decide, their conference does.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2015)

Looking at their policies a little earlier in the thread was certainly timely. The Mirror have also got in on the act, picking quotes from a Times interview.



> I can’t see that the Queen is ever going to be really poor, but I’m sure we can find a council house for her — we’re going to build lots more.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-could-moved-council-house-5034477#rlabs=2


----------



## free spirit (Jan 25, 2015)

fuck me she was out of her depth there. Has she not seen that show before, did she not expect to be questioned on those policies and the costings of them?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> fuck me she was out of her depth there. Has she not seen that show before, did she not expect to be questioned on those policies and the costings of them?


if they haven't published their costings yet then its seem a bit unfair for her to know...
once they publish them im sure the situation wont get all that much better for her


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> fuck me she was out of her depth there. Has she not seen that show before, did she not expect to be questioned on those policies and the costings of them?



FWIW I didn't see that as a 'car-crash' interview; more a case of choosing the wrong road for such a vehicle.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 25, 2015)

ska invita said:


> if they haven't published their costings yet then its seem a bit unfair for her to know...
> once they publish them im sure the situation wont get all that much better for her


they shouldn't come up with a policy and publish it without having at least a decent idea of what it will cost and roughly how they thin it will be paid for.

Not down to the last penny, but you have to be able to defend the policy from those sorts of attacks.

Id see this policy in terms of it being initially an economic stimulus package of far greater impact than quantitative easing, as extra money in the hands of the many has a far greater economic benefit to the wider economy than concentrating a few hundred billion more in the hands of the rich as per QE, which then means that government tax receipts would increase in line with increased jobs, corporation tax etc and most of it ends up back in government coffers via direct income tax, and VAT etc anyway.

Combined with a minimum wage rising to £10 an hour, these 2 policies have huge potential to really kick start the economy and head it back towards the sorts of pretty much full employments levels last seen in the 50s and 60s prior to this failed neoliberal experiment to concentrate ever more wealth in the hands of the rich.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 25, 2015)

Also very concerned given this performance that she's apparently insisting she'll be doing both the tv debates rather than sharing it with Caroline Lucas, who I think would have given a much better performance than this.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> they shouldn't come up with a policy and publish it without having at least a decent idea of what it will cost and roughly how they thin it will be paid for.
> 
> Not down to the last penny, but you have to be able to defend the policy from those sorts of attacks.


I would expect that costing has been done it just hasn't been published yet. Whether it adds up is something else.
The finances of a country are not something many politician is able to carry around in their head - this kind of floundering is standard.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> they shouldn't come up with a policy and publish it without having at least a decent idea of what it will cost and roughly how they thin it will be paid for.
> 
> Not down to the last penny, but you have to be able to defend the policy from those sorts of attacks.
> 
> ...



But the Green party doesn't want full employment. At least not in the sense of a traditional, full-time, paid job.

And without knowing how they plan to set the income tax bands & rates, apart from the fact they would scrap tax allowances, we can't judge the citizens income and minimum wage policies to be the sort of stimulus package you are suggesting.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 25, 2015)

elbows said:


> But the Green party doesn't want full employment. At least not in the sense of a traditional, full-time, paid job.
> 
> And without knowing how they plan to set the income tax bands & rates, apart from the fact they would scrap tax allowances, we can't judge the citizens income and minimum wage policies to be the sort of stimulus package you are suggesting.


Yeah well me and the GP policy would differ massively on the whole flat economy bollocks that I notices has crept in to there as a long term aspiration, and I can only see those types of policies being justified financially on the basis that they did act as a big economic stimulus.

I can't see how a minimum wage rise to £10 an hour (over the course of a parliament) could possibly do anything other than create a significant long term economic stimulus. I acknowledge this is debatable with the counter argument that it would result in employers shedding jobs, moving oversees etc but succinctly I think that's a load of bollocks and would be more than offset by the increased spending power of those on min wage and just above.

Though I guess it does depend also on how tax credits are reduced etc.

I wasn't giving a fully thought out explanation, more an illustration of the sort of alternative defence of those policies they could make rather than just trying to cost them out in simple terms as Neil was doing.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Also very concerned given this performance that she's apparently insisting she'll be doing both the tv debates rather than sharing it with Caroline Lucas, who I think would have given a much better performance than this.



Could have been worse. At least it's not David Icke anymore


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I wasn't giving a fully thought out explanation, more an illustration of the sort of alternative defence of those policies they could make rather than just trying to cost them out in simple terms as Neil was doing.



She kept trying to go back to her choice of narratives, but he had too many cost-related questions lined up.

I'll probably wait till their costed version is available before exploring further. But yes, there appear to be a vast number of differences between their stated position on many issues, and the views you have expressed on this thread. I bet the multitude of issues that got raised as part of our argument, e.g. issues of trade and supporting heavy industry, would turn up a few for a start.


----------



## treelover (Jan 25, 2015)

This will always happen with 'utopian policies' they will be savaged as they they can't, yet, be made concrete or even costed.

btw, in some ways it has been the same with Andy Burnham, and his idea of combining the NHS with social care, he has struggled to convey what it entails.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2015)

Green Party defence policy is to be really annoying


----------



## kebabking (Jan 26, 2015)

so, after The Great Leaders' triumph on the Politics show on sunday, what odds do we place on the Men in Grey Sandals of the GP advising said Great Leader that she should not involve herself in the squalid, and frankly vulgar, business of talking to the media - or indeed anyone - and that she should leave such pettiness to her minions (Caroline Lucas, just as a random name pulled from a hat...) while concentrating her undoubted energies on strategic direction and perhaps a fact finding mission to assess and highlight the effects of climate change on the Venezualan Arse Wasp?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2015)

if she was drowning I'd help her out of the river. If Andrew fucking Niel was drowning I'd put my foot on his head. Shit, I'd have pushed him off the bridge in the first place


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> if she was drowning I'd help her out of the river. If Andrew fucking Niel was drowning I'd put my foot on his head. Shit, I'd have pushed him off the bridge in the first place



I agree, she isn't my favourite but Andrew Neil is a climate change denying Tory - he has a special hatred for environmentalists and gave her a much harder time than he would a right-wing politico


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I agree, she isn't my favourite but Andrew Neil is a climate change denying Tory - he has a special hatred for environmentalists and gave her a much harder time than he would a right-wing politico



All true, but with his 'forensic' 'actuarial approach to policy costings he's a bit of a one-trick pony. Any party leader/spokesperson who purports to present a credible parliamentary alternative should expect just that from brillo.

Some of their policy ideas seem fine, but to go on TV so badly prepared was very naive.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 26, 2015)

...not sure he was going too far out of his way to give her a harder time... it seemed pretty standard Neil but just looked worse because she was on the ropes from the bell & could hardly get her gloves up to defend herself let alone do the dodging & weaving necessary to get out of tough interviews without a black eye ......so bad she may even get some sympathy votes....

...not as if any of the other parties ever answer the "....give a list of revenue raising measures with figures..." question apart from UKIP who can just say cancel foreign aid 11 billion quid, come out of the EU X bn ( whatever it is ) ...and it still sounds like uncredible bullshit ...


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2015)

I doubt she's ever faced a really serious grilling over the finances before ,they usually leave it to one of their MEP's. The party also doesn't generally hypothecate their spending plans in the same way as other parties (with Policy A being paid for specifically by tax B and cut C) so she was on a stickier wicket than she might have been.  But she still did crap and should have been way way better prepared.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2015)

I reckon finding out she's an aussie will have done the most harm.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2015)

And why does she always hang her head to one side when she's speaking?  Looks like its going to fall off.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon finding out she's an aussie will have done the most harm.



I think you may actually be right.

On a different note I'd have thought that for the Greens, as for UKIP at the present time, the point would be to stress how the existing parties have cocked things up over such a sustained period and now have no new solutions to the problems they have helped to create; what is needed is a radical departure...let's be brave and hopeful.

You can then chuck it back at the interviewer that they are acting as a more or less privileged  apologist for a status quo; a status quo which is demonstrably failing most people. In a nut shell tell Neil (or whoever) that his number crunching myopia has failed, so he should move on and ask some different questions; questions which actually address the problems people are facing.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think you may actually be right.
> 
> On a different note I'd have thought that for the Greens, as for UKIP at the present time, the point would be to stress how the existing parties have cocked things up over such a sustained period and now have no new solutions to the problems they have helped to create; what is needed is a radical departure...let's be brave and hopeful.
> 
> ...



One of the key advantages of not admitting to any policies/manifesto commitments is that you can't then be asked to cost them.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> One of the key advantages of not admitting to any policies/manifesto commitments is that you can't then be asked to cost them.




On the immediate level as a minor party you should be making the most of the breaks that the position offers; no one seriously expects you to be in the government so don't play those costing games.

In the longer term - and if you are a radical alternative to the current set up - asking fundamental questions about current shortcomings is a must.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## gosub (Jan 26, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> On the immediate level as a minor party you should be making the most of the breaks that the position offers; no one seriously expects you to be in the government so don't play those costing games.
> 
> In the longer term - and if you are a radical alternative to the current set up - asking fundamental questions about current shortcomings is a must.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



That I think is the position the Greens tried to play.   Their standing in the polls and the likely hung parliament, changes the game.  Its now what of your aspirations are unmoveable to help prop up a minority government?


----------



## andysays (Jan 26, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> On the immediate level as a minor party you should be making the most of the breaks that the position offers; no one seriously expects you to be in the government so don't play those costing games.
> 
> In the longer term - and *if you are a radical alternative to the current set up* - asking fundamental questions about current shortcomings is a must.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



This is the key - the Greens seem more interested in demonstrating that they are not "too radical" an alternative, which is a strategic dead end, even if it does get them a few extra percentage points at the next GE.

_Those who make half a revolution dig their own grave..._


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 26, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Jan 26, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think you may actually be right.
> 
> On a different note I'd have thought that for the Greens, as for UKIP at the present time, the point would be to stress how the existing parties have cocked things up over such a sustained period and now have no new solutions to the problems they have helped to create; what is needed is a radical departure...let's be brave and hopeful.
> 
> ...



Tbf, the material she had to work with was problematic: membership of ISIS ostensibly being allowed, even if it is more complex than that, she should have tried to move on to the basics, popular policies like rail nationalisation, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2015)

What material? Who provided it?


----------



## gosub (Jan 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Tbf, the material she had to work with was problematic: membership of ISIS ostensibly being allowed, even if it is more complex than that, she should have tried to move on to the basics, popular policies like rail nationalisation, etc.



Even rail nationalisation is problematic, with relation to the EU


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Tbf, the material she had to work with was problematic: membership of ISIS ostensibly being allowed, even if it is more complex than that, she should have tried to move on to the basics, popular policies like rail nationalisation, etc.



She should have said that outlawing membership of ISIS isn't the question; after all outlawing membership of the IRA didn't work. What works is addressing the reasons for ISIS (in terms of foreign policy) and centrally addressing the actual day to day concerns of people where they live. In other other words don't try and distract from from key issues (the mis-management of the economy) by offering non-solutions to relatively marginal challenges.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2015)

should've played a 4-4-2 formation with Lucas up front. Fucking amateurs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> should've played a 4-4-2 formation with Lucas up front. Fucking amateurs.


yeh shouldn't have lucas is goal, not a safe pair of hands.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> should've played a 4-4-2 formation with Lucas up front. Fucking amateurs.



Almost - as a Brighton fan we did best against Arsenal yesterday when we attacked and when we defended in an 'uncompromising' fashion (i.e. not playing the game they wanted and are really really good at).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## elbows (Jan 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What material? Who provided it?



Policy material, presumably decided at their party conferences.

If they want to ditch the radical policies they will have to continue on the path of making the party less democratic.


----------



## chilango (Jan 27, 2015)

The general election campaign, and the Greens new found electoral confidence, has arrived in East Reading with a wham! My ward has a large student population, and correspondingly a large Lib Dem vote in 2010 and was a Lib Dem seat in the locals. Fortunately they’ve disappeared without a trace, no copies of Focus, no leaflets, No “Winning Here” placards. Nothing, they’ve slipped away silence. Even their former councillor’s twitter feed is resigned silence. Essentially saying no more to vanishing activists than “wake me up before you go”. Go back a few years and that vote probably helped Labour lose the constituency to the Tories. Now though the Labour Party in my local ward have ramped up their activity after the Lib Dems lost control of the ward through being careless. Whisper it though, the so-called “Green surge” is spreading into the ward from a neighbouring Green hold,Since about last Christmas the Greens seem to have realised that they can really make a push to take on labour in these wards and are trying to shake off their their po-faced lentil eating, sandal wearing image and are pushing themselves as a slightly more “normal” bunch of people dealing with more “normal issues” and a more relaxed take on personal sacrifice although they still aren't exactly lily to be caught drinking cocktails at the Purple Turtle (Reading’s very own take on Club Tropicana) or anything.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 27, 2015)

Nice Wham! song references there


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 27, 2015)

chilango said:


> The general election campaign, and the Greens new found electoral confidence, has arrived in East Reading with a wham! My ward has a large student population, and correspondingly a large Lib Dem vote in 2010 and was a Lib Dem seat in the locals. Fortunately they’ve disappeared without a trace, no copies of Focus, no leaflets, No “Winning Here” placards. Nothing, they’ve slipped away silence. Even their former councillor’s twitter feed is resigned silence. Essentially saying no more to vanishing activists than “wake me up before you go”. Go back a few years and that vote probably helped Labour lose the constituency to the Tories. Now though the Labour Party in my local ward have ramped up their activity after the Lib Dems lost control of the ward through being careless. Whisper it though, the so-called “Green surge” is spreading into the ward from a neighbouring Green hold,Since about last Christmas the Greens seem to have realised that they can really make a push to take on labour in these wards and are trying to shake off their their po-faced lentil eating, sandal wearing image and are pushing themselves as a slightly more “normal” bunch of people dealing with more “normal issues” and a more relaxed take on personal sacrifice although they still aren't exactly lily to be caught drinking cocktails at the Purple Turtle (Reading’s very own take on Club Tropicana) or anything.



The "Purple Turtle" sounds like something an Australian would call his genitalia.


----------



## andysays (Jan 27, 2015)

Nylock said:


> Nice Wham! song references there



disappointed that he didn't get "Young guns - go for it" in there somehow


----------



## ska invita (Jan 27, 2015)

Some fall out from that Sunday Politics interview in relation to Basic Income - which was at the heart of fucking up the figures - turns out the CIT, from whom the Greens had previously been taking advice on this, have now turned around and said the numbers are all wrong! woops

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/27/green-party-citizens-income-policy-hits-poor

The Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT), which has given advice to the Green party and been repeatedly cited by the Greens, has modelled its scheme and discovered it would mean 35.15% of households would be losers, with many of the biggest losers among the poorest households.
The trust’s research shows that for the two lowest disposable income deciles, more than one-fifth would suffer income losses of more than 10%, something one of the most leftwing parties in the election is unlikely to want to advocate.

Malcolm Torry, director of the CIT, a small charitable research body, said: “I am not sure the Green party has yet taken on our new research or the need to retain a means-tested element. We have only just published the new work.”
The criticisms of the scheme, as well as doubts about costings, have led the Greens to make a tactical retreat, with the party’s leader, Natalie Bennett, saying detailed costings for the policy will not be available in the manifesto in March.

She faced a difficult time when interviewed by Andrew Neil on the BBC’s Sunday Politics on the subject, repeatedly arguing that any extra cost would be covered by reductions in the administration of welfare.

Citizen’s income is an unconditional, non-withdrawable income for every individual, including children, given as a right of citizenship. The idea has won support in the past on both sides of the Atlantic from left and right, and was until 1996 a Liberal Democrat policy. It was finally rejected as utopian.

It replaces personal tax allowances, and most means-tested benefits including jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit, the basic state pension and tax credits.
The CIT, the charitable body that has done most to promote the policy in the UK, admits after modelling its proposal with the help of the Euromod model at the University of Essex that the complexity of the current welfare system has led to a major design flaw being revealed, including a big hit on the poor.

Writing in the latest issue of the CIT’s newsletter, Torry states: “It is a pity that such a large number of households with low disposable incomes suffer such large losses on the implementation of what otherwise looks like a useful and revenue-neutral scheme.
“But unfortunately, with that number of large losses, the scheme would be impossible for a government to implement, and we ought to look for an alternative.”

However, Torry argues almost regardless of the level at which the citizen’s income is set, the poor cannot be compensated for withdrawal of both the personal tax allowance and means-tested benefits without the scheme becoming too expensive.
In a bid to make the scheme more palatable, the trust has looked at retaining the central principle of a non-contributory scheme and the abolition of the personal tax allowance, but retaining other means-tested benefits such as tax credits, so depriving the scheme of the simplicity and administrative savings once promised.

The revised scheme hits the rich hardest, but also requires a substantial increase in the basic rate of tax to 30%, as well as lifting national insurance to 12% of all income. The scheme still costs £24bn.
Alternatively, the trust has looked at cutting the value of citizen’s income from £75 a week to just £50 a week, much closer to the value of a personal tax allowance.
Torry told the Guardian that citizen’s income still has substantial advantages since even under this scheme it replaces a proportion of means-tested and other benefits, and total marginal deduction rates would be greatly reduced.

The amounts of means-tested benefits received would be reduced through citizen’s income being taken into account when calculating benefits.
In addition, for many households the reduction would offer the option of adding additional hours of employment and so escaping from means-testing.
A Green party spokesman said: “The citizen’s income is one of the items the manifesto working group are looking at. The Green party manifesto will be launched at some point in March.”

--


----------



## JTG (Jan 27, 2015)

I just read this and did a bit of sick in my mouth:

http://may2015.com/featured/bristol-west-painting-the-town-green/


----------



## 8ball (Jan 27, 2015)

Just found out someone I used to be in a band with might be standing for the Greens in May...

edit:  just asked him on Facebook about which is better - the working class or the Bolivian arse wasp.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 28, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Some fall out from that Sunday Politics interview in relation to Basic Income - which was at the heart of fucking up the figures - turns out the CIT, from whom the Greens had previously been taking advice on this, have now turned around and said the numbers are all wrong! woops
> The amounts of means-tested benefits received would be reduced through citizen’s income being taken into account when calculating benefits.
> In addition, for many households the reduction would offer the option of adding additional hours of employment and so escaping from means-testing.
> A Green party spokesman said: “The citizen’s income is one of the items the manifesto working group are looking at. The Green party manifesto will be launched at some point in March.”
> ...


I'm picturing the scenes of panic in Green Party HQ as the reality of this situation has hit.

They're going to have every last line of their policy documents poured over for anything that's not fully costed and thought out now aren't they, they'll get ripped to shreds if they've not done better checks on their policies than that.

Wait til the press get hold of the idea of taking the ability to basically end the practice of fractional reserve banking and take all money creation back into the hands of the bank of england, or similar. If Bennett can't even attempt a defence of the citizens income, she's going to get absolutely trashed on that policy if I'm remembering it right.


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Wait til the press get hold of the idea of taking the ability to basically end the practice of fractional reserve banking and take all money creation back into the hands of the bank of england, or similar. If Bennett can't even attempt a defence of the citizens income, she's going to get absolutely trashed on that policy if I'm remembering it right.



Not sure if the press will bother with that one. But yes, it was certainly in their policy statements as of a few weeks ago.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2015)

8ball said:


> Just found out someone I used to be in a band with might be standing for the Greens in May...
> 
> edit:  just asked him on Facebook about which is better - the working class or the Bolivian arse wasp.



if he says working class he's a liar as well as a nazi conservationist imo


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 28, 2015)

Will somebody please think of the Bolivian Arse Wasp.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 28, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'm picturing the scenes of panic in Green Party HQ as the reality of this situation has hit.


i did hear that there was an element of sting about the interview, in that it was meant to be on something else and the nature of the grilling was brought up at the very last minute, but whatever the truth of that for the Greens its probably good that this happened sooner rather than later and they can be better prepared in the future. Whatever anyone thinks of the Greens it would be nice to see them at least making convincing cases for alternative politics rather than reinforce views of a loony left.

Im pretty sure Andrew was right about the overly high expectations from raising the highest rate of income tax too


----------



## chilango (Jan 28, 2015)

As I mentioned elsewhere (the polling thread iirc) I’m flip-flopping in my voting intentions between the Greens, Labour and “an other party” (will Class War stand here? will a British “Syriza" appear?). Not so long ago I was all for voting Labour tactically in my semi-marginal Tory seat. I was quite happy to to denounce the Greens as “shit” (as seen higher up the thread). But as the three party system seems under more threat than ever before, and as the Greens may yet join UKIP,the SNP etc. in this post General Election “new order” I’m starting to reconsider. 



I’ve always loved elections, despite my utterly cynical, anarchistic, rejection of them as a vehicle for change. I love the ritual, the ceremony,  the procession of unseated bigwigs, the “sport” of it. And as such I finding myself wanting to join in. Years of spoiling and abstention have been somewhat unsatisfying in this regard. 



Certainly the so-called “Green surge” is having an impact upon my voting intentions. Looking at opinion polls and projected shares, and the lovely coloured maps of the country and my constituency and fanciful notion that everything’s gone green, I am worried that I might succumb to the temptation of voting Green in May. Yet, still despite all the hype, the best possible outcome down here in the South East is the occasional island of Red in amongst the sea of blue.



Monday (or Tuesday?) this week saw the electioneering and party posturing of the rival Labour and Green candidates here in East Reading crescendo with a live twitter feed of the “full council meeting”. Some confusion for us in virtual audience I’m sure as both Labour and Green councillors laid into the Tories for not backing lowering the voting age to 16, although I’m not sure why this was  being discussed in Reading council to begin with but still…anyway the Tories response that many young people aren’t working and therefore not “contributing” was clearly a demonstration, even at this local level of the contempt with hold they unproductive “thieves” like us. The Greens and Labour loved it, denouncing it on their twitter feeds with a vehemence perhaps more suited to condign a murder or something, yet this Red-Green tag team was hardly the perfect kiss as they’ve been going at each other over the issue of who gets to claim credit for some very tame acts of guerrilla gardening in Redlands - flowers etc. planted at the base of lampposts (seriously!). It seems the Greens’ strategy to move out of their exile in the m/c hippy sub-culture is too embrace the kind of hyper-localism that the Lib Dems were famous for before the shellshock of their electoral collapse hit their activists. I’m all in favour of “dog shit politics” but the Greens mustn’t take their eyes of off the bigger picture - the state of the nation surely plays a big role in GE voting patterns?



This election raises the prospect of another coalition, perhaps some sort of a bizarre love triangle between the Greens, Labour and the SNP? The Greens in this scenario are going to come under intense scrutiny. Their record in local government and in coalition suggests (and this is the kindest interpretation) that they will quickly abandon any policies born of true faith and be enthusiastically “pragmatic” and “realistic”. I can have some sympathy with this, out of power it is too easy for conspiraloons and other personalities who perhaps consider themselves touched by the hand of god or something (the David Ickes, plenty of whom remain in the GPEW no doubt).



But in doing so, they risk “doing a Clegg” having a fine time in a close run election this year, only to collapse following their collaboration with a neoliberal administration and be replaced by a different protest vote next time round. And round we go again to what? 2020? will we get a “Syriza” to run. 2015’s Green vote is going to be very interesting for now, and the future.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 28, 2015)

Do you live in a safe seat chilango? Whats the state of play in East Reading?


----------



## chilango (Jan 28, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Do you live in a safe seat chilango? Whats the state of play in East Reading?



"Semi-marginal" Tory seat. Labour seat in the 1990s. Growing Green Party presence complicating things.


----------



## andysays (Jan 28, 2015)

chilango said:


> As I mentioned elsewhere (the polling thread iirc) I’m flip-flopping in my voting intentions between the Greens, Labour and “an other party” (will Class War stand here? will a British “Syriza" appear?). Not so long ago I was all for voting Labour tactically in my semi-marginal Tory seat. I was quite happy to to denounce the Greens as “shit” (as seen higher up the thread). But as the three party system seems under more threat than ever before, and as the Greens may yet join UKIP,the SNP etc. in this post General Election “*new order*” I’m starting to reconsider.





chilango said:


> I’ve always loved elections, despite my utterly cynical, anarchistic, rejection of them as a vehicle for change. I love the ritual, the *ceremony*,  the procession of unseated bigwigs, the “sport” of it. And as such I finding myself wanting to join in. Years of spoiling and abstention have been somewhat unsatisfying in this regard.





chilango said:


> Certainly the so-called “Green surge” is having an impact upon my voting intentions. Looking at opinion polls and projected shares, and the lovely coloured maps of the country and my constituency and fanciful notion that *everything’s gone green*, I am worried that I might succumb to the *temptation* of voting Green in May. Yet, still despite all the hype, the best possible outcome down here in the South East is the occasional island of Red in amongst the sea of *blue.*


*


chilango said:



			Monday
		
Click to expand...

*


chilango said:


> (or Tuesday?) this week saw the electioneering and party posturing of the rival Labour and Green candidates here in East Reading crescendo with a live twitter feed of the “full council meeting”. Some confusion for us in virtual audience I’m sure as both Labour and Green councillors laid into the Tories for not backing lowering the voting age to 16, although I’m not sure why this was  being discussed in Reading council to begin with but still…anyway the Tories response that many young people aren’t working and therefore not “contributing” was clearly a demonstration, even at this local level of the contempt with hold they unproductive “*thieves” like us*. The Greens and Labour loved it, denouncing it on their twitter feeds with a vehemence perhaps more suited to condign a murder or something, yet this Red-Green tag team was hardly *the perfect kiss* as they’ve been going at each other over the issue of who gets to claim credit for some very tame acts of guerrilla gardening in Redlands - flowers etc. planted at the base of lampposts (seriously!). It seems the Greens’ strategy to move out of their exile in the m/c hippy sub-culture is too embrace the kind of hyper-localism that the Lib Dems were famous for before the *shellshock* of their electoral collapse hit their activists. I’m all in favour of “dog shit politics” but the Greens mustn’t take their eyes of off the bigger picture - the *state of the nation* surely plays a big role in GE voting patterns?





chilango said:


> This election raises the prospect of another coalition, perhaps some sort of a* bizarre love triangle* between the Greens, Labour and the SNP? The Greens in this scenario are going to come under intense scrutiny. Their record in local government and in coalition suggests (and this is the kindest interpretation) that they will quickly abandon any policies born of *true faith* and be enthusiastically “pragmatic” and “realistic”. I can have some sympathy with this, out of power it is too easy for conspiraloons and other personalities who perhaps consider themselves *touched by the hand of god* or something (the David Ickes, plenty of whom remain in the GPEW no doubt).





chilango said:


> But in doing so, they risk “doing a Clegg” having a *fine time* in a close run election this year, only to collapse following their collaboration with a neoliberal administration and be replaced by a different protest vote next time *round. And round* we go again to what? 2020? will we get a “Syriza” to run. 2015’s Green vote is going to be very interesting for now, and the future.



some interesting points.

I'm still sceptical about the ability of the Greens to actually put their plans to save the world in motion anytime soon though


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2015)

ska invita said:


> i did hear that there was an element of sting about the interview, in that it was meant to be on something else and the nature of the grilling was brought up at the very last minute, but whatever the truth of that for the Greens its probably good that this happened sooner rather than later and they can be better prepared in the future. Whatever anyone thinks of the Greens it would be nice to see them at least making convincing cases for alternative politics rather than reinforce views of a loony left.
> 
> Im pretty sure Andrew was right about the overly high expectations from raising the highest rate of income tax too


Where did you hear that from - bullshiting defensive greens? Andrew Neil does that. It's  what he does. It's all that he does. It's all that he's done for 40+ years. The idea tat they were ambushed is ludicrous.

And no, don't speak for me - the last thing i want to see is the greens presenting convincing cases for stuff they don't believe in and will not deliver on.


----------



## chilango (Jan 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> some interesting points.
> 
> I'm still sceptical about the ability of the Greens to actually put their plans to save the world in motion anytime soon though



Well spotted. You missed a few though. All 18 single releases from the 1980s are there (excepting re-issues/re-mixes).


----------



## andysays (Jan 28, 2015)

chilango said:


> Well spotted. You missed a few though. All 18 single releases from the 1980s are there (excepting re-issues/re-mixes).



I think I've just spotted a couple more, but AFAIC you can claim all those I didn't get first time around


----------



## Patteran (Jan 28, 2015)

Suzanne Moore in the The Guardian, doing her own 'Why the Green Party is Shit'. The columnist's 'we' does my head in - it's a device repeated across the Guardian, & it grates.



> What is missing from the Greens is the actual thing I want from a progressive party. It’s the economy, stupid. A theory of class analysis, an understanding of the mechanics of redistribution and a sense of connection, not with plants but the very poorest.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2015)

Patteran said:


> Suzanne Moore in the The Guardian, doing her own 'Why the Green Party is Shit'. The columnist's 'we' does my head in - it's a device repeated across the Guardian, & it grates.


Sounds like she might have been reading TCF..


> The rise of the Green party concerns me because it remains fundamentally a bourgeois party, with no organisational links to the working class and no real heart for emancipatory struggle. I’m not talking here about specific policy stances, which range form the sensible (citizen’s income) to the downright stupid (opposing water fluoridation). I’m talking about what makes Greens tick, and it’s not the emancipatory ideal and the re-embedding of worker-consumer duality that make me tick.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jan 29, 2015)

Green Party is not so shit.   This is a long thread and its not persuading me.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> Green Party is not so shit.   This is a long thread and its not persuading me.





toblerone3 said:


> not persuading me


 to do what?


----------



## Patteran (Jan 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like she might have been reading TCF..



_"As a Labour person, ontologically secure in my loyalty to the Labour party because of what I have internalised about it, the rise of the Greens obviously concerns me"_. I'd never heard of TCF before. Is it the kind of blog that columnists trawl for material? (that question's unlikely to get an answer unless a columnist weighs in)


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Jan 29, 2015)

On policy scrutiny, there's a huge amount to scrutinise - the number of links in http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ are numerous. Clicking on one of them as an example - workers' rights at http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/wr.html and you have over 9,000 words alone. Thus it makes it easy for a presenter to get researchers to dig something up, put it to an unsuspecting senior party rep and say 'Well it says it on your website'.

It's a double-edged sword. On one side, the mainstream media are talking about the Greens' policies. On the other, it's relatively straight-forward for an experienced operator as Andrew Neil is, to catch them out. From what I've seen on his daytime politics programmes, Andrew Neil is one of the toughest of interviewers to come up against, giving everyone a hard time. 

I think it'll be just as interesting (if not more interesting) to see how many extra council seats the Greens get. At a local news level, council seats mean new political faces from outside the traditional parties being a source of different political opinions. That combined with councillor allowances means that additional resources can be directed towards local parties. The spread of seats may also be an indication of where they concentrate national party resources in the future. 

Finally, they have a big spring conference in early March in Liverpool - one where they've had to change to an even bigger venue (with over 1,000 seats) to accommodate demand for places. (See http://bright-green.org/england-wal...nce-forced-to-change-venue-due-to-greensurge/). Which policies will change as a result of new members and the inevitable increase in media scrutiny? Which ones will they hold firm on? Interesting times.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 29, 2015)

chilango said:


> As I mentioned elsewhere (the polling thread iirc) I’m flip-flopping in my voting intentions between the Greens, Labour and “an other party” (will Class War stand here? will a British “Syriza" appear?). Not so long ago I was all for voting Labour tactically in my semi-marginal Tory seat. I was quite happy to to denounce the Greens as “shit” (as seen higher up the thread). But as the three party system seems under more threat than ever before, and as the Greens may yet join UKIP,the SNP etc. in this post General Election “new order” I’m starting to reconsider.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Greens are very unlikely to win more than the single MP they have already and may lose that


----------



## tbtommyb (Jan 29, 2015)

8ball said:


> Just found out someone I used to be in a band with might be standing for the Greens in May...
> 
> edit:  just asked him on Facebook about which is better - the working class or the Bolivian arse wasp.



lol gud 1.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2015)

Caroline Lucas does a far better job IMO of defending / explaining the position on citizens income, and immigration policy, and explaining the difference between long term aspirations, and what's going to be in the manifesto for this election.

Around the 30 minute mark here 

The greens would be mad to leave both leaders debates to Bennet, rather than having Lucas in there as well IMO.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The greens would be mad to leave both *leaders debates* to Bennet, rather than having Lucas in there as well IMO.



Isn't the clue in the name of the deabte(s)? After all the GP a) sought to have representation in the leaders' debates and b) chose (in their 2007 referendum of the membership) to amend their party constitution to one in which a formal leader would be elected every 2 years.

It's either Bennett or the empty chair really.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Isn't the clue in the name of the deabte(s)? After all the GP a) sought to have representation in the leaders' debates and b) chose (in their 2007 referendum of the membership) to amend their party constitution to one in which a formal leader would be elected every 2 years.
> 
> It's either Bennett or the empty chair really.


well, there is that to it as well.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> well, there is that to it as well.


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html


That didn't last long.


----------



## JTG (Feb 7, 2015)

RMT President Peter Pinkney to stand for Greens in Redcar

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/rmt-union-president-im-standing-8598307


----------



## elbows (Feb 8, 2015)

gosub said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html
> 
> 
> That didn't last long.



Laughable. All your long term aspirations, will they feed me, keep me warm, give me work?

A radical agenda with no backbone is no radical agenda.


----------



## treelover (Feb 8, 2015)

JTG said:


> RMT President Peter Pinkney to stand for Greens in Redcar
> 
> http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/rmt-union-president-im-standing-8598307



Isn't he someone who has done the rounds of the left, including, I think, Left Unity?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 10, 2015)

I'm wondering if the Daily Heil maybe mined this very thread for some of this info?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...een-council-house-policies-dreamt-Greens.html


----------



## elbows (Feb 10, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm wondering if the Daily Heil maybe mined this very thread for some of this info?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...een-council-house-policies-dreamt-Greens.html



Almost none of the policies and attempts at historical muckraking that feature in that article have been discussed here recently.

Theres been at least one historical discussion of detailed Green policy documents on u75 that wasn't in tune with press attention of the time. But I think any timing co-incidences between the recent u75 focus on policies and all the new-found press attention towards policies was not because of journalists reading this thread, but rather our conversation and the press attention both being stirred into action by the same source - the Andrew Neil interview.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2015)

Yep there is a tendency from some to overestimate the importance of this tiny Brixton based forum, journos do use it, but generally the ones that were members here before becoming journos.


----------



## elbows (Feb 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> but generally the ones that were members here before becoming journos.



Exceptions to that probably occur when the considerable google-juice the u75 forum possesses comes into effect when lazy journey search google for certain combinations of words. Or when even lazier journalists think they can write a story by posing as, for example, a young person keen to experiment with naughty drugs.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 11, 2015)

elbows said:


> Almost none of the policies and attempts at historical muckraking that feature in that article have been discussed here recently.
> 
> Theres been at least one historical discussion of detailed Green policy documents on u75 that wasn't in tune with press attention of the time. But I think any timing co-incidences between the recent u75 focus on policies and all the new-found press attention towards policies was not because of journalists reading this thread, but rather our conversation and the press attention both being stirred into action by the same source - the Andrew Neil interview.



I was thinking less about the policies and more about the stuff like Bartolotti being photographed holding a Nazi flag, Tony Gosling and the far right influences, and truthers and anti-semites, which are all catalogued here but not many other places.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2015)

Ooh where has Bartolotti been seen with a far right flag? Got any pics?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ooh where has Bartolotti been seen with a far right flag? Got any pics?









http://www.pippabartolotti.info/p/photos.html

http://cifwatch.com/2011/07/10/guardian-airbrushes-extremist-links-of-british-flytilla-participants/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bartolotti+nazi+flag


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2015)

Greens are fucking idiots


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

I'm sure i posted some Pippa poetry before but can't seem to find it.


----------



## rekil (Feb 11, 2015)

Bartolotti was on come dine with me. Fortune telling eh?  


> It's day two in Newport and peace activist Pippa Bartolotti works her magic with an 'upcycling' dinner party, including locally-sourced vegetarian food and fortune-telling.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2015)

Are there any green party activists who aren't complete and utter mentalists?


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2015)

I think Alex Cox is still a member, and he, frankly, is a god.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are there any green party activists who aren't complete and utter mentalists?



Matt S who used to post on here seemed sane and rational despite being a Green councillor in Oxford. Can't think of any others...


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2015)

Derek Wall isn't completely bonkers either


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Matt S who used to post on here seemed sane and rational despite being a Green councillor in Oxford. Can't think of any others...


Matt has made many _compromises_.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 11, 2015)

I don't share the general disdain for the greens found around here and I find the green surge quite thrilling... but then when I think about it all the local greens I know are either excruciatingly wet 'let's build consensus and plant vegetables!' types or utter mentalists. But these 'green left' eco-socialists must exist somewhere?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Matt has made many _compromises_.


Yes well that's what you do if sensible and in a mainstream party, there's no point joining one and then organising for fringe politics with strange people... Is there articul8 ?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes well that's what you do if sensible and in a mainstream party, there's no point joining one and then organising for fringe politics with strange people... Is there articul8 ?


Is it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Is it?


What would you do?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What would you do?


Not put myself up for election, then compromise when elected.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Not put myself up for election, then compromise when elected.


Well maybe not - but I don't think doing so is a sign of being a nutter. It's pretty difficult for committed people who do get elected to not compromise if there isn't a mass movement to back them up.


----------



## treelover (Feb 11, 2015)

Plenty of rational Greens here.

plenty of petit bourgeoisie as well


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Plenty of rational Greens here.
> 
> plenty of petit bourgeoisie as well


Where?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well maybe not - but I don't think doing so is a sign of being a nutter. It's pretty difficult for committed people who do get elected to not compromise if there isn't a mass movement to back them up.


That makes their obvious fall from grace the fault of other people.

If we don't need them then why should we argue for them?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> I find the green surge quite thrilling...



I have no idea why but that gave me a genuine lol


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> I have no idea why but that gave me a genuine lol


Diff worlds.


----------



## elbows (Feb 11, 2015)

lazythursday said:


> But these 'green left' eco-socialists must exist somewhere?



I guess they must exist somewhere because there do seem to be policies in their policy documents that reflect that political persuasion. Especially if we imagine what the policies read like before they were rewritten in the moribund modern language of politics, economics and legalese.

I'm not sure where they are though. Perhaps it is just the same consensus-building types you mention, perhaps they have radical moments and can con themselves into thinking they can achieve consensus even in areas that are radical. Just so long as those ideas are long-term aspirations rather than principals to stick to from the get-go


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 13, 2015)

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1179...c_calming__as_more_complaints_are_registered/

An accident waiting to happen. Cyclists & drivers beware! There's not even any fucking flowers in them ffs  
Due to their imminent danger, some bright spark has now placed (Arrow) road signs next to them. What a fucking sorry state of affairs


----------



## starfish (Feb 14, 2015)

As a Brighton Pavillion resident who has the only Green Party MP in the country, I'm declaring my intentions now. I will vote for Caroline Lucas at the upcoming GE because I have to. If I don't where else can we have an acceptable alternative non mainstream party MP that isn't FUKIP in disguise. Green or alternative won't get in anywhere else so it is my civic duty to waste my vote in the greater scheme of things but for the greater good.
I'm basically taking a parliamentary punch for youse.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 18, 2015)

lol, pull the other one

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk...yorkshire-due-to-crisis-leader-says-1-7111864



> Membership of the Green party in Sheffield and Rotherham has tripled in a year because other parties ‘do not have the answers’, leader Natalie Bennett has said.
> 
> Membership of the Green party in Sheffield and Rotherham has tripled in a year because other parties ‘do not have the answers’, leader Natalie Bennett has said.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 18, 2015)

I'm not the Sheffield Central Candidate's biggest fan.


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> lol, pull the other one
> 
> http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk...yorkshire-due-to-crisis-leader-says-1-7111864


I hope to win the lottery.  The Greens do have a better chance than me, as at least they've bought a ticket.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 19, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not the Sheffield Central Candidate's biggest fan.


apart from being a Green what are your issues with her?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> apart from being a Green what are your issues with her?



Very arrogant. Also once heard her make one of the worst speeches I've ever heard entitled 'emasculate capitalism' where she used loads of castration imagery to basically argue that capitalism would be nicer with women at the top or something. I'm not in Sheffield any more but I someone was saying something a bit back about dodgy comments about benefits too - can't remember exactly what it was but I think it might have been J Ed or treelover who mentioned it. 

She - and her fellow Green members - also argued heavily against the sheffield save the libraries campaign taking a position of no cuts to libraries. And when they lost the vote they still went along to stalls etc and demanded that we defy the democratic decision of the campiagn because no cuts was 'unfair on the council'.

She's a doctor and therefore far cleverer than everyone else and has the classic Green paternalistic 'we know what's best for the proles' outlook.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

Has Bennnett just frigged up another high profile interview?

edit: sorry,it appears she has frigged up two today.

edit2: ooh that's far far worse than i expected.


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

I was going to vote Green this year, I've met the local candidate is he's a very nice chap. Given the Conservatives get more than 50% of the vote here it's no more than a token vote. However; I am disappointed that they see to be defocusing o the environment, which is what  attracts me to them. 

I'm all for social housing, fair pay etc but the Labour Party say the same as the Greens and actually have a chance to get in - so if you cared about that why wouldn't you vote Labour who have very similar policies?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> I was going to vote Green this year, I've met the local candidate is he's a very nice chap. Given the Conservatives get more than 50% of the vote here it's no more than a token vote. However; I am disappointed that they see to be defocusing o the environment, which is what  attracts me to them.
> 
> I'm all for social housing, fair pay etc but the Labour Party say the same as the Greens and actually have a chance to get in - so if you cared about that why wouldn't you vote Labour who have very similar policies?



Can't listen to the interview as I'm at work and can't remember the detail of green party policy on social housing, but iirc there's a big difference, in that greens are saying that they would build a new generation of council housing aren't they? Labour aren't saying they'd do this afaik.

Really easy to link this up to environmental concerns too - replacing all the victorian/edwardian housing stock that was built in the early 20thc with modern, environmentally friendly passiv houses is something we need to do for climate change reasons. 
All the building work would stimulate our economy, we can create proper apprenticeships and pay a proper wage doing it.
It'd also serve to undercut the private rental market and housing market in general reducing rental/purchase costs.

Set out correctly, this is a proper winner of a policy, that addresses environmental, economic and social concerns. The tricky bit comes in paying for it and in justifying borrowing the money to invest, which is where I'd expect someone to attack this idea.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> edit2: ooh that's far far worse than i expected.


ohh god, that was painful


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> I was going to vote Green this year, I've met the local candidate is he's a very nice chap. Given the Conservatives get more than 50% of the vote here it's no more than a token vote. However; I am disappointed that they see to be defocusing o the environment, which is what  attracts me to them.
> 
> I'm all for social housing, fair pay etc but the Labour Party say the same as the Greens and actually have a chance to get in - so if you cared about that why wouldn't you vote Labour who have very similar policies?


do you remember labour governments?


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 24, 2015)

belboid said:


> ohh god, that was painful



"Are you alright?" LOL

She should have just said they would tax bankers' bonuses. You can use that pull any number you want out of your arse.


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> do you remember labour governments?



That is a very fair point; I've only experienced two.


----------



## Europhile (Feb 24, 2015)

Unfortunately, it's not just the Green Party. None of the parties in the United Kingdom will make an effort to tackle the economic elite, no matter how much they preach that they will, because of corporatism. If the Green Party ever got anywhere near power they'd realise that and in my belief, just like other parties, would renege on all pre-election pledges. They probably already realise that due to the nature of the economy in the UK that tackling these problems is far more complicated than they'd like to let the public know. If you want a true quality of life then emigrate, as Peter Hitchens said. If you're young then you should take advantage of all the opportunities you can. None of the parties will offer real change because that would rock the boat and at a time when the economic elite and political class have it so good, they're not going to rock the boat. They're simply going to keep making pledges come election time in an attempt to get votes to ensure their livelihoods are maintained. Governments and the politicians that make them up only have one thing on their minds, serving their own interests.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> That is a very fair point; I've only experienced two.


yes. but do you remember them?


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but do you remember them?



I remember Blair and Brown, vaguely remember knowing who Callaghan was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> I remember Blair and Brown, vaguely remember knowing who Callaghan was.


and you still think voting labour is not a particularly bad idea?


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and you still think voting labour is not a particularly bad idea?



stop trying to convince me the older I get the more pointless voting becomes ... it is depressing me


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

Everyone is wrong, the interview was a triumph:

*Molly MEP*
@MollyMEP
Relentless pressure on @natalieben is a clear sign we have Labour on the run: their addiction to negative campaigning is #depressing

(Molly the MEP is private school and oxbridge btw - breath of fresh air)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

I may start a campaign to get the greens involved in the tv debates.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm really looking forward to the leaders debates this time around. Its going to be carcrash gold


----------



## Ole (Feb 24, 2015)

Christ on a bike she isn't even slightly up to this job. What's so hard about memorising a few numbers?


----------



## sim667 (Feb 24, 2015)

Ole said:


> Christ on a bike she isn't even slightly up to this job. What's so hard about memorising a few numbers?



Im not saying she does, but some people do suffer with problems with numbers.... its called dyscalculus.

Whilst im not saying she has it, the point is some people do, so your question whats so hard about it, is a bit of an arseholes response


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Im not saying she does, but some people do suffer with problems with numbers.... its called dyscalculus.
> 
> Whilst im not saying she has it, the point is some people do, so your question whats so hard about it, is a bit of an arseholes response



How many people, to the nearest 1%?


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

Maybe she hasn't got a notebook to save the trees?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 24, 2015)

wow - Natalie Bennett. Do the greens give out the job of leader on a rota basis? After her debacle with brillo pad head you'd think she might have been a bit more prepared. It hardly takes a fortune teller to work out that she might be asked about their policies. 
Christ - wot a fuck up - they whinge about not being given any media exposure, and when they get the opportunity they turn into the political equivalent of frank spencer.


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2015)

Europhile said:


> Unfortunately, it's not just the Green Party. None of the parties in the United Kingdom will make an effort to tackle the economic elite, no matter how much they preach that they will, because of corporatism. If the Green Party ever got anywhere near power they'd realise that and in my belief, just like other parties, would renege on all pre-election pledges. They probably already realise that due to the nature of the economy in the UK that tackling these problems is far more complicated than they'd like to let the public know. *If you want a true quality of life then emigrate, as Peter Hitchens said. If you're young then you should take advantage of all the opportunities you can.* None of the parties will offer real change because that would rock the boat and at a time when the economic elite and political class have it so good, they're not going to rock the boat. They're simply going to keep making pledges come election time in an attempt to get votes to ensure their livelihoods are maintained. Governments and the politicians that make them up only have one thing on their minds, serving their own interests.[/QUOTE


Emigrate where, the U.S?  Italy, Australia?, most western countries have neo-liberal policies, etc, you could go to South East Asia, but make sure you don't take/like drugs, etc.

There is always Austria, Switzerland, though you have to have money to support yourself


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2015)

Are Austria and Switzerland some kind of utopia?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 24, 2015)

Austria is ace, like a more chilled guilt-free Germany.


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> Are Austria and Switzerland some kind of utopia?



Yes.

Beer.

Sausages.

Snow.

If I can't dance in lederhosen it's not my revolution etc.


----------



## Europhile (Feb 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> Emigrate where, the U.S?  Italy, Australia?, most western countries have neo-liberal policies, etc, you could go to South East Asia, but make sure you don't take/like drugs, etc.
> 
> There is always Austria, Switzerland, though you have to have money to support yourself


Whilst true a lot of countries have lower tax rates, fairer governmental systems and are much cheaper to live in.


----------



## Ole (Feb 24, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Im not saying she does, but some people do suffer with problems with numbers.... its called dyscalculus.
> 
> Whilst im not saying she has it, the point is some people do, so your question whats so hard about it, is a bit of an arseholes response


I'm not saying 'what's so hard?' to someone who has dyscalculus you turnip.


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2015)

...on a more serious note, though still indulging an off-topic irrelevance, this is clearly bullshit.



Europhile said:


> If you want a true quality of life then emigrate, as Peter Hitchens said. If you're young then you should take advantage of all the opportunities you can. .



Wtf is a "true quality of life"?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 24, 2015)

Her problem isn't dyscalculus, it's being terrible at interviews. Which is a problem if your the leader of a political party heading into a general election and some live television debates.


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2015)

Europhile said:


> Whilst true a lot of countries have lower tax rates, fairer governmental systems and are much cheaper to live in.



Name some.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 24, 2015)

Ole said:


> I'm not saying 'what's so hard?' to someone who has dyscalculus you turnip.



You mind your root vegetable privilege, on this thread of any.


----------



## caleb (Feb 24, 2015)




----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Her problem isn't dyscalculus, it's being terrible at interviews. Which is a problem if your the leader of a political party heading into a general election and some live television debates.



is Bennett about to have an unfortunate salad-related accident?

night of the sharp Lentils?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

caleb said:


>


Ah jenny jones, sorry baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb - the protector of Ian Blair, sorry i mean Baron Blair of Boughton, during the Jean Charles de Menezes stuff and who tried to get the phone hacking inquiry called off - sorry, i mean not have resources allocated to it.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 24, 2015)

Ole said:


> I'm not saying 'what's so hard?' to someone who has dyscalculus you turnip.





Belushi said:


> Her problem isn't dyscalculus, it's being terrible at interviews. Which is a problem if your the leader of a political party heading into a general election and some live television debates.



I didn't say that she did have dyscalculus, I did say that people do have it, therefore the generalised "whats so hard about remembering numbers?" is a bit of an arseholes response.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Ah jenny jones, sorry baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb - the protector of Ian Blair during the Jean Charles de Menezes stuff and who tried to get the phone hacking inquiry called off - sorry, i mean not have resources allocated to it.


no, no, no, no, no, no


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

_


Spanky Longhorn said:



			no, no, no, no, no, no
		
Click to expand...

I'm in control!_


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2015)

The only time I felt any sympathy for Gordon Brown was when he was criticised for not being a highly polished media performer. And yet he still, in my opinion at the time, did quite well at arguing points in the leadership debates.

I don't get the same from Bennett. So I won't be characterising her as simply bad at interviews. Its more than that, I'm not convinced she has a grip on the substance and even if I give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she actually has some deeply held political convictions, I'm not convinced they have formed themselves into a cohesive stance on anything real.

Have the green fools managed to end up with a leader that is only good at preaching to the converted?

Damn it I can't even enjoy it like I should enjoy a green leader being scrutinised, because she goes wrong in ways that make me cringe too much to laugh properly. Maybe Monbiot can make me laugh by attempting to come to her defence.

Allegedly sustainable policies being promoted by someone who doesn't look sustainable in their role, and whose prior poor performance with Andrew Neil already made one of their headline policies implode.

The Tories Greenwashed themselves, and then it turned out the only thing green about them was the word green used in the sense of inexperienced, not ripe. If they mean green in that sense, they probably still can claim to be the greenest government ever. And now the Green party seem to want in on this action, bravely enter the arena of ineptitude, don't even just pretend effectively. Lightweight liars, unconvincing, give me a time machine so I can send them back to the peak era of heckling at public meetings.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

She was elected by 3000 people - i would expect a new leadership contest post election and her competitors (they do  competition don't they?) to justify their challenge on the grounds of  a vastly increased membership.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 24, 2015)

I think she's possibly lacking confidence and struggling to find her own voice of a leader.  Caroline Lucas was such a successful leader, they are big shoes to fill and I think maybe this is something she's struggling with.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

8115 said:


> I think she's possibly lacking confidence and struggling to find her own voice of a leader.  Caroline Lucas was such a successful leader, they are big shoes to fill and I think maybe this is something she's struggling with.


She could just be shit.


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm just looking at their Spokespeople page. http://greenparty.org.uk/people/green-party-spokespeople/

I reckon they maybe thought they had these Bennett weaknesses covered by virtue of them having Caroline Lucas listed as the one for Economy. And for Finance they Have Molly Scott Cato MEP, former professor of economics etc etc.

Perhaps that would have worked out fine in other general elections with other levels of support and momentum for the greens. Not this time though, there is scrutiny of policy, and they've certainly blown it early on. I suppose they might recover. Or the press might lose interest. After all I suspect that part of the reason their policies have been scrutinised by the press this time around is because the election season is a long one due to fixed term parliament, robbing the press of the early chapters where they would print a lot of stories speculating about the election date. And they probably wanted to fill that gap in part with scrutiny of UKIP policies, but UKIP have long been playing for time on that front and largely thwarting press attempts to have something really concrete to get their teeth into. I haven't been paying enough attention to know if I'm out of date and things have moved on from that in terms of UKIP policy detail.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 24, 2015)

8115 said:


> I think she's possibly lacking confidence and struggling to find her own voice of a leader.  Caroline Lucas was such a successful leader, they are big shoes to fill and I think maybe this is something she's struggling with.



She's utterly incompetent. She has no business being in politics in any sort of public role. I have met a few politicians (blunkett, Rachael reeves, hiliary benn, shahid malik) and what strikes you is their abilty to think on their feet, articulate ideas, their attention to detail and to give - at the very least - an impression of competence -  by and large these people are  very smart and very skilled at communication. If you are coming from a radical/outsider position its even more important to be able to do this when you have the rare opportunity to state your case. Bennett has repeatedly and spectacularly failed to do this. Like it or not she is our most prominent proponent of the anti-austerity  argument and she fucked it.

shes a fucking disgrace.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 24, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> She's utterly incompetent. She has no business being in politics in any sort of public role. I have met a few politicians (blunkett, Rachael reeves, hiliary benn, shahid malik) and what strikes you is their abilty to think on their feet, articulate ideas, their attention to detail and to give - at the very least - an impression of competence -  by and large these people are generally very smart and very skilled at communication. If you are coming from a radical/outsider position its even more important to be able to do this when you have the rare opportunity to state your case. Bennett has repeatedly and spectacularly failed to do this. Like it or not she is our most prominent pro-proponent of the anti-austerity  argument and she fucked it.
> 
> shes a fucking disgrace.


The Greens are essentially an unholy alliance of hippies and posh people.  I don't expect much from them.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2015)

8115 said:


> The Greens are essentially an unholy alliance of hippies and posh people.  I don't expect much from them.



All the hippies I have ever met have been posh!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 24, 2015)

8115 said:


> hippies and posh people. .



Are they separate groups?


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2015)




----------



## ibilly99 (Feb 24, 2015)

I heard it live this morning the single worse interview I have ever heard in my short 53 years - she is ill apparently.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Feb 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Really easy to link this up to environmental concerns too - replacing all the victorian/edwardian housing stock that was built in the early 20thc with modern, environmentally friendly passiv houses is something we need to do for climate change reasons.
> All the building work would stimulate our economy, we can create proper apprenticeships and pay a proper wage doing it.
> It'd also serve to undercut the private rental market and housing market in general reducing rental/purchase costs.
> 
> Set out correctly, this is a proper winner of a policy, that addresses environmental, economic and social concerns. The tricky bit comes in paying for it and in justifying borrowing the money to invest, which is where I'd expect someone to attack this idea.


Not tricky to argue money currently lining the pockets of Buy To Let landlords should be spent directly on building social houses. Don't Housing Associations use future rent to fund building?

My only question would be the first part of what you said. Is replacing old buildings with new ones really environmentally friendly? Construction is one of the most polluting industries going. Is it not better to renovate old building that people actually like living in?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 24, 2015)

ibilly99 said:


> I heard it live this morning the single worse interview I have ever heard in my short 53 years - she is ill apparently.



it's like whats her name on Borgen all over again


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it's like whats her name on Borgen all over again


I hope not, she got to decide who the PM was, didn't she?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 24, 2015)

Lucas attempting damage limitation on C4 news now


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> My only question would be the first part of what you said. Is replacing old buildings with new ones really environmentally friendly? Construction is one of the most polluting industries going. Is it not better to renovate old building that people actually like living in?



Questions such as what buildings people actually like living in should certainly not be pushed to one side.

But looking at the other considerations, I think its more a question of when you build new houses, how long will they be fit for purpose for? For example there is a fairly broad range of predictions and expectations when it comes to how many more decades we'll have access to gas to heat our homes, and at a price the multitude can afford. We've seen some tightening of building regs in order to promote certain levels of insulation and suchlike. But I'm not exactly convinced that the houses constructed these days are of the design we should use if embarking on a large new era of public house construction.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 24, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> wow - Natalie Bennett. Do the greens give out the job of leader on a rota basis?


I thought that it was an elected fixed term position

Anyway what do the Greens on here think of her performance? They all seem to have vanished.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 24, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> Not tricky to argue money currently lining the pockets of Buy To Let landlords should be spent directly on building social houses. Don't Housing Associations use future rent to fund building?
> 
> My only question would be the first part of what you said. Is replacing old buildings with new ones really environmentally friendly? Construction is one of the most polluting industries going. Is it not better to renovate old building that people actually like living in?



The second part of your question is truly awful, the supposition being that people wouldn't like to live in a house that costs nothing (or close to nothing) to heat each winter. Wouldn't you like to live in a house with zero heating costs?

Your actual question, I am thinking of carbon / climate change more than general pollution concerns. My understanding is that it's very difficult to retro-fit a single skin house in such a way that would get it anywhere near being a passiv house. External insulation can get you close to a cavity wall house but even that's not great compared to what can be done, especially on terraced housing where the whole terrace would need to be done together - extremely difficult if there's not a single owner of that terrace - at least if you are rebuilding you can compulsory purchase order houses if needs be. There's a carbon/energy/pollution cost to retro-fitting the houses which you also need to factor in. That's a calculation to be made but over a long enough time frame (which may not be very long at all, I don't know if anyone has tried to calculate this or not) the new house will definitely use less energy and less carbon - just no idea how long it'd take for the relative extra carbon costs of rebuilding rather than renovating until you've made that back.


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

This is where parties like UKIP sticking to a very simple message they have not pretensions of being a ruling party so float of the over policy issues and bang on about two or three key themes. It's the trick the Greens should learn, it's not particularly honest but it works. Trying to be the LidDems isn't going to work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> Are Austria and Switzerland some kind of utopia?



For well-to-do white people they are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Austria is ace, like a more chilled guilt-free Germany.



Oh, they're definitely guilt-free, are the Austrians. None of them had anything to do with the fate of Austria's Jews! That was the work of those wicked Germans, and of course no Austrian worked for Greater Germany or the Nazi Party after the anschluss, no sirree!

As you may have gathered, I'm of the opinion that Austrians have engaged in 70 years of historical revisionism.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, they're definitely guilt-free, are the Austrians. None of them had anything to do with the fate of Austria's Jews! That was the work of those wicked Germans, and of course no Austrian worked for Greater Germany or the Nazi Party after the anschluss, no sirree!
> 
> As you may have gathered, I'm of the opinion that Austrians have engaged in 70 years of historical revisionism.



I have a Bavarian friend who lives in Vienna, she's furious with the Austrian's portrayal of themselves as victims


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I have a Bavarian friend who lives in Vienna, she's furious with the Austrian's portrayal of themselves as victims



Simon Wiesenthal used to emphasise Austria's complicity and the fact that their victimhood was a sham at every opportunity. Supposedly he refused offers from rich US Jews to move his institute to the US or Israel for years, because he believed it was necessary to make Austrians face up to reality, rather than wallow in their victim fantasy.


----------



## hot air baboon (Feb 24, 2015)

ibilly99 said:


> I heard it live this morning the single worse interview I have ever heard in my short 53 years - she is ill apparently.





....oh....my....frikkin...._*god*_.....that was unbelievably horrible to listen to.....

"....Ay'm sorry I 'ave a cold...."







"Oh yes the Australian Green...what's wrong with it...?"

She's not opinin'! 'She's passed on! This poli is no more! She has ceased to be! 'She's expired and gone to meet 'er maker! 'She's a stiff! Bereft of life, she rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'er to the perch she'd be pushing up the daisies! etc ...etc...


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2015)

Shit as that obviously was, do people _actually_ a) vote influenced by party leaders performance in media interviews? And b) vote Green expecting a coherent, yet utterly imaginary, Green administration?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> This is where parties like UKIP sticking to a very simple message they have not pretensions of being a ruling party so float of the over policy issues and bang on about two or three key themes. It's the trick the Greens should learn, it's not particularly honest but it works. Trying to be the LidDems isn't going to work.



Based on this mornings performances Natalie wouldn't be able to "bang on about" half a theme let alone two or three. She was completely and utterly hopeless on both Today, LBC and the subsequent press conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

Brighton council infamously ranks 302nd out of 326 councils for recycling.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2015)

chilango said:


> Shit as that obviously was, do people _actually_ a) vote influenced by party leaders performance in media interviews? And b) vote Green expecting a coherent, yet utterly imaginary, Green administration?


I don't believe so.


> And then we have Ukip and the Greens.  Both, overwhelmingly, see their vote as being about sending a message, rather than requiring a coherent policy programme. For Ukip voters, the figures were 30% policy, 63% symbolic. For Green voters, it was 32% policy, 64% symbolic. (There weren’t enough responses for the SNP, or Plaid, to be analysed separately with any confidence). The net score – that is, the percentage selecting policy minus the percentage selecting the message – for each party is shown in the figure below.





> This shouldn’t be taken to mean that policy doesn’t matter to Green or Ukip voters (or indeed, that it is all that most Conservatives care about).  But most Green or Ukip voters clearly see the act of voting differently to the way most Conservatives voters (or indeed many Lib Dem and Labour voters) see it.
> 
> In particular, this might help explain why policy attacks on parties like the Greens or Ukip appear less effectual than they might normally be.  Pointing out to a Green or Ukip supporter that the sums don’t add up, or that a policy won’t work, might not matter much if the policies are less important than just sending a message.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 24, 2015)

Won't have done them any good either though and it's still extremely amusing


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 24, 2015)

chilango said:


> Shit as that obviously was, do people _actually_ a) vote influenced by party leaders performance in media interviews? And b) vote Green expecting a coherent, yet utterly imaginary, Green administration?



Wel, TBH, as im in a safe labour seat, i was thinking of voting green in the absence of any other vaguely leftwing alternative. Bennet's performance has definitely made that less likely.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2015)

chilango said:


> Shit as that obviously was, do people _actually_ a) vote influenced by party leaders performance in media interviews? And b) vote Green expecting a coherent, yet utterly imaginary, Green administration?



_assuming_ that the Greens are hoping to be this elections LibDems, hoovering up the votes of the malcontents who, while they may not be Green themselves, will happily use the Greens as a stick to beat the larger, more established parties with - then the Greens have to look like winners (within the protest party runners and riders..) to get those votes that might otherwise go to TUSC, or independants, or whatever.

looking like - and i cross-reference the 'great insults' thread - a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob who can't get a simple sentence out, will have those malcontents thinking 'nah, they're a bunch of idiots, lets vote monster-raving loony party/spunking cock instead..'.


----------



## bemused (Feb 24, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Won't have done them any good either though and it's still extremely amusing



I wasn't going to watch the TV debates, but if we can get the Greens and UKIP I'll get a curry and some beers to watch in front of the telly.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> I wasn't going to watch the TV debates, but if we can get the Greens and UKIP I'll get a curry and some beers to watch in front of the telly.



Better off doing something less depressing, if anything interesting happens then there will be highlights later on..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 24, 2015)

kebabking said:


> _assuming_ that the Greens are hoping to be this elections LibDems, hoovering up the votes of the malcontents who, while they may not be Green themselves, will happily use the Greens as a stick to beat the larger, more established parties with - then the Greens have to look like winners (within the protest party runners and riders..) to get those votes that might otherwise go to TUSC, or independants, or whatever.
> 
> looking like - and i cross-reference the 'great insults' thread - a bunch of retards trying to fuck a doorknob who can't get a simple sentence out, will have those malcontents thinking 'nah, they're a bunch of idiots, lets vote monster-raving loony party/spunking cock instead..'.



Let's just be clear the number of votes TUSC will get is so small as to simply not matter one way or the other to anyone


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 24, 2015)

She fucked it.
Can't help but think that when a male politico does the same the brouhaha is not half as great though.

Fuck the greens and politicos in general, but the bile directed at her has been fairly nasty. Fitting this all started with that nasty, racist, snobby, woman-hating, Islamaphobe, Nick Ferrari. Über cunt that he is.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Let's just be clear the number of votes TUSC will get is so small as to simply not matter one way or the other to anyone



in electoral terms i agree, but if their votes were lumped onto the greens it might save the Greens a shitload of deposits...

the Greens need every single vote they can get in every single constituancy they can get them in, losing non-green protest votes because of percieved fuckwittery might, _might_, cost them a seat they otherwise could have won. not that i see them getting to 5 seats, but one MP is an ammusing oddity, 3 or 4 might start to become important.


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Can't help but think that when a male politico does the same the brouhaha is not half as great though.



Depends on the situation. Including of course any backstory, e.g. Charles Kennedy where his terrible performances were of a nature that the press sensed they could push it all the way to revelations about his relationship with alcohol. Eventually. My memory is hazy of how long that story took to unwind, and what influenced the timing of particular revelations. I am not suggesting anything vaguely comparable is underfoot here, just giving a male example.



> Fuck the greens and politicos in general, but the bile directed at her has been fairly nasty. Fitting this all started with that nasty, racist, snobby, woman-hating, Islamaphobe, Nick Ferrari. Über cunt that he is.



It started before then, at least twice.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 24, 2015)

I rest my case.


----------



## elbows (Feb 24, 2015)

Well on a related note, I doubt we've utterly escaped accent-related prejudice either, especially when it comes to certain roles and what people are apparently looking for in leaders. Not that looking for leaders in general sounds entirely sane and rational in my book. And why are unconvincing liars more offensive than good ones?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 24, 2015)

elbows said:


> And why are unconvincing liars more offensive than good ones?



Contemptuous lack of effort


----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2015)

elbows said:


> ...And why are unconvincing liars more offensive than good ones?



at least convincing liars can do _something_ convincingly?


----------



## bluescreen (Feb 25, 2015)

BigTom said:


> The second part of your question is truly awful, the supposition being that people wouldn't like to live in a house that costs nothing (or close to nothing) to heat each winter. Wouldn't you like to live in a house with zero heating costs?
> 
> Your actual question, I am thinking of carbon / climate change more than general pollution concerns. My understanding is that it's very difficult to retro-fit a single skin house in such a way that would get it anywhere near being a passiv house. External insulation can get you close to a cavity wall house but even that's not great compared to what can be done, especially on terraced housing where the whole terrace would need to be done together - extremely difficult if there's not a single owner of that terrace - at least if you are rebuilding you can compulsory purchase order houses if needs be. There's a carbon/energy/pollution cost to retro-fitting the houses which you also need to factor in. That's a calculation to be made but over a long enough time frame (which may not be very long at all, I don't know if anyone has tried to calculate this or not) the new house will definitely use less energy and less carbon - just no idea how long it'd take for the relative extra carbon costs of rebuilding rather than renovating until you've made that back.


Not snarking here and you'll probably just say GIYF. I totally understand the need for passiv houses and if we are building new ones they are absolutely what we should build. But how does the carbon balance sheet look when we are demolishing houses that can cheaply be made sort-of OK vs new build? I'd like to see some figures on this, otherwise it can look like nice contracts.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 25, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Not snarking here and you'll probably just say GIYF. I totally understand the need for passiv houses and if we are building new ones they are absolutely what we should build. But how does the carbon balance sheet look when we are demolishing houses that can cheaply be made sort-of OK vs new build? I'd like to see some figures on this, otherwise it can look like nice contracts.


I'm not aware of anyone having tried to work out these figures unfortunately. 

It's not that cheap to do external insulation, my end terrace house was quoted at 18k a few years back, obviously a lot less than a new build but still significant.


----------



## chilango (Feb 25, 2015)

Local Labour people here are unedifyingly turning their guns on the Greens. Sometimes counter-productively IMO.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 25, 2015)

chilango said:


> Local Labour people here are unedifyingly turning their guns on the Greens. Sometimes counter-productively IMO.



Im not sure that's counter productive- the vast majority of people wouldn't think refusing to set a budget is a good idea


----------



## Coolfonz (Feb 25, 2015)

chilango said:


> Local Labour people here are unedifyingly turning their guns on the Greens. Sometimes counter-productively IMO.




Reading is going to be overrun by gherkins? Send them back to Gherklandia the salty vinegery dilly bastards.


----------



## Coolfonz (Feb 25, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> If you are coming from a radical/outsider position its even more important to be able to do this when you have the rare opportunity to state your case.



Double exactly. It's always about the dough. Why do Syriza and Podemos have economics academics up top? You have to play these cunts in their half of the field. Left Unity (et al) take note, do the fucking sums.


----------



## chilango (Feb 25, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Im not sure that's counter productive- the vast majority of people wouldn't think refusing to set a budget is a good idea



Aye. But the "vast majority of people" aren't considering voting Green anyway.

This battle is for the votes of those considering the choice between a vaguely radical looking protest vote and a tactical anti-Tory vote for Labour. 

All this kind of thing does is increase the Green's credibility as an anti-austerity protest vote.

So counter-productive in that sense.

Again, my feeling is that potential Green voters are (rightly) not considering what a "real life" Green administration would be like (and outside the handful of Green strongholds like Norwich and Brighton why should they?) but rather trying to figure out what message(s) their vote might contribute to. Same as with many potential UKIP voters.

People aren't stupid.

By and large they know they're not going to choose the government. But that they can contribute to one of the other narratives being played out in the election.


----------



## Coolfonz (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, they're definitely guilt-free, are the Austrians. None of them had anything to do with the fate of Austria's Jews! That was the work of those wicked Germans, and of course no Austrian worked for Greater Germany or the Nazi Party after the anschluss, no sirree!
> 
> As you may have gathered, I'm of the opinion that Austrians have engaged in 70 years of historical revisionism.


I've visited Vienna a good few times. Always thought we should have bombed its ass a bit more in WW2. (  ) Its like fash-statue heaven. Vikings with swords, Odin, men in chariots, sunwheels. Felt like any second they were going to round me up. Good techno scene mind.


----------



## chilango (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> For well-to-do white people they are.



For well-to-do White people most places are utopia in all honesty.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 25, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> I've visited Vienna a good few times. Always thought we should have bombed its ass a bit more in WW2. (  ) Its like fash-statue heaven. Vikings with swords, Odin, men in chariots, sunwheels. Felt like any second they were going to round me up. Good techno scene mind.



I've been to a lot of places around the world - and I know for a fact that Vienna is the only one of them I could never live in. The architecture you describe became genuinely oppressive after a week.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 25, 2015)

Some of the statutes on the Ringstrasse are ludicrous, and there's that massive Red Army monument which the Viennese refer to as 'the tomb of the unknown rapist'


----------



## ska invita (Feb 25, 2015)

out of interest, for the greens arent policies decided by conference as a wish list, and therefore the costing is done once they've already agreed to all the things theyd like to do?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> For well-to-do white people they are.


 Oh I don't know.
I know a very nice Thai woman who is doing very well for herself and her daughter in Switzerland.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 25, 2015)

I've met my local green candidate a number of times and he's pretty good ....he's certainly" involved " Pity he's not an independent , would have had my vote .


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Not snarking here and you'll probably just say GIYF. I totally understand the need for passiv houses and if we are building new ones they are absolutely what we should build. But how does the carbon balance sheet look when we are demolishing houses that can cheaply be made sort-of OK vs new build? I'd like to see some figures on this, otherwise it can look like nice contracts.


it wouldn't be cheap to make them 'sort of okay' - not to the extent needed. Especially when you consider how so many would need drastic remodelling in order to accommodate the kind of households who are currently homeless. It's not just a question of improving heating efficiency etc, it is the fact that there are simply too few homes for our needs. Half a million comes close to how many new homes are needed, but still doesn't quite cover everything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> I've visited Vienna a good few times. Always thought we should have bombed its ass a bit more in WW2. (  ) Its like fash-statue heaven. Vikings with swords, Odin, men in chariots, sunwheels. Felt like any second they were going to round me up. Good techno scene mind.



Did you go to the _Kunsthistoriches_ Museum? it wouldn't be so bad if most of the martial statues weren't either Habsburg rulers, or allegories of Habsburg rulers! Statue of Zeus? That's not a statue of Zeus, it's an allegorical representation of the world-spanning power and Olympian wisdom of some dead cousin-fucker called Habsburg!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2015)

chilango said:


> For well-to-do White people most places are utopia in all honesty.



True. Even in relative terms, most of us don't know we're fucking born.


----------



## youngian (Feb 25, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> I've visited Vienna a good few times. Always thought we should have bombed its ass a bit more in WW2. (  ) Its like fash-statue heaven. Vikings with swords, Odin, men in chariots, sunwheels. Felt like any second they were going to round me up. Good techno scene mind.


I never knew the old Vienna before the war with its Strauss music, its glamour and easy charm. Constantinople suited me better.


----------



## gosub (Feb 25, 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...t-meltdown-of-the-2015-election-so-far.html?x


----------



## youngian (Feb 25, 2015)

The ability to think on your feet in a tight corner is what differentiates a front line politician from the rest of us political anoraks. But I like Natalie Bennett on a personal level and I didn't feel the schadenfreude that I did with Cameron flailing with Pink News when asked why his party is in coalition with homophobic nutjobs in the EP. There's always the Boris option when you frequently can't answer a question; bluster out some noises, make an unfunny joke and say something in Latin. Just think what a 'character' Natalie could become.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 25, 2015)

I got stuck in Vienna for three days when a gig fell through in Bratislava.  Bank holiday weekend, waking up too late on a Saturday to make it to the shops before they closed for two and a half days.  Even right in the middle of the city nothing was open and nobody was about, proper 28 days later sort of atmosphere.  Everyone just fucks off on holiday.  I doubt it would have been much more exciting with people there.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 26, 2015)

youngian said:


> The ability to think on your feet in a tight corner is what differentiates *a front line politician* from the rest of us political anoraks. But I like Natalie Bennett on a personal level and I didn't feel the schadenfreude that I did with Cameron flailing with Pink News when asked why his party is in coalition with homophobic nutjobs in the EP. There's always the Boris option when you frequently can't answer a question; bluster out some noises, make an unfunny joke and say something in Latin. Just think what a 'character' Natalie could become.


 
Is that really the front line? It seems very very distant from the vast majority of everyday life, which is what politicians tell us they are trying to make better.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## youngian (Feb 26, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Is that really the front line? It seems very very distant from the vast majority of everyday life, which is what politicians tell us they are trying to make better.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Yes see your point, would the people at the top that are watched by millions on the telly if would be more accurate? Anyway there's no way I could think of a quick plausible answer to every subject going and I take my hat off to anyone who can, its a rare skill. I know its not very fashionable to praise the skills of politicians who are of course corrupt, useless and evil.  Whereas we're all brilliant.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2015)

Brighton Green reverse anti-cuts vote? I find this quite hard to follow but seems to the gist of it.



> Cuts of at least £20m to local services look certain to be agreed tomorrow as a tiny minority of ‘rogue’ Green councillors have overturned the party’s anti-austerity position ahead of a meeting to decide Brighton Council’s budget for the next year.
> 
> The twin-pronged attack on the party’s ‘anti-cuts’ position was agreed at a ‘crisis’ meeting last night.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2015)

So, what is the point of voting Green?, I've been having doubts about them, new councillors here could not be described as 'left wing', but what is the alternative?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Brighton Green reverse anti-cuts vote? I fin this quite hard to follow but seems to the gist of it.


 
Looks like a soft focus re-run of the relationship between the constituency Labour Party and Walworth Rd around the time of the poll tax...as I'm sure some current members of the local Green Party can remember.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Feb 26, 2015)

the alternative is to not vote green.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> the alternative is to not vote green.


 
Yep...although the alternative is increasingly not to vote at all since the gerrymandered Greens are offering the smallest cuts package.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> So, what is the point of voting Green?, I've been having doubts about them, new councillors here could not be described as 'left wing', but what is the alternative?



Not voting Green.

Bollocks - need to learn to read the thread to the end before replying


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Feb 26, 2015)

BigTom said:


> The second part of your question is truly awful, the supposition being that people wouldn't like to live in a house that costs nothing (or close to nothing) to heat each winter. Wouldn't you like to live in a house with zero heating costs?
> 
> Your actual question, I am thinking of carbon / climate change more than general pollution concerns. My understanding is that it's very difficult to retro-fit a single skin house in such a way that would get it anywhere near being a passiv house. External insulation can get you close to a cavity wall house but even that's not great compared to what can be done, especially on terraced housing where the whole terrace would need to be done together - extremely difficult if there's not a single owner of that terrace - at least if you are rebuilding you can compulsory purchase order houses if needs be. There's a carbon/energy/pollution cost to retro-fitting the houses which you also need to factor in. That's a calculation to be made but over a long enough time frame (which may not be very long at all, I don't know if anyone has tried to calculate this or not) the new house will definitely use less energy and less carbon - just no idea how long it'd take for the relative extra carbon costs of rebuilding rather than renovating until you've made that back.


Even if that is the case, there is the small matter of compulsorily purchasing millions of houses from people living in settled communities who do not want to leave. Even if there was enough money to do so, history suggests such forced resettlements do not work out well for those evicted against their will.

It is worth repeating, construction is a horribly polluting industry.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 26, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> Even if that is the case, there is the small matter of compulsorily purchasing millions of houses from people living in settled communities who do not want to leave. Even if there was enough money to do so, history suggests such forced resettlements do not work out well for those evicted against their will.
> 
> It is worth repeating, construction is a horribly polluting industry.



Yeah, I can't disagree with that, and I don't know what the best solution would be, unless you could work out a way to do a (more or less) like for like replacement of homes so people would move for a shortish period and then have a right to return if they wanted to. I don't think there'd be anything ideal here, but I think it's going to be necessary for us to replace that housing stock in order to have a zero-carbon economy. Unless you could build homes individually (which I doubt) in which case you could set about purchasing all those empty houses and replacing them and putting them back in use. Probably daydreaming there though, and it'd be more expensive and less time efficient to do for sure, if it was even possible at all.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Brighton Green reverse anti-cuts vote? I find this quite hard to follow but seems to the gist of it.


Perhaps some of the Green Party members on the boards could tell us what they think of this. They all seemed to have vanished.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 27, 2015)

Will these councillors be expelled for fundamentally going against stated party policy? (rhetorical question btw)


----------



## the button (Feb 28, 2015)

Tough choices, difficult decisions, and so on.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 28, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, I can't disagree with that, and I don't know what the best solution would be, unless you could work out a way to do a (more or less) like for like replacement of homes so people would move for a shortish period and then have a right to return if they wanted to. I don't think there'd be anything ideal here, but I think it's going to be necessary for us to replace that housing stock in order to have a zero-carbon economy. Unless you could build homes individually (which I doubt) in which case you could set about purchasing all those empty houses and replacing them and putting them back in use. Probably daydreaming there though, and it'd be more expensive and less time efficient to do for sure, if it was even possible at all.


just to point out that zero carbon should never be seen as being the only important factor - sustainability should place as much emphasis on the community element of things as it does on the environmental element.

Mass forced relocations . dispersals of strong working class communities have almost always led to the destruction of the cohesion of those communities, and what goes back in it's place is no longer a strong community, just a collection of individuals who happen to live there, but without the roots for them to really give a shit about the place.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 28, 2015)

free spirit said:


> just a collection of individuals who happen to live there, but without the roots for them to really give a shit about the place.



I agree with the rest of your point entirely but just point out there are either strong communities or potentially strong communities - almost never realistically just collections of individuals.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Brighton Green reverse anti-cuts vote? I find this quite hard to follow but seems to the gist of it.



http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1182...ke_an_agreement_on_council_budget/?ref=twtrec

The comments are worth a skim.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 28, 2015)

Clear illustration of the point I was making up-thread. If you're going to refuse to pass a budget, you better have significant public support for that approach already in place.

( ... and ideally an angry mob waiting for Pickles et. al. when they show up to put the Anschluss in place.)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1182...ke_an_agreement_on_council_budget/?ref=twtrec
> 
> The comments are worth a skim.


I see there was some consensus, though...


> They voted to keep on funding political party assistants for each party and to protect the mayor's office from cuts.


----------



## tbtommyb (Feb 28, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Perhaps some of the Green Party members on the boards could tell us what they think of this. They all seemed to have vanished.


of what?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> of what?


Of the pro-cuts shenanigans in brighton.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> of what?


Of the motion


> [The Green Party] adopts a policy of support for the Green budgetary proposal to call a referendum on a 5.9% Council Tax increase; and requests that all Green Party Councillors vote in line with this policy and support the Green Party’s budget proposal at Thursday night’s Budget Council meeting


If the story in the link BA provided is true then the argument that the scab-labour employing Brighton Greens were an exception doesn't hold, as this policy was driven by the parties National Council.

So are the Greens on here going to continue the line below?


AuntiStella said:


> Brighton have done plenty of positive hings including introducing a living wage and equalising pay for women while labour voted with the Tories. The Labour Party have been evicting ordinary families in favour of developers and joining in with the social cleansing of London and the only socialists I can find are in the Green Party.



Or do they oppose this motion and plan to oppose it, and if so how?


----------



## mk12 (Feb 28, 2015)

So, they spend ages trying to convince broadcasters to include their leader in the election debates...

...and now they're asking broadcasters to limit appearances by their leader in the election debates.

http://gu.com/p/46876


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 1, 2015)

the sense of middle class entitlement is palpable


----------



## tbtommyb (Mar 1, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Of the motion
> 
> If the story in the link BA provided is true then the argument that the scab-labour employing Brighton Greens were an exception doesn't hold, as this policy was driven by the parties National Council.
> 
> ...



well literally all I know it is what I just read here, so it appears that the Brighton Greens are trying to partially offset central gov cuts by raising local taxes, and a substantial proportion of their councillors are opposing that and advocating no budget.

It does seem mad that the local party's decisions aren't binding on their councillors.


----------



## tbtommyb (Mar 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the sense of middle class entitlement is palpable


yes because making a request in a negotiation is such an entitled thing to do .

oh well, maybe one day a left splinter of a renegade faction of the TUSC will break through and maybe some people on Urban will finally be pleased.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 1, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> oh well, maybe one day a left splinter of a renegade faction of the TUSC will break through and maybe some people on Urban will finally be pleased.



what is it with you 0000111 0011 111100000011000 idiots?


----------



## tbtommyb (Mar 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what is it with you 0000111 0011 111100000011000 idiots?


i don't know, i guess i don't just think the same things as you because i'm just not smart enough


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 1, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> i don't know, i guess i don't just think the same things as you because i'm just not smart enough


not very good at this debate lark are you? (something you have in common with Natalie Bennett I supose)

People point out the hypocrisy and laughable sense of entitlement of the Greens - you assume that means support for TUSC. There are more than two options in the world you know.

It's not about agreement it's about understanding how to engage with others in a constructive way, something that is clearly difficult for you.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 1, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> yes because making a request in a negotiation is such an entitled thing to do .
> 
> oh well, maybe one day a left splinter of a renegade faction of the TUSC will break through and maybe some people on Urban will finally be pleased.



As a Green Party supporter would you like to comment on Brighton council reneging on their anti-cuts pledge?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> As a Green Party supporter would you like to comment on Brighton council reneging on their anti-cuts pledge?


tbf, I'm not sure that they've actually yet been able to agree amongst themselves to renege on their pledge.


----------



## tbtommyb (Mar 1, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> not very good at this debate lark are you? (something you have in common with Natalie Bennett I supose)
> 
> People point out the hypocrisy and laughable sense of entitlement of the Greens - you assume that means support for TUSC. There are more than two options in the world you know.
> 
> It's not about agreement it's about understanding how to engage with others in a constructive way, something that is clearly difficult for you.


No I dont, the first part of my post was  commenting on the supposed sense of entitlement. The second part was about the general inclination on here to shit on anything that's not hard left.

Your post wasn't constructive, it was a sneer.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 1, 2015)

50 pages soon


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 1, 2015)




----------



## rich! (Mar 1, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> I've been to a lot of places around the world - and I know for a fact that Vienna is the only one of them I could never live in. The architecture you describe became genuinely oppressive after a week.



got to spend a few days there later this month. Will attempt to avoid outside


----------



## rekil (Mar 1, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> 50 pages soon


50 Shades Of Shit.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2015)

copliker said:


> 50 Shades Of Shit.


Fertiliser Doolittle


----------



## tbtommyb (Mar 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> As a Green Party supporter would you like to comment on Brighton council reneging on their anti-cuts pledge?


So, to respond (also Spanky Longhorn my previous one was rush-typed on a phone, I'll try and be better here).

First of all, despite being a Green Party supporter I don't follow Brighton politics that closely, beyond what's reported here. As far as I understand it, the Brighton council pledged to be anti-cuts to the extent that they could. The recent anti-cuts pledge was from the local party, the motions of which have no bearing on the councillors (which i think is a mad set-up, but anyway). So I'm not quite sure of the terms of your statement. But as someone who supports the Greens primarily because they are anti-austerity, I think the councillors should be much more aggressive in opposing cuts.

However, it's a question of what's achievable. the infographic in the page I linked to is quite illustrative, in that the 'rebel Green' position either leads to the fewest cuts, if they succeed, or the most cuts, if CLG take over. Would they succeed? Do they, as a minority council, have the popular support in Brighton to not pass a budget and defy central government? I don't know, really, but I doubt it. But then what use is an anti-austerity council that is so hamstrung by central government cuts? I think maybe sim667 posted up thread about people not really knowing what a government working in their interest would look like as it's been so long. I can see why many in the council think that raising local taxes to mitigate the cuts is the best they can achieve in their situation, and it's worth pointing out that they're more ambitious there than any of the other parties.

Maybe an intermediate step should be for the Greens to pass compromises now and explicitly seek to gain a mandate/popular support for a true no cuts budget.

I think this thread is interesting because it all essentially boils down to the eternal left-wing question of how to effect the change you want. You can:

1) Effect gradual change through the current system
2) overhaul the whole system because it's unreformable, or
3) It doesn't matter anyway as ecologically we're all fucked.

I think 3) won't really happen because in the rich world we'll muddle through the transition to a somewhat sustainable society. We could do it much more quickly, but that would require challenging current power structures, so instead we'll do it more slowly without big changes. This slow transition will be at the expense of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world who will suffer the greater effects of climate change, but when has the rich West ever concerned itself with the lives of hundreds of millions of poor people?

I don't think 1) really works because it is only ever a temporary ceding of wealth and power, not a permanent change in structures, e.g. post-1945 welfare state, and can be rolled back whenever the powerful choose to. Plus it doesn't deal with the fundamental issues.

So I have sympathy with many in this thread, who I assume go for 2). I think there is growing recognition that the current system is broken. Even the Evening Standard a few weeks ago had an article about 'how to fix capitalism'. It was written by a Rothschild and full of bollocks, but the fact that the ES recognises that capitalism is in crisis is significant. But the question then is 'how?' I look around and I simply don't see any viable, popular alternative. If there was some sudden, significant collapse in the political order in the UK I think a reactionary right-wing party would be more likely to take control.

I do think that we need a radical overhaul of our current system, but I think we need to build up a popular, broad based understanding and desire for what the alternative could be, which is why I currently support the Greens.

An element of this perennial debate is whether you work to improve workers' living situations in the short-term at the expense of the long-term, or let things get worse and then push through to a new, truly better system in the future. I think that in favouring the latter you can underestimate how much truly worse things can get without getting any better.

I support the Greens because I genuinely believe that their stated policy aims, such as a citizen's income and worker/common ownership are radical enough to not only improve people's living standards in the medium-term but *also *can help create a common understanding of how a new, overhauled system could work. I think that this is what sets them apart from Labour. Labour will always position themselves slightly to the left of the Tories and have given up on any kind of vision. I don't think their policies are radical enough to use a basis for a different society.

Will the Greens manage to achieve any of this? I really don't know. They run the danger, like Labour in the 20s, of trying to be seen as a 'party of government' and abandoning what defined them. I do think they should be stronger about challenging the assumptions of the current political class. Like with this whole furore over the costing of their social housing policy - who seriously gives a fuck? I strongly think we need more social housing and I'll vote for a party that offers that. Am I suddenly going to not vote for that because it's not fully costed? Why is that important? That's what you use the civil servants for when you get into power, or you borrow on the capital markets because using cheap government borrowing to fund a massive programme of social housing sounds like a great idea to me. Should I suddenly back the Tories' plan to take from the poor and give to the rich because they've got the Treasury to fully cost how they'll do it? Absolute bollocks.

But anyway, this post is very long because I'm dumping all of my thoughts about the Greens. To be honest I find it odd that so many here (or a vocal minority at least) are so anti-Green. Yes, they are fairly bourgeois, but they're also polling well on what is a pretty radical policy statement. I think that should be seen as a promising sign for the left, but instead this thread is full of people complaining that support isn't going to TUSC or Left Unity or whatever ideological pure party. I just don't see such parties ever having sufficient electoral support to be able to make an alternative system seem achievable. Probably the Greens won't do that either, and I'll just go back to trying to make my local community a better place and fuck everything else, but I think they're worth a punt.

tl;dr: Yes the Greens aren't the hard left but then that won't work either and we're all fucked anyway so just try and do good to your neighbour.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 2, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Perhaps some of the Green Party members on the boards could tell us what they think of this. They all seemed to have vanished.


That article was written before the vote.



> *Green-controlled Brighton & Hove City Council failed to set a budget last week after six Green councillors voted against implementing cuts.*


https://marchthefury.wordpress.com/tag/brighton-green-party/

As far as I can figure it out, 6 Green Councillors voted against the GP proposal for 5.9% council tax increase and £20 million cuts, to ensure that didn't pass, the entire green party councillors voted against the tory and labour proposals, then refused to support the labour proposals when the chief exec tried to bang heads together and get a budget agreed, so the meeting ended with no budget agreement.



> At around 10pm, the Chief Executive announced that a deal that would see Labour’s planned 1.99% tax boost proposal passed ~ with a few amendments on free parking, mayoral bling and youth services to buy Tory and UKIP support and a one year-reprieve for the threatened children’s centres ~ could attract majority support.
> 
> But the Greens pulled the plug ~ and after a further 45-minute adjournment officers and Mayor Brian Fitch decided to call it a day, with deliberations set to resume on Tuesday after three days of crises talks.



http://fignews.info/2015/02/27/brighton-council-refuses-to-set-cuts-budget-at-epic-7-hour-meeting/

I'm not sure what went on with the reported national gp involvement. I'll see if I can get any clarification on that, but I'm a bit new so can't promise I'll get a response. I'd thought it was just that the local councillors had called another meeting with more members at it / voting by proxy, and got the previous decision overturned, but I'm not sure where I got that from now.

ps I've been pleasantly surprised by how left wing all the Green Party candidates and activists I've met so far have been. There probably will be a few who aren't so left wing, but virtually all the new support is coming from the left, or at least left wing enough to be anti-austerity, anti cuts, anti privatisation, anti-neoliberalism etc. Nothing like the lib dems, other than maybe that the grassroots are probably more left wing than those at the top, but those at the top seem relatively left wing and happy to be described as green on the outside, red on the inside, which isn't exactly something that Clegg would have come out with.

I now seem to be designing the local leaflets, and just a leaflet with clear anti-austerity policies highlighted passed for print without anyone objecting (other than wondering how well known the word austerity was). 

It does feel like quite a different party to the one I had brief dealings with 10-15 years ago, and it seems that the more left wing of former lib dem and labour supporters are moving to Greens. The Green surge in membership has definitely been largely / almost entirely from the left, so unlike the lib dems, the Greens as a party are moving further left as they come into the election. Though struggling a bit for the capacity to attempt to integrate such a big increase in membership - eg new members meeting in a house for the local party, trying to crowd 20 new members into a living room, as they'd not expected so many people to come.

Though the conference next weekend will really show where the core activists are at on this. I'm a bit nervous that there's 1300 at the conference making the decisions on behalf of 50,000 membership, as that 1300 will mostly be the longer term members so may not really reflect the current membership that well. Time will tell, I can't go anyway as it's my brother's stag do.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2015)

You say 6 councillors voted against the cuts budget (with UKIP) - well 15 green councillors voted for cuts.


----------



## treelover (Mar 2, 2015)

This is still important, yet I have just googled for msm coverage of the issue and can find nothing.

btw, a lot of councillors/high profile members are small business owners, in fact there seems to be a growing trend amongst progressive activists, but especially the young,  to see 'independent businesses' as something to be fetishized.


----------



## elbows (Mar 2, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You say 6 councillors voted against the cuts budget (with UKIP) - well 15 green councillors voted for cuts.



Pesky facts. Down with emissions, yay for omissions.


----------



## killer b (Mar 2, 2015)

deja vu. it's 2010 all over again...


----------



## elbows (Mar 2, 2015)

On the bright side, whether its Russell Brand or the Green party getting attention, it provides me with several excuses to listen to a number of Dead Kennedys tracks.


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> On the bright side, whether its Russell Brand or the Green party getting attention, it provides me with several excuses to listen to a number of Dead Kennedys tracks.



by that well known Green Party member and candidate, Jello Biafra


----------



## elbows (Mar 2, 2015)

belboid said:


> by that well known Green Party member and candidate, Jello Biafra



Only about 10 of the green deciders thought he was a better choice than Ralph for their 2000 presidential candidate though, shucks.


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> Only about 10 of the green deciders thought he was a better choice than Ralph for their 2000 presidential candidate though, shucks.


sooner or later, you're gonna listen to Ralph Nader


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2015)

killer b said:


> deja vu. it's 2010 all over again...


except Clegg was a better media performer


----------



## bluescreen (Mar 2, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> except Clegg was a better media performer


I'm wondering what Cameron knew about Natalie Bennett that other people didn't.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 3, 2015)

Ive joined the Greens. I was in Labour-stopped voting for them after 97. The greens are a bit shite in some respects-theyve got a shite leader. Some silly policies-but a lot of the stuff I do agree with-they arent perfect but on balance they're closer to my beliefs than any other party of their size and bigger


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2015)

Grandma Death said:


> Ive joined the Greens. I was in Labour-stopped voting for them after 97. The greens are a bit shite in some respects-theyve got a shite leader. Some silly policies-but a lot of the stuff I do agree with-they arent perfect but on balance they're closer to my beliefs than any other party of their size and bigger



I think I'd rather join PASOK than the Greens.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 3, 2015)

I would rather join the BNP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> I would rather join the BNP.



Careful, mate. La Pennionara may be taking notes!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> I would rather join the BNP.



_Saying what we're all thinking._


----------



## gosub (Mar 3, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> I'm wondering what Cameron knew about Natalie Bennett that other people didn't.


I think the benefit is the other way round, he wanted her in the debates to help split Labour vote. As it is, every time she opens her mouth she loses votes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2015)

gosub said:


> I think the benefit is the other way round, he wanted her in the debates to help split Labour vote. As it is, every time she opens her mouth she loses votes.



I think it's a double edged sword; if the Greens did well they'd take votes from Labour but if they can't defend their plans for building council homes etc they give Cameron a big run up for the "typical Lefties want to spend all your tax money" schtick.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 3, 2015)

Brighton Greens vote with Labour's amendment for a 1.99% council tax increase - 26 yes 19 no 2 abstain.


----------



## tbtommyb (Mar 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I see there was some consensus, though...


My understanding is that the Greens proposed to do away with that.



> We’re also hearing that the Tories and Labour voted down a Green proposal to protect services for the vulnerable by getting rid of paid party political advisers, as well as a proposal for a 6% rise in council tax to prevent further cuts.



I'm trying to find the council minutes to confirm whether that's actually true.

If it is true that a 5.9% increase would have required a referendum it does seem odd to have picked a number that would raise about as much as the referendum costs.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2015)

So three of the six green rebels caved - or did they abstain? Abstaining is caving anyway. So at least 16 greens voted for the cuts - possibly 18.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 12, 2015)

Would anyone like to attend a champagne fundraiser*? Lead candidates and senior party officials will be in attendance.

*Minimum donation £1000

https://my.greenparty.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?id=78


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 12, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Would anyone like to attend a champagne fundraiser*? Lead candidates and senior party officials will be in attendance.
> 
> *Minimum donation £1000
> 
> https://my.greenparty.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?id=78



Could this be some sort of black propaganda to get people to dismiss the greens as a bunch of middle-class twats?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 12, 2015)

TBH I'm guessing that the Greens actually are a bunch of middle-class twats, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. 

Meanwhile, I think I'm in London for that, so maybe I can find time to go and throw dog-shit at their dickie suits and posh frocks.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 13, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Could this be some sort of black propaganda to get people to dismiss the greens as a bunch of middle-class twats?



Not sure any black propaganda is necessary for that to be the reaction.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 13, 2015)

I mean I can understand that they need to raise funds, that's fair enough.

Duplicating the mechanisms by which other other parties end up in hock to a bunch of dodgy millionaire, rather less so.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 13, 2015)

Greens have fewer ethnic minority candidates than any other party, including Ukip


----------



## J Ed (Mar 13, 2015)

Interesting, isn't it? Especially since the US Green Party has more than a few prominent black and Hispanic members. Then again I get the impression that the US Greens are a lot more proletarian than the UK Greens.


----------



## elbows (Mar 13, 2015)

What was the leaders performance like on Question Time?


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2015)

Much better.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Much better.



To be fair she'd have probably had to murder a child live in air or something for it to be any worse!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 13, 2015)

Mr.Bishie - did you have the fairly obvious looking *damage limitation* leaflet through your door shortly after the non-agreement meeting? 
It loudly proclaimed a reduction in council tax/cuts on the first side...'WOULD YOU LIKE THAT?  '...and then was all next year, maybe on the back.
I'm annoyed with myself cos I saved it, intending to upload it but I can't find it now (and can't find it online).

I had a doorstepper a few days later, too and told him I was torn by the disparity of beliefs in the party and that I'd been appalled by the encouragment of scabbing during the bin strike (cos I fucking WAS)......and he acknowledged that and then spewed forth on the advantage of Caroline as a local candidate....and I reminded him that she had PICKED UP RUBBISH herself...and he did the gracious thing of reminding me of all the GOOD STUFF she does....and then I got a bit bored  and when he asked if I had any more questions, I simultaneously REALLY wanted to ask about the council meeting but also couldn't be arsed.
I say that cos I was cooking the fucking dinner and I don't have enough confidence in my knowledge to argue a point.

He asked how likely they were to get my vote blah blah and I said not very.

I actually haven't got a fucking clue, still - it's driving me a bit nuts.



Something else I'd like to say though, while I'm here 

I was brought up by mum, a single parent.
Her parents were communists and she is too.
She's been a committed trade union activist, too - also very involved in her local community, always.
I have always taken my politics from hers, iykwim - but without a tenth of the effort  - I went to sleep to the lull of voices from downstairs (she couldn't fuck off elsewhere, so she brought the meetings home).

I feel like a total cock now  but I'm saying something along the lines of us all getting our ideas of what is *right*, which set in, early on.....but asking that you lot that are really confident with your knowledge just don't always shoot people down when they ask questions.

I think there are a whole heap of people who're after learning more - and this is a perfect place to do it - but it's intimidating asking.

Blah, blah.
.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 13, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Would anyone like to attend a champagne fundraiser*? Lead candidates and senior party officials will be in attendance.
> 
> *Minimum donation £1000
> 
> https://my.greenparty.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?id=78





> _After feedback from our membership, supporters and donors, the Green Party Executive decided not proceed with this event.  Instead there will be equal opportunity for all donors of the Breakthrough Appeal(1) to be one of 150 who will join our leadership and candidates for a 'Wear Something Green thank you event'.  _


Fairly swift response to membership feedback, though wtf they were thinking....


----------



## elbows (Mar 13, 2015)

Note the lyrics, 'I thought yellow was pretty but green the prettiest thing I seen'. Clearly another lib dem defector.


----------



## elbows (Mar 13, 2015)

We don't want no acid rain,
Have another glass of green champagne,
Put the poor out of their pain,
Restore the population to a level thats sane.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 13, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> .


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 13, 2015)

Err geerd....okay *nerves*


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 13, 2015)

Cmon, spit it out!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 13, 2015)

I put it back!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 13, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> I put it back!



The Greens in Brighton don't represent either of us, never have done, never will. Self serving cunts, the lot of 'em.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 13, 2015)

Oh yeah, I do know that....I just don't know what to do with it now.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2015)

elbows said:


> What was the leaders performance like on Question Time?



Ignore Treelover; Natalie Bennett managed roughly the same level of coherence as Charles Kennedy, who sadly looks like he's drinking again, and wasn't allowed to talk much. Thing is a) he's not a leader and in fact his political career is over and b) what's her excuse?


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 14, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> Mr.Bishie - did you have the fairly obvious looking *damage limitation* leaflet through your door shortly after the non-agreement meeting?
> It loudly proclaimed a reduction in council tax/cuts on the first side...'WOULD YOU LIKE THAT?  '...and then was all next year, maybe on the back.
> I'm annoyed with myself cos I saved it, intending to upload it but I can't find it now (and can't find it online).
> 
> ...



Nowt wrong with what you're saying, say more. And at communism's approach you might get to hang some Greens. It's the plebian way and it won't cost a grand, either.


----------



## starfish (Mar 14, 2015)

I should maybe pay more attention to whats going on locally then is the general gist i get from this thread.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 14, 2015)

Just watched that Question Time and Charles Kennedy was drunk. Not really acceptable for the BBC to have put him in front of the cameras TBH (especially as they are probably the one's who plied him with booze)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 14, 2015)

Poor coalition MP my heart bleeds


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2015)

I'd need a skinful to appear on QT. How else are you supposed to deal with all them dickheads you have to talk to


----------



## kenny g (Mar 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd need a skinful to appear on QT. How else are you supposed to deal with all them dickheads you have to talk to



A couple of pipes?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2015)

worth noting sainted churchill was pised but 'allowing it' pissed morning noon and night throughout the second world war. He wouldn't get out of bed before he'd had a doube brandy ffs


----------



## kenny g (Mar 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> worth noting sainted churchill was pised but 'allowing it' pissed morning noon and night throughout the second world war. He wouldn't get out of bed before he'd had a doube brandy ffs



It looked like Charlie Kennedy had had a few more than a double though..


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 16, 2015)

kenny g said:


> Just watched that Question Time and Charles Kennedy was drunk. Not really acceptable for the BBC to have put him in front of the cameras TBH (especially as they are probably the one's who plied him with booze)



Pissheads tend to find/consume booze on their own steam, I'm not sure you can blame the beeb.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 16, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Fairly swift response to membership feedback, though wtf they were thinking....



That they were still in the LibDems?


----------



## rekil (Mar 27, 2015)

Irish Green Party deputy leader Catherine Martin.


> “What I don’t like is populist politics. I think there’s a danger that some of the other smaller parties are populist and you can’t have that. You can’t be against everything without presenting an alternative,” she explained.


In the 2011 election, the greens got 1.8% and lost all of their 6 seats.


----------



## rekil (Mar 30, 2015)

This in its own way is even worse than Labour's one.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2015)

View attachment 69445[/QUOTE]


copliker said:


> This in its own way is even worse than Labour's one.
> 
> View attachment 69445


no it isnt


----------



## andysays (Mar 30, 2015)

copliker said:


> This in its own way is even worse than Labour's one.
> 
> View attachment 69445



Why do you think it's worse?


----------



## rekil (Mar 30, 2015)

andysays said:


> Why do you think it's worse?


Because it's not representative of their views, particularly on population. They should have mugs with stuff from their policy page on them.




			
				GenocidalButGreen said:
			
		

> There is a need to explicitly consider population since, if it is ignored indefinitely, the risk of over-consumption of natural resources will increase, leading to conflict and ultimately a reduction in carrying capacity.


----------



## rekil (Mar 30, 2015)

"Carrying capacity". 

Chilling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 30, 2015)

the malthusian streak cannot be ignored


----------



## andysays (Mar 30, 2015)

copliker said:


> Because it's not representative of their views, particularly on population. They should have mugs with stuff from their policy page on them.



There's a difference between a party's long term position about population and their immediate position regarding migrants, especially when they're seeking to find a slogan to stick on a mug (and presumably in response to the Labour Party's mug).

If we're simply talking about slogans about migration on mugs, I have to say I prefer the Greens, although I'd rather they used green printing on a white mug - I wouldn't want to drink my coffee out of that thing


----------



## rekil (Mar 30, 2015)

andysays said:


> There's a difference between a party's long term position about population and their immediate position regarding migrants, especially when they're seeking to find a slogan to stick on a mug (and presumably in response to the Labour Party's mug).
> 
> If we're simply talking about slogans about migration on mugs, I have to say I prefer the Greens, although I'd rather they used green printing on a white mug - I wouldn't want to drink my coffee out of that thing


Can you not spot some grubby opportunism when you see it?


----------



## andysays (Mar 30, 2015)

copliker said:


> Can you not spot some grubby opportunism when you see it?



Grubby opportunism is the nature of the game they've chosen to play (I don't support them in that or everything they do/stand for).

I'm taking issue with the idea that it's worse than Labour's one - had you said "as bad in it's own way", I probably wouldn't have bothered


----------



## Patteran (Mar 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the malthusian streak cannot be ignored



A mug to dip your streak in


----------



## JTG (Apr 2, 2015)

Trying to explain to convinced Greenies why they're shit is a waste of energy eh


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2015)

I prefer to just troll them (irl and online) with bolivian arse wasp type stuff - much more fun and doesn't lead to stress/frustration/loss of hair


----------



## JTG (Apr 2, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> I prefer to just troll them (irl and online) with bolivian arse wasp type stuff - much more fun and doesn't lead to stress/frustration/loss of hair


Saying that their lack of a convincing class analysis (yes I know that locally sourced organic candy floss for all is party policy but anyway...) prevents me from taking them seriously is met with bemusement. Which is kind of a justification for the scepticism really.

Oh, I get asked "who's better then?". Which is never an argument in favour of anyone


----------



## elbows (Apr 2, 2015)

JTG said:


> Trying to explain to convinced Greenies why they're shit is a waste of energy eh



If we stop wasting that energy then we must let the green party know, so they can feed that energy saving into their carry capacity formula. A few more humans may be allowed to be conceived if we do our bit for the struggle.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2015)

JTG said:


> Oh, I get asked "who's better then?".



Pretty much fucking anyone IMO.


----------



## JTG (Apr 2, 2015)

elbows said:


> If we stop wasting that energy then we must let the green party know, so they can feed that energy saving into their carry capacity formula. A few more humans may be allowed to be conceived if we do our bit for the struggle.


I shall write to my local branch forthwith


----------



## elbows (Apr 2, 2015)

Green mugs for green mugs.

Encouraging the consumption of hot beverages lowers our ultimate carry capacity, oh the horror.


----------



## elbows (Apr 2, 2015)

Speaking before the debate, green leader has reassured members of the press that she won't be crap tonight. Because she hasn't got a cold this time, she's got the facts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2015)

If anyone fancies a bet I'll offer odds of 50-1 to anyone willing to wager that she's right about that.


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2015)

She wasn crap. The least polished performer, for sure. But what she said...neck and neck with Woods.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 2, 2015)

Sho was ok. I don't want a polished performer though - I'd like someone who believes what they are saying.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 2, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Sho was ok. I don't want a polished performer though - I'd like someone who believes what they are saying.



Which is tricky. Succeed & then scab.


----------



## JTG (Apr 3, 2015)

I'm being told on facebook that I 'don't understand how the party has changed' just because I'm concerned about the actual things their party did in office in the very recent past/present.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 4, 2015)

Paul Gravett on the shameless use of Barry Horne to try and win a few votes for the Greens:

https://network23.org/redblackgreen/2015/04/03/715/


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 4, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Sho was ok. I don't want a polished performer though - I'd like someone who believes what they are saying.


her delivery was terrible but i agreed with what she was actually saying. she didn't get involved in the scrambles too much. she did make a few good attempts to reframe the debate, especially around immigration.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 8, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2015)

fucking hell


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> fucking hell



Fucking hell good or fucking hell bad?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2015)

in some ways it is breathtaking


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2015)

I want cameron to do a rap now.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 8, 2015)

omg, what is it with parties doing songs? Not a bad slogan, change the tune, but that's just awful.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I want cameron to do a rap now.



You'll have to content yourself with mIchael gove 



Spoiler


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2015)

I feel that PD needs to step up with their own strong number now.

Perhaps a reworking of Shyfx's 'Original Nuttah'


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I feel that PD needs to step up with their own strong number now.
> 
> Perhaps a reworking of Shyfx's 'Original Nuttah'



Nope this is what the PD cadre will lead the masses in singing; short, simple and catchy it looks forward to the glorious workers future...job done.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2015)

to me, to you. Has marxism ever been described so succinctly as this?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 8, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Nope this is what the PD cadre will lead the masses in singing; short, simple and catchy it looks forward to the glorious workers future...job done.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



The thought of a haunting acapella of this sung by a thousands strong choir at wembley stirs the soul


----------



## rekil (Apr 8, 2015)

Lil Wayne's one about the Workers Bomb will do.

Drop, drop, drop, what what what
After you back it up then stop
What, what, wha, drop it like its hot
After you back it up and stop
What, what, wha, drop it like its hot
Now drop it like it's hot, drop drop it like its hot
Drop it like it's hot, drop drop it like it's hot
Make em' drop it like its hot, drop drop it like its hot
Drop it like it's hot, drop drop it like it's hot


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2015)

well that one is either about the WB, or possibly a potato fresh from the oven


----------



## J Ed (Apr 8, 2015)

Actual footage prior to launch of workers' bomb


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 8, 2015)

BigTom said:


> omg, what is it with parties doing songs? Not a bad slogan, change the tune, but that's just awful.


when i first heard about it i thought it would be dire but it's better than i expected. this is going to go out as a party political broadcast, right? at least people might watch it then.

the actors don't look enough like clegg etc though to work really well.


----------



## chilango (Apr 8, 2015)

J Ed said:


>




I wanted to hate that.

But, y'know what?

I couldn't.

I actually ended up thinking it was alright.

I think I'm going native here in middle england!


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 9, 2015)

i also like the line that 'the only wasted vote is one you don't believe in.'

My labour-voting friends seem to believe that Labour has an automatic right to the vote of anyone to the left of the tories.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2015)

J Ed said:


>



What the fuck did I just watch? Think I'm gonna need therapy now


----------



## rekil (Apr 9, 2015)

chilango said:


> I wanted to hate that.
> 
> But, y'know what?
> 
> ...


It's like something that would turn up on a Rory Bremner show. That's not an endorsement - it's just fairly professionally produced.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

copliker said:


> It's like something that would turn up on a Rory Bremner show. That's not an endorsement - it's just fairly professionally produced.


Did they give the 'boy-band' a name?


----------



## rekil (Apr 9, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Did they give the 'boy-band' a name?


I'm not watching it again to find out.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 9, 2015)

copliker said:


> I'm not watching it again to find out.


Crap name.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2015)

Look at the credits:

Creative Director - Stu Outhwaite, Ben Middleton, Ed Warren
*Creative - James Mitchell*
Strategist - James Mitchell
Agency producer - Madeline Smith 
Account team - Dan Shute, Katrina Ellis
Client - The Green Party 
Director - Johnny Hopkins

The directer has worked for Macdonalds and Peugeot and, worst of all, made this.


----------



## chilango (Apr 9, 2015)

Like I said, I wanted to hate it. I expected to hate it. But _for what it was _it was alright.

That's not an endorsement btw.

Just a reaction.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2015)

It's not so bad with the sound off and subtitles on. Luckily my laptop seems to have decided to refuse to play sounds any more so that's my only option.

I was watching it through gritted teeth though and don't want to watch it again though, especially not with the sound on. It's getting some mixed reactions from GP members too.


----------



## gosub (Apr 9, 2015)

won't be a Green candidate in Basingstoke coz the ERO rejected a nomination with 2 different names on it.
Their facebook page explains :"
For the Parliamentary Election we have submitted a joint application on behalf of Sarah Cope and Clare Phipps, this has been rejected as current rules mean that only one candidate can stand for parliamentary election, job-sharing is not an option for MPs - we hope that a judicial review will take place to look into this as a result of their application.

Currently women, who disproportionately take on caring responsibilities and disabled people, whose physical challenges can prohibit full-time work are woefully under-represented in the House of Commons - we'd like to see that changed."


----------



## ska invita (Apr 10, 2015)

The green party had a rap video election broadcast in the pre-internet 90s with Darren Johnson on the m i c . Sadly still not surfaced on youtube







cant bring myself to watch this new one


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Did they give the 'boy-band' a name?



Green Party Posse.


----------



## Coolfonz (Apr 10, 2015)

I thought it was fairly funny, one or two decent lines, and it made its point.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2015)

articul8 could you take some time out of your busy campaigning for your labour party mate after bullying the tusc candidate to withdraw to tell us why your attack on the green party in the latest red pepper isn't on-line - don't you want to make a difference?


----------



## isvicthere? (Apr 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


>




When I saw this (changing channels for Eggheads) my jaw hit the floor. It's the most entertaining PPB I've ever seen.

Some observations:-

1) Of the "boyband", the "Cameron" most resembled the real thing.

2) The UKIP one was a bit older and less attractive than the others, a possible dig at their demographic.

3) The line "we all agree on tuition fees" was accompanied by the "Clegg" character smugly winking to camera.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> articul8 could you take some time out of your busy campaigning for your labour party mate after bullying the tusc candidate to withdraw to tell us why your attack on the green party in the latest red pepper isn't on-line - don't you want to make a difference?


Err... The coverage of the Greens in the mag was balanced but critical... The timing of what appears on the web and when isn't in my immediate control.  Did you see the feature on Lisa from class war?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 12, 2015)

That green party video has now had more than a million views online (over 500k each on facebook and youtube), so it looks like whoever made it did know what they were doing.


----------



## Mad-Martin (Apr 13, 2015)

Green Party are just Lib/Cons in disguise. Total waste of time


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 14, 2015)

manifesto here: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto.pdf



> We need to remake society. And in this remaking we need to finally realise that consumer capitalism is the problem, not the solution. The solution lies in a democratically managed economy that operates within the Earth's resource limits.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> manifesto here: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto.pdf


What makes you feel their manifesto is shit?


----------



## killer b (Apr 14, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> manifesto here: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto.pdf


the bit you've quoted looks pretty much true to me?


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> the bit you've quoted looks pretty much true to me?


yeah, i like most of it tbh. perhaps could have been laid out better with the main policies at the top of each section rather than finding things like 'abolish tuition fees' halfway down a bullet pointed list.

e2a: also the financial annex is quite funny - 'here's our growth assessments from last time, see how the coalition's ones were way out, hmmm?'


----------



## killer b (Apr 14, 2015)

shouldn't you be posting it in the 'why the greens are great' thread then?


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> shouldn't you be posting it in the 'why the greens are great' thread then?


is there one? I thought this one had moved on to actual discussion.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2015)

Nice bit of green arrogance at work there._ It's  our thread now, we'll decide what it's for and how it should be conducted._


----------



## rover07 (Apr 14, 2015)

> Imagine a political system that puts the public first. Imagine an economy that gives everyone their fair share.
> 
> Imagine a society capable of supporting everyone’s needs. Imagine a planet protected from the threat of climate change now and for the generations to come. That’s the world we want to create and we believe we have the means to do it.
> 
> ...



Sounds pretty good to me. Gets my vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2015)

mug


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 16, 2015)

dunno

i might be tempted to vote for this policy


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

Tell the greens aren't the new lib-dems:


----------



## mk12 (Apr 20, 2015)

I just went to a talk by the local Green candidate. He said all the right things. There's (almost) nothing he said that people on here would disagree with. Renationalisation, living wage, tax the rich. However, there's something about the Greens that makes me sceptical towards them, but I can't articulate it very well. I think the candidate, nice as he was, confirmed my suspicions today when he discussed the Brighton/bin strike debacle. He said that they reduced the bin workers' wages as a way to bring about pay equality between men and women. Someone asked him to expand, and he said the bin workers in Brighton were particularly 'militant', and other workers, who also lost out, didn't complain. He defended the Green council because it was part of a financial restructuring, or something or other. Am I right in thinking they are left-wing in the Guardian-reading, middle-class, patronising, smug, elitist sense, rather than in a pro-working-class, trade unionist, self-organisation sense?


----------



## JTG (Apr 20, 2015)

mk12 said:


> He said that they reduced the bin workers' wages as a way to bring about pay equality between men and women. Someone asked him to expand, and he said the bin workers in Brighton were particularly 'militant', and other workers, who also lost out, didn't complain. He defended the Green council because it was part of a financial restructuring, or something or other. Am I right in thinking they are left-wing in the Guardian-reading, middle-class, patronising, smug, elitist sense, rather than in a pro-working-class, trade unionist, self-organisation sense?


Is that the party line on it then? Whenever I ask them about it I get 'not our fault, minority administration blah'


----------



## belboid (Apr 20, 2015)

It's an odd way of putting it, to say the least.  The usual Green Left defense is more along the lines of that of their Kemptown candidate - http://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-pay-dispute-at-brighton-council-a-green-view/


----------



## Nylock (Apr 21, 2015)

mk12 said:


> I just went to a talk by the local Green candidate. He said all the right things. There's (almost) nothing he said that people on here would disagree with. Renationalisation, living wage, tax the rich. However, there's something about the Greens that makes me sceptical towards them, but I can't articulate it very well. I think the candidate, nice as he was, confirmed my suspicions today when he discussed the Brighton/bin strike debacle. He said that *they reduced the bin workers' wages as a way to bring about pay equality between men and women*. Someone asked him to expand, and he said the bin workers in Brighton were particularly 'militant', and other workers, who also lost out, didn't complain. He defended the Green council because it was part of a financial restructuring, or something or other. Am I right in thinking they are left-wing in the Guardian-reading, middle-class, patronising, smug, elitist sense, rather than in a pro-working-class, trade unionist, self-organisation sense?


...so dropping men's pay instead of _raising _women's pay for the sake of 'parity'? righto then.... seems legit....


----------



## articul8 (Apr 21, 2015)

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/when-greens-govern/


----------



## chilango (Apr 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> http://www.redpepper.org.uk/when-greens-govern/



Look forward to a similar "when Labour governs" article...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 21, 2015)

chilango said:


> Look forward to a similar "when Labour governs" article...


see 1997 - 2010 passim


----------



## chilango (Apr 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> see 1997 - 2010 passim



...yet you still are an active Labour member, pointing fingers at Green records?

Hmmm.

An issue of credibility pops up for me here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2015)

chilango said:


> ...yet you still are an active Labour member, pointing fingers at Green records?
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> An issue of credibility pops up for me here.


it's incredible that anyone here still listens to anything he says.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 21, 2015)

I didn't author the article - it's accompanied by another piece looking more sympathetically at the case for a "green surge".


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> see 1997 - 2010 passim


yeh things like doubling the 10p tax rate
like waging aggressive war, several times
like criminalising dissent (before 9/11) - see for example the terrorism act 2000
there's nothing labour can teach anyone about doing good 
there's much they can teach about shitting on people


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I didn't author the article


and no doubt there's a good reason for that


----------



## chilango (Apr 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I didn't author the article - it's accompanied by another piece looking more sympathetically at the case for a "green surge".



You promoted it, here.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 21, 2015)

chilango said:


> You promoted it, here.


I was asked further up the thread why it wasn't online yet - so I've given the link


----------



## chilango (Apr 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I was asked further up the thread why it wasn't online yet - so I've given the link



Ok.


----------



## JTG (Apr 21, 2015)

Montpelier goes to Lawrence Hill:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...1/green-party-middle-class-bristol-west-video


----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2015)

JTG said:


> Montpelier goes to Lawrence Hill:
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...1/green-party-middle-class-bristol-west-video



What an uninspiring lot - all basic platitudes about democracy and the acquisition of power. No real interest in the people they were talking to at Lawrence Hill beyond them 'getting out of bed' for one day in the election cycle. They could be any party, really, except they are posher and whiter. Where's the passion about the injustice done to the unemployed and the disabled? The talk about nationalisations and workers' rights?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 22, 2015)

JTG said:


> Montpelier goes to Lawrence Hill:
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...1/green-party-middle-class-bristol-west-video


 
IWCA gets an approving name check in the comments section!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## rioted (Apr 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Where's the passion about the injustice done to the unemployed and the disabled? The talk about nationalisations and workers' rights?


I thought the Trots had the monopoly on that?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

JTG said:


> Montpelier goes to Lawrence Hill:
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...1/green-party-middle-class-bristol-west-video


Ashcroft released some bristol west polling on saturday - as long predicted (by both of us i think) labour walk home - look at that that green/lib-dem crossover as well


----------



## JTG (Apr 27, 2015)

Yep, been saying it since 2010. Had a bit of a wobble that the Greens would let Williams back in but when I saw that poll it seems not 

Seems that most new Green support has come from the Lib Dems (Bishopston/Redland springs to mind given the recent council results) but enough Lib Dems have gone straight to Labour to make it irrelevant


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 27, 2015)

Where are Labour going wrong in NW Bristol?  Tories taking Avonmouth in the local elections seems preposterous.  Are UKIP damaging the trad labour vote here more than the vermin vote?  Are there local factors?


----------



## JTG (Apr 27, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Where are Labour going wrong in NW Bristol?  Tories taking Avonmouth in the local elections seems preposterous.  Are UKIP damaging the trad labour vote here more than the vermin vote?  Are there local factors?


Leslie seems to have done well at the 'good constituency MP' thing - supporting the Henbury Loop campaign and backing Rovers v Sainsbury's (asked questions in the House and everything). The Rovers thing in particular has done her some good with the more middle class centre right type of BRFC fan in the NW suburbs.
I've only really seen Labour stakeboards and posters in the bits of NW I've been through lately but these are Lockleaze, poorer end of Horfield etc rather than the more Tory/swing bits of the constituency. I don't think Labour have made much impression there in the last five years, or even while Naysmith was still in situ


----------



## JTG (Apr 29, 2015)

Saw this on my facebook. Smuggest load of shit ever, ugh


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 29, 2015)

Christ that is shit, I wonder if it's one of Taffbhoy's?


----------



## Nylock (Apr 29, 2015)

wow, that's.... wow..... ....


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 29, 2015)

JTG said:


> Saw this on my facebook. Smuggest load of shit ever, ugh



yeah, I posted this too (in the "things divs post on Fb" thread), it's fucking awful, and was posted by a basically apolitical hippy who's really lovely but I would guess rather save a single snow leopard than a hundred doleys


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Apr 29, 2015)

S☼I said:


> yeah, I posted this too (in the "things divs post on Fb" thread), it's fucking awful, and was posted by a basically apolitical hippy who's really lovely but I would guess rather save a single snow leopard than a hundred doleys



Yet looking after the enviroment also helps people.

I've decided I'm probably voting Green anyway.  Another reason why the Green party is shit.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 29, 2015)

S☼I said:


> yeah, I posted this too (in the "things divs post on Fb" thread), it's fucking awful, and was posted by a basically apolitical hippy who's really lovely but I would guess rather save a single snow leopard than a hundred doleys



To be fair of the parties listed, apart from the Greens, I don't think a one of them gives a fuck about anything much

Individual spods probably do but as you get higher? Rarer than hens teeth.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 3, 2015)

To their credit, at least they can draw a bar chart properly.  Still has as a whiff of libdemmery about it.


----------



## JTG (May 3, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> To their credit, at least they can draw a bar chart properly.  Still has as a whiff of libdemmery about it.
> 
> View attachment 71028


There's a Green billboard down the bottom of the Stapleton Road (bizarrely, part of Bristol West despite being firmly in east Bristol) which has been routinely defaced and then patched up again. Anarchos and Green types at loggerheads over this one


----------



## bemused (May 4, 2015)

I'm going to vote Green, but Natalie Bennett is awful. Come back Caroline .... please.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-am-an-immigrant-says-Green-Party-leader.html


----------



## Sirena (May 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> They could be any party, really, except they are posher and whiter.



Ahem!  Deputy leader of the Greens





And my local Green candidate


----------



## tbtommyb (May 4, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Ahem!  Deputy leader of the Greens
> 
> And my local Green candidate



Undeniable though that the Greens have a lower proportion of BME candidates than the other parties, which is something that is being worked on.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 4, 2015)

edit: wrong thread


----------



## treelover (May 4, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> To their credit, at least they can draw a bar chart properly.  Still has as a whiff of libdemmery about it.
> 
> View attachment 71028



If I was in Caroline Lucas's constituency I would vote for her like a shot.

btw, the Dep Leader, I watch lots of political shows, etc, and I don't recall seeing him on any.


----------



## BlackArab (May 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> btw, the Dep Leader, I watch lots of political shows, etc, and I don't recall seeing him on any.



My thought too. I've only become aware of him in the last week but yet I've mentioned the lack of diversity in the GP to local Greens often and no one has ever disagreed or mentioned him. Makes me even more convinced than ever that they are indifferent to BME voters if they can't even be arsed to.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 4, 2015)

You'd think all the pro-Green articles in the Guardian over recent times would have at least _mentioned_ him. AFAIK none of those articles** have.

**Or only exceptionally obscure ones


----------



## BlackArab (May 4, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> You'd think all the pro-Green articles in the Guardian over recent times would have at least _mentioned_ him. AFAIK none of those articles** have.
> 
> **Or only exceptionally obscure ones



None I've seen either and I'm a regular reader with an interest in green matters. Bringing him out now does them no favours but I doubt they give a shit about that either.


----------



## BlackArab (May 4, 2015)

Now they're on a roll, I look forward to hearing about a white, working class member


----------



## William of Walworth (May 4, 2015)

Find out exactly what job they make him/her do in the local GP though


----------



## starfish (May 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> If I was in Caroline Lucas's constituency I would vote for her like a shot.
> 
> btw, the Dep Leader, I watch lots of political shows, etc, and I don't recall seeing him on any.


I do & in all likelihood I will do.

I'm a fan, not sure if that's the right word, of PR. Can't see the Greens winning anywhere else & their voice needs representing.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 4, 2015)

BlackArab said:


> Now they're on a roll, I look forward to hearing about a white, working class member


gross workerism, we must not make a fetish of people in directly productive labour in case they tell us to jog on


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 4, 2015)

BlackArab said:


> My thought too. I've only become aware of him in the last week but yet I've mentioned the lack of diversity in the GP to local Greens often and no one has ever disagreed or mentioned him. Makes me even more convinced than ever that they are indifferent to BME voters if they can't even be arsed to.



Perhaps they don't know about him - if the stories about the Green surge (as opposed to green serge) are true, then it's likely many of them are new and especially in a party that claims to be non hierarchical wouldn't have any need to know who he is? 

(I hate the Greens btw, but let's stick to legitimate criticisms eh?)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 4, 2015)

BlackArab said:


> Now they're on a roll, I look forward to hearing about a white, working class member


How about that guy that's the president of the RMT? Pretty sure he's White.


----------



## BlackArab (May 5, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Perhaps they don't know about him - if the stories about the Green surge (as opposed to green serge) are true, then it's likely many of them are new and especially in a party that claims to be non hierarchical wouldn't have any need to know who he is?
> 
> (I hate the Greens btw, but let's stick to legitimate criticisms eh?)



Maybe they don't need to know but it may have been of interest to potential BME voters


----------



## JTG (May 5, 2015)

BlackArab said:


> Maybe they don't need to know but it may have been of interest to potential BME voters


Think the Bristol East candidate is black

Not that it makes me any more inclined to vote for her


----------



## BlackArab (May 5, 2015)

JTG said:


> Think the Bristol East candidate is black
> 
> Not that it makes me any more inclined to vote for her



It seems that there are indeed some hidden BME candidates. Found out today a black woman I know from Bristol is standing in Lambeth, the local LP must be gutted a he would have been ideal for them.


----------



## BlackArab (May 5, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> How about that guy that's the president of the RMT? Pretty sure he's White.



I have no idea who he is but I was being tongue-in-cheek with that remark, I'm pretty ure they have a wc candidate in these parts


----------



## BlackArab (May 5, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Perhaps they don't know about him - if the stories about the Green surge (as opposed to green serge) are true, then it's likely many of them are new and especially in a party that claims to be non hierarchical wouldn't have any need to know who he is?
> 
> (I hate the Greens btw, but let's stick to legitimate criticisms eh?)



It is a legitimate criticism btw, ignoring BME votes have cost the Republican in the US and the Tories here in recent elections


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 5, 2015)

BlackArab said:


> It seems that there are indeed some hidden BME candidates. Found out today a black woman I know from Bristol is standing in Lambeth, the local LP must be gutted a he would have been ideal for them.


Might be Gulnar Hasnain ("I've never been active in politics") who's standing in Vauxhall- seems pretty posh to me, says some of the right things, hasn't got a hope against Kate Hoey:







Plus there's also Rashid Nix (who I went to college with and who saved me when i was skint by giving me a job in the SU) standing in Dulwich & West Norwood, working class guy who's possibly compromised his (slightly radical) politics a bit to stand for the Green Party.  Decent bloke and I think his heart is in the right place. Mate of Lee Jasper tho iirc. Again, doesn't stand a chance against Tessa Jowell.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 5, 2015)

BlackArab said:


> It is a legitimate criticism btw, ignoring BME votes have cost the Republican in the US and the Tories here in recent elections



what you said isn't at all. new activists in not familiar with party ins and outs shock


----------



## shifting gears (May 6, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Might be Gulnar Hasnain ("I've never been active in politics") who's standing in Vauxhall- seems pretty posh to me, says some of the right things, hasn't got a hope against Kate Hoey:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jowell is standing down - Helen Hayes is her replacement - who's had close to zero presence in the area and who's not exactly off to a flier given the recent revelation that she's a partner in the architectural firm responsible for planning the redevelopment of the Station Rd Arches. 

She'll still walk it, mind.

*spits


----------



## BlackArab (May 6, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what you said isn't at all. new activists in not familiar with party ins and outs shock



I never said they were new activists, stop jumping to conclusions.


----------



## BlackArab (May 6, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Might be Gulnar Hasnain ("I've never been active in politics") who's standing in Vauxhall- seems pretty posh to me, says some of the right things, hasn't got a hope against Kate Hoey:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Marie James, Princes Ward. I've known her for years but hadn't realised she was a Green or indeed standing until today. It is actually refreshing to see some diversity coming into the party as all I see locally are the real life equivalents of the Modern Parents. Living where I do (Montpelier, Bristol) it's not hard to sneer tbh


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Jowell is standing down - Helen Hayes is her replacement - who's had close to zero presence in the area and who's not exactly off to a flier given the recent revelation that she's a partner in the architectural firm responsible for planning the redevelopment of the Station Rd Arches.
> 
> She'll still walk it, mind.
> 
> *spits


Yeah of course I knew that and forgot,  doh. Yeah Helen Hayes doesn't even need to get out of bed to get voted in.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)

Rashid Nix's video is going down well locally… (though I expect you'll all be able to find the few holes in it…)


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 6, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Rashid Nix's video is going down well locally… (though I expect you'll all be able to find the few holes in it…)



"Plasterboard politicians"


----------



## J Ed (May 6, 2015)

I'm absolutely sickened by the effort that the Greens have put into Sheffield Hallam, they know that there is no chance they will get in and that every vote for them is a vote that could have gone towards unseating the yellow vermin. Also around Sheffield Hallam posters have appeared that say 'Don't be mean, vote Green' - fuck off.


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

all the fucks on facebook with their 'I'm voting Green' avatars and 'vote with your conscience' status updates. I want to stab them.


----------



## J Ed (May 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> all the fucks on facebook with their 'I'm voting Green' avatars and 'vote with your conscience' status updates. I want to stab them.



These sorts never seem to be able to produce any decent reasons as to why they are voting for the Green Party either. Continuity Lib Dems imo


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

Yeah, they're the same people who had 'I'm voting Lib Dem' in their avatars last time, and updates about 'backing hope' or suchlike.


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

oh, and a few conspiracy theorist/anti-fracking mentalists.


----------



## J Ed (May 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> oh, and a few conspiracy theorist/anti-fracking mentalists.



They seem to attract a LOT of the former


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> I want to stab them.



You should. No reasonable judge would convict you.


----------



## JTG (May 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> all the fucks on facebook with their 'I'm voting Green' avatars and 'vote with your conscience' status updates. I want to stab them.


Oh lord, tell me about it 

Woolly fucks


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2015)

I think they must send a 'social media talking points' script out with the membership card or something, I've had three of the bastards piously parrot the same bullshit on a blatant pisstake post on there.


----------



## JTG (May 6, 2015)

'Brighton wasn't our fault' is my favourite argument from them


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 6, 2015)

I've asked various people this over the past two years, never had a proper answer.


----------



## JTG (May 6, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I've asked various people this over the past two years, never had a proper answer.


They weren't really in charge apparently. A big boy did it and ran away


----------



## J Ed (May 7, 2015)

Has anyone else come across the phenomenon of newly converted yoghurt weavers that haven't _quite_ let go of Kony 20-- I mean Cleggmania? By that I mean they will claim to feel 'betrayed' by Clegg but if you talk about yellow vermin then they get personally offended, "_I voted for them in 2010_!"


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> 'Brighton wasn't our fault' is my favourite argument from them



Brighton was their fault through a mixture of careerism and naivety. It was also the fault of the previous Labour and Conservative administrations  through their deliberate inaction. And finally it was the fault of some council officers taking advantage of different Green's inexperience, naivety and greed to over egg the importance of the advice/information they provided.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Blagsta (May 7, 2015)

I'm thinking of voting green. Please help.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I'm thinking of voting green. Please help.



The party which once had David Icke as a Principal Speaker.


----------



## Blagsta (May 7, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The party which once had David Icke as a Principal Speaker.



Yes, that's good, keep 'em coming


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 7, 2015)

Caroline Lucas's best buddy in Westminster? Zac Goldsmith.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I'm thinking of voting green. Please help.



I voted em


----------



## CNT36 (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I'm thinking of voting green. Please help.


I'm thinking of voting Lib Dem. Shoot me.


----------



## Blagsta (May 7, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> I'm thinking of voting Lib Dem. Shoot me.



Gladly!


----------



## CNT36 (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Gladly!


It is probably the best of a bad bunch in my constituency. It is them (a relatively "rebellious" one) or the Tories. I still don't think I can do it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 7, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> I'm thinking of voting Lib Dem. Shoot me.



Why???


----------



## Blagsta (May 7, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> It is probably the best of a bad bunch in my constituency. It is them (a relatively "rebellious" one) or the Tories. I still don't think I can do it.



Don't do it!


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> It is probably the best of a bad bunch in my constituency. It is them (a relatively "rebellious" one) or the Tories. I still don't think I can do it.


They are the same.


----------



## frogwoman (May 7, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> It is probably the best of a bad bunch in my constituency. It is them (a relatively "rebellious" one) or the Tories. I still don't think I can do it.



Stay at home or vote spunking cock. Are labour not standing?


----------



## CNT36 (May 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why???


It is them or the Tories. Last time.


----------



## CNT36 (May 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Stay at home or vote spunking cock. Are labour not standing?


They can't win it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 7, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> It is them or the Tories. Last time.



Might have changed slightly tho. Why dont you vote for the spunking cock?


----------



## CNT36 (May 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> They are the same.


True. It's a young tory party line cunt or a Lib Dem who has voted against the coalition more than any other.


----------



## CNT36 (May 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Might have changed slightly tho. Why dont you vote for the spunking cock?


I've already checked and its tighter in the latest polls. I most likely will.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, that's good, keep 'em coming


U75's own MRA is voting for them.


----------



## 8ball (May 7, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> True. It's a young tory party line cunt or a Lib Dem who has voted against the coalition more than any other.


 
Seems reasonable to vote Lib Dem in this case.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I'm thinking of voting green. Please help.



I've done it....more than once! The world hasn't stopped turning and Brighton Pavilion has one of the better MPs in the House of Commons. I should add that I have low expectations of parliament.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. for clarification I haven't voted for the Greens more than once in this GE.


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> all the fucks on facebook with their 'I'm voting Green' avatars and 'vote with your conscience' status updates. I want to stab them.


Real nice, killer b .



killer b said:


> oh, and a few conspiracy theorist/anti-fracking mentalists.



And...me.

And our Parliamentary candidates are the only non-white candidates round here.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 7, 2015)

Buys-council-house-at-knockdown-price-for-cash Cllr Gus Hoyt is up for reelection in Ashley ward today.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2015)

lot of beardiness among the green candidates I've seen. Are bics bad for the ozone layer or some shit?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> And our Parliamentary candidates are the only non-white candidates round here.


Well that's great, they may be strikebreaker cunts but at least they're not white strikebreaking cunts.

You really think that's a reason to vote for them? Well at least you've managed to provide Blagsta  with another reason why he shouldn't vote for the pricks.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> lot of beardiness among the green candidates I've seen. Are bics bad for the ozone layer or some shit?


Yesterday, in reference to my current hirsuteness, my boss mockingly asked whether I was "moving to Southville"


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> Real nice, killer b .


give over - believe it or not, I don't want to stab anyone. That was a hyperbolic expression of my irritation at the ex lib-dems who're now greens posting wide eyed bullshit like they did last last time. You don't figure in that number. 



> And...me.
> 
> And our Parliamentary candidates are the only non-white candidates round here.


and... you. that doesn't dilute the conspiracy theorists and nutcases that much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> give over - believe it or not, I don't want to stab anyone. That was a hyperbolic expression of my irritation at the ex lib-dems who're now greens posting wide eyed bullshit like they did last last time. You don't figure in that number..


tbf I think there are also a fair number voting Green because, rightly or wrongly, they think they are the most 'old labour' choice out of the main parties.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> that doesn't dilute the conspiracy theorists and nutcases that much.



Until it finally took action against him in 2008, for a long time one of the most prominent activists in the Bristol Green Party was Tony Gosling (himself an occasional poster here)

http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Tony_Gosling

http://another-green-world.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/tony-gosling-suspended-from-bristol.html

https://greensengage.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/private-eye-spies-greens/

http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cul...sling-suspended-from-bristol-green-party.html


----------



## toblerone3 (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I'm thinking of voting green. Please help.


So am I


----------



## sheothebudworths (May 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> They weren't really in charge apparently. A big boy did it and ran away


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> give over - believe it or not, I don't want to stab anyone. That was a hyperbolic expression of my irritation at the ex lib-dems who're now greens posting wide eyed bullshit like they did last last time. You don't figure in that number.
> 
> and... you. that doesn't dilute the conspiracy theorists and nutcases that much.


Still - disturbing to read, even accepting that I am more sensitive to that word than most.

All the Greens I've come into contact with round here are all ex-Labour, including myself. All sound people. No doubt there is a section of conspiraloons but I believe people like us massively outnumber them now.



littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf I think there are also a fair number voting Green because, rightly or wrongly, they think they are the most 'old labour' choice out of the main parties.


This.


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Well that's great, they may be strikebreaker cunts but at least they're not white strikebreaking cunts.
> 
> You really think that's a reason to vote for them? Well at least you've managed to provide Blagsta  with another reason why he shouldn't vote for the pricks.


They're not strikebreaking cunts - you're mistaking them for people who actually took that action.

Did I say it was a reason to vote for them? No I did not. Don't put words into my mouth. And save your aggressive attitude for people who deserve it.


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> Still - disturbing to read, even accepting that I am more sensitive to that word than most.


TBH I'd completely forgotten you were standing, so low key has your campaign been on fb (this is a good thing). I'd have chosen my words with more caution had I remembered - apols if it upset you.


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> TBH I'd completely forgotten you were standing, so low key has your campaign been on fb (this is a good thing). I'd have chosen my words with more caution had I remembered - apols if it upset you.


I didn't see a point in putting energy into anything on FB. Saved it for reality, for the area I'm actually standing in.

Thank you.


----------



## sheothebudworths (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> They're not strikebreaking cunts - you're mistaking them for people who actually took that action.
> 
> Did I say it was a reason to vote for them? No I did not. Don't put words into my mouth. And save your aggressive attitude for people who deserve it.



Caroline Lucas was picking up rubbish _herself_ during the strike 
I voted for them last time around but I'm not this time and it's mostly down to that - they way they behaved here was fucking appalling and there is absolutely no justification for it.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2015)

soj, standing for the greens? thats my beardiness theory blown out of the water. Unless you're going to get a joke shop one for ceremonial occaisons


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> Caroline Lucas was picking up rubbish _herself_ during the strike
> I voted for them last time around but I'm not this time and it's mostly down to that - they way they behaved here was fucking appalling and there is absolutely no justification for it.


Caroline Lucas is in Brighton. The south. We are in the North. We don't do shit like that here.

Fair point for you though if you are in that area. I'd feel the same.


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> soj, standing for the greens? thats my beardiness theory blown out of the water. Unless you're going to get a joke shop one for ceremonial occaisons


  Nope, no jokeshop beard here dotty.


----------



## treelover (May 7, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> Caroline Lucas was picking up rubbish _herself_ during the strike
> I voted for them last time around but I'm not this time and it's mostly down to that - they way they behaved here was fucking appalling and there is absolutely no justification for it.



I suspect there are a couple of councillors here who would do the same during a strike, plenty of labour would do so to though, tbf.


----------



## sheothebudworths (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> Caroline Lucas is in Brighton. The south. We are in the North. We don't do shit like that here.
> 
> Fair point for you though if you are in that area. I'd feel the same.



Sorry, I've reread and see that you weren't denying that it'd happened (!) just that the Greens up _your_ way weren't involved - but yes, it is completely disheartening when a party that supposedly has a very strong theme of supporting low paid workers etc actively undermined their legal right to strike - and that coming from Caroline Lucas, in their flagship fucking seat  who'd actually looked to be a pretty good Green in many other respects.
I just cannot square that behaviour with some of their party's major policies - it's unforgivable, they ought to feel proper shame over that - and even more so as there's just been a stream of denial and putting the blame elsewhere since, too.


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

No denial here sheo. Like I said, I'd feel the same.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> Nope, no jokeshop beard here dotty.




if you win, you must deliver a victory speech in poesy form


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> if you win, you must deliver a victory speech in poesy form


Hehe - much has been made by my RL mates about a victory speech littered with fucks


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> Caroline Lucas is in Brighton. The south. We are in the North. We don't do shit like that here.
> 
> Fair point for you though if you are in that area. I'd feel the same.


Sure they didn't do something similar when in coalition with the tories running Leeds City council?


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Sure they didn't do something similar when in coalition with the tories running Leeds City council?


No, I'm not, but I AM sure you're just about dying to tell me. So go on - spill.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> No, I'm not, but I AM sure you're just about dying to tell me. So go on - spill.


I don't know if they did anything equivalent to what they did in brighton - though for many joining a coalition with the tories would itself be equivalent. I just thought it was a pretty relevant point to bring up in response to the brushing off of concerns about greens actions when in power on some parochial basis.


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know if they did anything equivalent to what they did in brighton - though for many joining a coalition with the tories would itself be equivalent. I just thought it was a pretty relevant point to bring up in response to the brushing off of concerns about greens actions when in power on some parochial basis.


I thought you knew something the way you posted. That's certainly what it seemed to suggest.

So they didn't, then? I can see why you did it, but...I found an article from 2008 while I was waiting which mentioned the lefties in the party were embarrassed by the coalition. Rightly so. Stunned me to read that. But as I mentioned above, from my knowledge/experience, a vast amount of the 'Green surge' counts socialists among the numbers. I think that might have an impact on future decisions about coalitions.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> I thought you knew something the way you posted. That's certainly what it seemed to suggest.
> 
> So they didn't, then? I can see why you did it, but...I found an article from 2008 while I was waiting which mentioned the lefties in the party were embarrassed by the coalition. Rightly so. Stunned me to read that. But as I mentioned above, from my knowledge/experience, a vast amount of the 'Green surge' counts socialists among the numbers. I think that might have an impact on future decisions about coalitions.


I certainly didn't say they _didn't _do anything equivalent in terms of actions (beyond suggesting that forming the coalition itself would be equivalent for many - me included) to what the brighton greens did. But a quick google reveals that they did in fact support the tories (and lib-dems) through a period of violent cuts against the poorest and most vulnerable.

The justification offered by the party nationally at the time was that as a decentralised party they cannot dictate what local parties choose to do. I'm all in favour of decentralising decision making and participation around a core set of principles - but when those principles stretch to a cuts coalition with tories and lib-dems i wonder what the point is? The local parties justification was _we're right to do this, fuck off._


----------



## sojourner (May 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I certainly didn't say they _didn't _do anything equivalent in terms of actions (beyond suggesting that forming the coalition itself would be equivalent for many - me included) to what the brighton greens did. But a quick google reveals that they did in fact support the tories (and lib-dems) through a period of violent cuts against the poorest and most vulnerable.
> 
> The justification offered by the party nationally at the time was that as a decentralised party they cannot dictate what local parties choose to do. I'm all in favour of decentralising decision making and participation around a core set of principles - but when those principles stretch to a cuts coalition with tories and lib-dems i wonder what the point is? The local parties justification was _we're right to do this, fuck off._


Yes, from what I've read, they did that for two years, then pulled out.  I've read that about Chris Rose now, so thanks for bringing it up. Shouldn't make such bold claims should I, in the bear pit? Not defending for a second a coalition which was part of making cuts, though as far as I can read no strikebreaking. 

Guess I was speaking from my own perspective and that of the people I know, around me.  All part of the learning process.


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> Caroline Lucas was picking up rubbish _herself_ during the strike


picking up some shit from outside your house isn't strike breaking any more than walking to work when there's a bus strike on is. Had she been collecting commercial waste - the stuff council's actually make money on - then that would have been different. If you've got dirty nappies and needles outside your home, you'd be a feckin idiot not to pick them up.

She (and the other collectors) should have gone and dumped their collections on the town hall doorstep, but, even without that, it isnt scabbing. As, iirr, the local GMB agreed.


----------



## starfish (May 7, 2015)

Will wait till ms starfish is home from work then we'll both go off & vote Green (Caroline Lucas). It's the only chance to have some Green representation & she'll side with Labour anyway in the event of a hung parliament.


----------



## sheothebudworths (May 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> picking up some shit from outside your house isn't strike breaking any more than walking to work when there's a bus strike on is. Had she been collecting commercial waste - the stuff council's actually make money on - then that would have been different. If you've got dirty nappies and needles outside your home, you'd be a feckin idiot not to pick them up.
> 
> She (and the other collectors) should have gone and dumped their collections on the town hall doorstep, but, even without that, it isnt scabbing. As, iirr, the local GMB agreed.



She wasn't collecting rubbish from outside her house.


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

Down the street.  Same difference.  It may not be the best way of supporting the strike, but it certainly isnt scabbing.


----------



## chilango (May 7, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I'm thinking of voting green. Please help.



I ended up voting Green.


----------



## The Boy (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> Nope, no jokeshop beard here dotty.



It's real?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 7, 2015)

chilango said:


> I ended up voting Green.


Don't panic, there's probably a Twelve Steps programme available for people in your predicament.


----------



## chilango (May 7, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Don't panic, there's probably a Twelve Steps programme available for people in your predicament.



I just wanted to join in to be part of it all...


----------



## emanymton (May 7, 2015)

chilango said:


> I ended up voting Green.


We're going to need a bigger wall.


----------



## miktheword (May 7, 2015)

Green candidate urges supporters to vote Labour
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-neck-uk-votes#block-554b635be4b0fd459e538e8a



Here’s a rare case of a candidate who doesn’t want any votes – and may not even mark an X next to his own name. James Parker, the Green candidate for the south London marginal of Eltham, has told his supporters they should give their votes to Labour, Jessica Elgot reports.

Parker, whose south London constituency is a Labour seat with a slim marginal of under 1,700 votes, told the Guardian he wanted to see Ed Miliband as prime minister. 

“If you are voting Green in Eltham as a protest, do vote for Clive Efford, the Labour candidate,” Parker said. “If you really feel Green in your heart, then vote for me, but it is more important that we don’t have a Conservative government.”

Parker, who said he was genuinely still torn as to whether he would vote for himself, said he was hoping for Green victories in some of the closer seats, like Brighton Pavilion and Bristol West, but said he did not want people to vote Green where candidates, like him, could not win and where Labour was battling Tories.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 7, 2015)

chilango said:


> I ended up voting Green.



It's only a vote you've given them; not your immortal soul.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. you didn't sign anything in blood did you?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 7, 2015)

I voted Green. I'm in a safe tory seat, if I wasn't I'd have voted Labour. If the Greens get a lot of votes nationally it'll send the message that a lot of us still care very much about climate change despite it being almost completely ignored during this campaign.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 7, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I voted Green. I'm in a safe tory seat, if I wasn't I'd have voted Labour. If the Greens get a lot of votes nationally it'll send the message that a lot of us still care very much about climate change



And drug law reform.   When we were discussing voting at work today (& i declared my intentions) one of my colleagues actually asked who the Green party are.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

sojourner said:


> They're not strikebreaking cunts - you're mistaking them for people who actually took that action.


Oh sorry, they're not actual strike-breakers, they just enabled and promoted the strike-breaking. Brilliant.



sojourner said:


> Did I say it was a reason to vote for them? No I did not. Don't put words into my mouth. And save your aggressive attitude for people who deserve it.


What words did I put into your mouth? Your post gave a single reason to support the Greens, the race of the candidates you are standing. Call me crazy but I find it pretty concerning when a supporter of a (supposedly) progressive party uses such a factor as a reason for why people should vote for their party. If you don't think that is a reason why people should vote for them why did was it the sole issue mentioned in your post?


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Oh sorry, they're not actual strike-breakers, they just enabled and promoted the strike-breaking. Brilliant.


No they didn't. Or Lucas didn't anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> No they didn't. Or Lucas didn't anyway.


Lucas maybe not, the councillors certainly did they employed the scab labour, if that isn't promoting strike breaking then what is?


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

Major fuck up, that's for sure.  Kitkat is clearly a complete cunt


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Lucas maybe not, the councillors certainly did.



I think Lucas will perform significantly better than her council colleagues in today's elections.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think Lucas will perform significantly better than her council colleagues in today's elections.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I reckon she'll hold it, year ago before the Labour fade I thought they'd managed to take it back but now she seems safe.

TBH I think Lucas is decent enough but the refusal of any Green I've met to deal with the strike issue has permanently put me off them. I mean look at this thread, whether it's free spirit, AuntiStella or sojourner none of them are able to do anything but offer meanly mouth justifications of the actions - hell AS actually defended it! 

Sorry, but fuck that! This is a deal breaker, I couldn't be part of a group that was willing to accept such actions - they should have thrown Kitkat and the rest of the scum out.


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-pay-dispute-at-brighton-council-a-green-view/

Does the best job I've seen of explaining what happened, and why it cant (shouldn't) happen again


----------



## comrade spurski (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> I reckon she'll hold it, year ago before the Labour fade I thought they'd managed to take it back but now she seems safe.
> 
> TBH I think Lucas is decent enough but the refusal of any Green I've met to deal with the strike issue has permanently put me off them. I mean look at this thread, whether it's free spirit, AuntiStella or sojourner none of them are able to do anything but offer meanly mouth justifications of the actions - hell AS actually defended it!
> 
> Sorry, but fuck that! This is a deal breaker, I couldn't be part of a group that was willing to accept such actions - they should have thrown Kitkat and the rest of the scum out.



I am about to go and vote green party. I understand your view re strike breaking and would prefer to vote for tusc but unfortunately that candidate is a long standing swp member who stayed in that party after that whole delta case so i can not bring myself to vote for anyone who remained in the swp after the way their party behaved.
My only other candidates are the main 3 and ukip.
Used to vote labour (97, 92 and 97) as i just wanted the tories out. In 2001 i voted socialist alliance, 2005 i voted respect and in 2010 i voted tusc...so it feels a bit weird voting green than socialist but like i said...just can't vote for anyone who stayed in the swp.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2015)

Johnny Vodka said:


> And drug law reform.   When we were discussing voting at work today (& i declared my intentions) one of my colleagues actually asked who the Green party are.




hey and maybe they'll also allow you to look at cartoon kiddie porn, thats freedom right fucking there. Twat.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

I'm not having a go at anyone who votes Green, I don't think I've criticised people for voting for any party, bar LibDem. Personally I see voting as pretty much apolitical and I'm not going to consign people to the outer darkness for making a mark next to party I reckon are crap. It's what we do the rest of the time that really matters.

But Kitkat and the rest of his prick mates are fucking dicks and deserve any shit they get, and the Green Party as a whole can't escape scot free. Local parties should have significant freedom from the centre but if there's room in your party for those who employ scab labour then I don't want have anything to do with you. And I think it's perfectly fair to pick up GP members on this issue, the fact that when you do most of them seem either to accuse you of bullying or just refuse to answer both tells you something about them and is worthy of criticism.


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2015)

Bristol Greens are a complete disgrace. The worst sort of beardy, hipster, liberal, self-employed 'entrepeneurs' who will happily campaign to hold back the development of two of Bristol's sporting institutions in order to maintain the level of Bishopston house prices. They don't know how many thousands of people they've pissed off


----------



## belboid (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not having a go at anyone who votes Green, I don't think I've criticised people for voting for any party, bar LibDem. Personally I see voting as pretty much apolitical and am't not going to consign people to the outer darkness for making a mark next to party I reckon are crap. It's what we do the rest of the time that really matters.
> 
> But Kitkat and the rest of his prick mates are fucking dicks and deserve any shit they get, and the Green Party as a whole can't escape scot free. Local parties should have significant freedom from the centre but if there's room in your party for those who employ scab labour then I don't want have anything to do with you. And I think it's perfectly fair to pick up GP members on this issue, the fact that when you do most of them seem either to accuse you of bullying or just refuse to answer both tell's you something about them and worthing of criticism.


"it was a shit decision, but we were kinda conned, and we're still learning" - would be the least they could say, I'd hope


----------



## ozu (May 7, 2015)

Lucas defended the council on the bin workers pay dispute in this recent article:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/caroline-lucass-green-party-dilemma-natalie-bennett
The irony for Lucas is that many of her difficulties come from her own side. The Greens, who are running the local council without an overall majority, have not made themselves universally popular in the city by getting into a fight with the rubbish collectors, which resulted first in a strike and then in a work-to-rule protest.

It’s a complaint Lucas hears daily. “The council were actually trying to resolve a difficult situation in which there was a huge disparity between living allowances for male and female council workers,” she says. “But when people see litter piling up …” The rest of the sentence is left unfinished.


----------



## comrade spurski (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not having a go at anyone who votes Green, I don't think I've criticised people for voting for any party, bar LibDem. Personally I see voting as pretty much apolitical and I'm not going to consign people to the outer darkness for making a mark next to party I reckon are crap. It's what we do the rest of the time that really matters.
> 
> But Kitkat and the rest of his prick mates are fucking dicks and deserve any shit they get, and the Green Party as a whole can't escape scot free. Local parties should have significant freedom from the centre but if there's room in your party for those who employ scab labour then I don't want have anything to do with you. And I think it's perfectly fair to pick up GP members on this issue, the fact that when you do most of them seem either to accuse you of bullying or just refuse to answer both tell's you something about them and is worthy of criticism.



I hadn't  read anything from you that came across as having a go a green voters tbh...i was trying to say i agreed with you re the strike breaking in brighton and that it is dishonest and shitty to either justify it or to deny it as some have done on here. 
I especially agree that its what we do every other day that is really important.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> "it was a shit decision, but we were kinda conned, and we're still learning" - would be the least they could say, I'd hope


Yep, personally if I was in a similar situation I'd be arguing for expulsion of Kitkat and co.


----------



## Blagsta (May 7, 2015)

I voted Green. I just couldn't bring myself to vote Labour.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> hey and maybe they'll also allow you to look at cartoon kiddie porn, thats freedom right fucking there. Twat.



Wtf?  & drug law reform is about so much more than the individual's right to get high.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2015)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Wtf?  & drug law reform is about so much more than the individual's right to get high.


do you ever think about the rights of individuals in the context of how they should be able to protect against predatory interests, fiscal and otherwise? No? Is the sanctity of the individual the sum total of your politics?


----------



## Plumdaff (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry, but fuck that! This is a deal breaker, I couldn't be part of a group that was willing to accept such actions - they should have thrown Kitkat and the rest of the scum out.



Problem is the way that the Greens are structured there's little you can do if you're not in Brighton. The local party can do what it wants, no matter how much everyone else it the party despises KitKat. There was an attempt by the Green Left to make councilors commit to being anti cuts which almost succeeded, maybe new members should make another attempt. It's a left party membership wise with a fair few unprincipled councilors desperate to keep hold of their little niches no matter. Hopefully as the party grows the old deep greens will lose power. Who knows, I'm an ex member, not least for some of the problems you highlight. But there's some very decent people in the party.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> do you ever think about the rights of individuals in the context of how they should be able to protect against predatory interests, fiscal and otherwise? No? Is the sanctity of the individual the sum total of your politics?



Actually, I think the individual's freedom over their own body is important, but from a 'social inclusion' point of view, I don't think it helps anyone to dish out criminal records for possession of cannabis or pills.  And AFAIK kids from poorer areas and ethnic backgrounds are more likely to get stopped and searched and in trouble for this sort of stuff, with all the implications that has when looking for employment.  I don't think drugs should be legalised to allow companies to make shit loads of money - I'd restrict advertising heavily on drugs (including alcohol), as well as junk food, while recognising adults have a right to indulge (if they so desire) as safely as possible.

It needs to be proper regulation rather than decriminalisation - to protect users from contaminants and wavering purities.

I also think being Green, if done properly, is about the least selfish thing you can be.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2015)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Actually, I think the individual's freedom over their own body is important, but from a 'social inclusion' point of view, I don't think it helps anyone to dish out criminal records for possession of cannabis or pills.  And AFAIK kids from poorer areas and ethnic backgrounds are more likely to get stopped and searched and in trouble for this sort of stuff, with all the implications that has when looking for employment.  I don't think drugs should be legalised to allow companies to make shit loads of money - I'd restrict advertising heavily on drugs (including alcohol), as well as junk food, while recognising adults have a right to indulge (if they so desire) as safely as possible.




all true and all things I know about- the ongoing jailing of the working classes for drug charges is something I have seen first hand, in jail. Of course the med hatch was there to dispense their pills. But single issue 'I wanna be able to do mephedrone' wailing ranks pretty fucking low in the list for me. Lets sort out normal problems first and then we can adress the esoteric


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 7, 2015)

ozu said:


> Lucas defended the council on the bin workers pay dispute in this recent article:
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/caroline-lucass-green-party-dilemma-natalie-bennett
> The irony for Lucas is that many of her difficulties come from her own side. The Greens, who are running the local council without an overall majority, have not made themselves universally popular in the city by getting into a fight with the rubbish collectors, which resulted first in a strike and then in a work-to-rule protest.
> 
> It’s a complaint Lucas hears daily. “The council were actually trying to resolve a difficult situation in which there was a huge disparity between living allowances for male and female council workers,” she says. “But when people see litter piling up …” The rest of the sentence is left unfinished.



It runs far deeper than that. Bin wagon drivers weren't being recognised as skilled HGV drivers, & van collection drivers were going to be paid the same wage/grade. Kitkat was a fucking careerist twat, & the Greens thought they'd be able to get away with cutting the lowest paid jobs within the council without a fight. Well, he ran into a brick wall, & the only thing left for him was to run away. The refuse & recycling stats in the UK detrimentally show what a complete & utter fuck up the Greens made of Brighton.

e2a: Lucas scabbed. She picked & bagged rubbish on Elm Grove. And if wasn't for Lucas, all the middle/upper class cunts in Brighton would vote Tory.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> all true and all things I know about- the ongoing jailing of the working classes for drug charges is something I have seen first hand, in jail. Of course the med hatch was there to dispense their pills. But single issue 'I wanna be able to do mephedrone' wailing ranks pretty fucking low in the list for me. Lets sort out normal problems first and then we can adress the esoteric



If you've read recent posts of mine on this topic, you'll see i'm unsure about how addictive stims would be regulated, despite having enjoyed meph.

Drug laws impact on all sorts of important issues, from jailing the working classes to access to medicine. They are not trivial.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 7, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Problem is the way that the Greens are structured there's little you can do if you're not in Brighton. The local party can do what it wants, no matter how much everyone else it the party despises KitKat. There was an attempt by the Green Left to make councilors commit to being anti cuts which almost succeeded, maybe new members should make another attempt. It's a left party membership wise with a fair few unprincipled councilors desperate to keep hold of their little niches no matter. Hopefully as the party grows the old deep greens will lose power. Who knows, I'm an ex member, not least for some of the problems you highlight. But there's some very decent people in the party.


But the party must be able to expel people, I know anti-semites like Gosling and Icke were expelled. Why can't it expel the Brighton councillors?


----------



## Plumdaff (May 7, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> But the party must be able to expel people, I know anti-semites like Gosling and Icke were expelled. Why can't it expel the Brighton councillors?



There would have to be the political will, particularly on a local level. And there wasn't.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 8, 2015)

Special hero's mention to SpackleFrog who stood for TUSC in a council ward a Green councilor was up for re-election. If the vote of the Green and SpackleFrog combined would have been enough to win it. Now in a way I hope the people who voted TUSC wouldn't touch the green vermin with a shitty stick but it is perfectly possible (and the greens with their victim mentality will definitely believe) that he split the vote enough to lose them a seat


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2015)

> It’s a complaint Lucas hears daily. “The council were actually trying to resolve a difficult situation in which there was a huge disparity between living allowances for male and female council workers,” she says. “But when people see litter piling up …” The rest of the sentence is left unfinished.




I have a lot of time for the Greens here, well some of them, but they seem to adhere an almost religious status to picking up litter.


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2015)

The Greens lost the most deposits, apparently. More than even the LibDems.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> I have a lot of time for the Greens here, well some of them, but they seem to adhere an almost religious status to picking up litter.



Nothing wrong with that tbf.


----------



## coley (May 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> I have a lot of time for the Greens here, well some of them, but they seem to adhere an almost religious status to picking up litter.


Crack the littering problem and GW will be a pushover


----------



## JTG (May 9, 2015)

Green gains on Bristol City Council 

It's like a definitive map of gentrified areas


----------



## Indeliblelink (May 9, 2015)

Brighton Council vote latest


----------



## Sirena (May 9, 2015)

cesare said:


> The Greens lost the most deposits, apparently. More than even the LibDems.


They quadrupled (nearly) their total vote to more than a million.

They got one MP.

The SNP got slightly more (1.4 million) and ended up with 56 MPs


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

Sirena said:


> They quadrupled (nearly) their total vote to more than a million.
> 
> They got one MP.
> 
> The SNP got slightly more (1.4 million) and ended up with 56 MPs


the SNP stood in 58 seats, the Greens in a huge number more (all of them?) - it's a fatuous comparison.


----------



## Indeliblelink (May 9, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Brighton Council vote latest




Final result - Greens lose control of Brighton & Hove Council to Labour
Lab 23
Con 20
Grn 11

Was
Grn 20 (21 if you include Ben Duncan)
Con 18
Lab 13
Ind 2 (inc Ben Duncan)
UKIP 1

Greens given a kicking
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/12941299.Labour_take_council_as_Greens_take_drubbing_at_ballot_box/


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2015)

The Greens didn't have 'control', and neither do Labour now.


----------



## Indeliblelink (May 9, 2015)

Seems a pretty common way of describing it though, eg
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1294..._as_Labour_take_control_in_Brighton_and_Hove/
but I take your point, it's a minority Labour council


----------



## free spirit (May 10, 2015)

Oddly that might benefit the greens in brighton as Labour will need their support to get anything passed, so they should have a fair amount of influence, but Labour will take the flack for having to implement the austerity budgets forced on them, rather than the Greens.

Also might give the greens there a chance to regroup, and reflect on what they got wrong, as they obviously did get some serious things wrong.


----------



## belboid (May 10, 2015)

JTG said:


> Bristol Greens are a complete disgrace. The worst sort of beardy, hipster, liberal, self-employed 'entrepeneurs' who will happily campaign to hold back the development of two of Bristol's sporting institutions in order to maintain the level of Bishopston house prices. They don't know how many thousands of people they've pissed off


just asked a former comrade of mine, who has just joined the Greens about this.  His response - "No-one cares about football"


----------



## JTG (May 10, 2015)

belboid said:


> just asked a former comrade of mine, who has just joined the Greens about this.  His response - "No-one cares about football"


That'll be why BRFC fans who normally vote Tory in West were voting Labour to stop the Greens then. Strong case for saying that Charlotte Leslie owed much of her re-election to her support of BRFC over the stadium issue as well.

Of course Greens in Bristol would say nobody cares about football, largely because they live in a Bishopston/Montpelier/St Andrews bubble where they've created their own little world for people who can't afford London anymore and pursue an anti-sport agenda (they opposed GCCC's new floodlights as well, endangering international cricket in the city) because they're terrified of meeting any actual Bristolians.


----------



## JTG (May 10, 2015)

btw, BCFC fans also bear a grudge because they successfully opposed their new stadium development at Ashton Vale as well. They may have gained seats this time but they have an awful lot of enemies outside of the gentrified inner suburbs


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

JTG said:


> Of course Greens in Bristol would say nobody cares about football, largely because they live in a Bishopston/Montpelier/St Andrews bubble where they've created their own little world for people who can't afford London anymore and pursue an anti-sport agenda (they opposed GCCC's new floodlights as well, endangering international cricket in the city) because they're terrified of meeting any actual Bristolians.



Maybe they think that all football supporters are racist like Green Party people I know do. Fucking idiots


----------



## sojourner (May 11, 2015)

Right redsquirrel , I was just about to launch into a fucking massive strop about your post as it seemed that you were being deliberately obtuse. However, I have re-read the posts and it would appear there has been a hefty misunderstanding, so to clarify:

When I referred to 'them' not being strikebreakers, I meant *our local Parl GP candidates*, not the Brighton ones, not the ACTUAL people who did the actual strike breaking.

Second, I was referencing the narrative about a lack of diversity in the GP when I mentioned that they were non-white. I was not for a second saying that was a reason to vote for them, and I'm not sure if we've had much interaction on here but if we had, you'd know that I'm not that fucking stupid.  Hence me saying 'don't put words in my mouth'.  I'm not entirely sure WHY you thought my post was exclusively about 'a reason to support Greens' when no one else's was deemed to be that.

Hope that's clearer for you now.



redsquirrel said:


> Well that's great, they may be strikebreaker cunts but at least they're not white strikebreaking cunts.
> 
> You really think that's a reason to vote for them? Well at least you've managed to provide Blagsta  with another reason why he shouldn't vote for the pricks.





sojourner said:


> They're not strikebreaking cunts - you're mistaking them for people who actually took that action.
> 
> Did I say it was a reason to vote for them? No I did not. Don't put words into my mouth. And save your aggressive attitude for people who deserve it.





redsquirrel said:


> Oh sorry, they're not actual strike-breakers, they just enabled and promoted the strike-breaking. Brilliant.
> 
> What words did I put into your mouth? Your post gave a single reason to support the Greens, the race of the candidates you are standing. Call me crazy but I find it pretty concerning when a supporter of a (supposedly) progressive party uses such a factor as a reason for why people should vote for their party. If you don't think that is a reason why people should vote for them why did was it the sole issue mentioned in your post?


----------



## J Ed (May 11, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (May 11, 2015)

Also...



> The Green party’s failure to make an electoral breakthrough, despite unprecedented publicity in the national media, demands reappraisal of its political strategy. While some voters may have needed reassurance that it is not a single-issue party, environmental experts and other prospective supporters were rightly horrified at the leader’s focus on leftist anti-austerity rhetoric rather than on the party’s approach to environmental sustainability and the quality of life. Natalie Bennett’s final message to voters on election night was that voting Green “will keep the Tories out”. This was a grave tactical error. To achieve a change in government the party should have focussed on its many policies that would have appealed to wavering Tory and Liberal Democrat voters.
> Tim Cooper
> Former Green party chairman


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Has anyone watched the video of the bristol green party by john harris? Its but also   and


----------



## JTG (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Has anyone watched the video of the bristol green party by john harris? Its but also   and


The one where clueless Montpelier muesli types go canvassing in Lawrence Hill? Yes. It's quite something


----------



## kebabking (May 11, 2015)

so, any rumbles of a leadership challenge/opening in light of Bennetts' failure to win the seat she was after, and the general effect of the campaign?


----------



## rioted (May 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


>


TBF some of his views are well to the left of most Labour MPs:





> GM has never been about feeding the world, or tackling environmental problems. It is and has always been about control of the global food economy by a tiny handful of giant corporations. It's not wicked to question that process. It is wicked not to.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

JTG said:


> The one where clueless Montpelier muesli types go canvassing in Lawrence Hill? Yes. It's quite something



'what local issues matter to you'

'I think they should legalise weed'

'Well, just as well thats a green party policy'


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


>



Old friendships/partnerships at work there. Zac's uncle Teddy boosted the Greens for decades in _The Ecologist_, as did Zac himself as editor. _Quid pro quo_, perhaps?


----------



## J Ed (May 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> 'what local issues matter to you'
> 
> 'I think they should legalise weed'
> 
> 'Well, just as well thats a green party policy'



Honestly for something that is actually their party policy she could not have looked more offended by the suggestion.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 12, 2015)

sojourner said:


> Right redsquirrel , I was just about to launch into a fucking massive strop about your post as it seemed that you were being deliberately obtuse. However, I have re-read the posts and it would appear there has been a hefty misunderstanding, so to clarify:
> 
> When I referred to 'them' not being strikebreakers, I meant *our local Parl GP candidates*, not the Brighton ones, not the ACTUAL people who did the actual strike breaking.


Ah ok, yeah I read "them" as referring to the Brighton councillors. 



sojourner said:


> Second, I was referencing the narrative about a lack of diversity in the GP when I mentioned that they were non-white. I was not for a second saying that was a reason to vote for them, and I'm not sure if we've had much interaction on here but if we had, you'd know that I'm not that fucking stupid.  Hence me saying 'don't put words in my mouth'.  I'm not entirely sure WHY you thought my post was exclusively about 'a reason to support Greens' when no one else's was deemed to be that.
> 
> Hope that's clearer for you now.


OK, I didn't make any connection to lack of diversity in the GP in your reply to KB, he  wasn't really taking about that was he?  Anyway yeah point much clearer now.


----------



## sojourner (May 12, 2015)

I was rushing my replies, so wasn't as coherent as I could  have been. It was one of those where you know in your head what you're on about and expect everyone else to keep up


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2015)

One month on and round here the only people still displaying posters are the Green types. Smug tits.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2015)

JTG said:


> One month on and round here the only people still displaying posters are the Green types. Smug tits.



Around Sheffield Central, Sheffield Hallam and Hillsborough the only posters left up are Green Party ones. All student houses with the exception of a vegan greengrocer lol


----------



## JTG (Jun 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Around Sheffield Central, Sheffield Hallam and Hillsborough the only posters left up are Green Party ones. All student houses with the exception of a vegan greengrocer lol


I even saw someone with one in their car the other day. An actual A4 'Vote Green' poster.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 1, 2015)

keeping them on display for the next election is more environmentally friendly than recycling them then printing new ones


----------



## sihhi (Aug 17, 2015)

Extending what counts as terrorism.. bodes well for a movement rescuing the planet's resources from neoliberal plunder:

_Sian Berry, who is hoping to be selected as the Green party’s candidate for Mayor, has urged Camden council to use anti-terror laws to deter drivers from parking in the vicinity of St Pancras International station._


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2015)

sihhi said:


> Extending what counts as terrorism.. bodes well for a movement rescuing the planet's resources from neoliberal plunder:
> 
> _Sian Berry, who is hoping to be selected as the Green party’s candidate for Mayor, has urged Camden council to use anti-terror laws to deter drivers from parking in the vicinity of St Pancras International station._


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2015)

no wonder all the three quidders jumped ship pronto with fucking tools like that claiming to be credible.


----------



## Wilson (Oct 2, 2015)

muesli tories


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 3, 2015)

Wilson said:


> muesli tories



Do tories oppose Trident and austerity? What marvellous news! Do you have a link?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2015)

Tories on bikes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2015)

Nazi conservationists.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2015)

Fascifists


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Do tories oppose Trident and austerity? What marvellous news! Do you have a link?


What do the greens do as regards austerity given any power? Impose it, isn't it?


----------



## Wilson (Oct 3, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Do tories oppose Trident and austerity? What marvellous news! Do you have a link?



Do the greens oppose trident? I would expect that they'd be the party most likely to use the weapons, for the advancement of their malthusian and eugenicist goals, save the planet by nuking Bangladesh.


----------



## Wilson (Oct 3, 2015)

And of course they don't support the election of any tories whatsoever, especially not ones with a heritage of cuntitude and whom probably skullfuck dead pigs for kicks.
zac goldsmith named as tory candidate for london mayor


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 3, 2015)

Wilson said:


> And of course they don't support the election of any tories whatsoever, especially not ones with a heritage of cuntitude and whom probably skullfuck dead pigs for kicks.
> zac goldsmith named as tory candidate for london mayor



Got a link to any endorsement of the bloke, or is this just more politically illiterate shite and conjecture?

Critique of GPEW is fine, and it's not hard to muster up but some of the stuff on this thread is risible and well below the standards I used to expect of Urban.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2015)

Taffboy is an interesting case study if you want to look at the crossover between the green party and the US inspired conspiracist right.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Got a link to any endorsement of the bloke, or is this just more politically illiterate shite and conjecture?
> 
> Critique of GPEW is fine, and it's not hard to muster up but some of the stuff on this thread is risible and well below the standards I used to expect of Urban.



Greens would back Tory Zac Goldsmith to be mayor over Labour, says


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2015)

that's more of a prediction than an official endorsement tbf.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Greens would back Tory Zac Goldsmith to be mayor over Labour, says



Closer examination of that link reveals two things which are worth pointing out

the story dates from May this year
the relevant quote says 





> Green peer Baroness Jenny Jones, who stood as the party’s mayoral candidate last time, said it was likely that many Greens would back the Tory MP over any Labour rival


, so not an explicit and official endorsement of Goldsmith, more the opinion of one prominent party member.
It will be interesting to see if the Greens do have anything to say now that Goldsmith is the official Tory candidate. Despite what Jones said previously, I would be surprised if he gets the GP or their candidate's official backing for second choice.


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2015)

there's no chance they'll endorse Goldsmith. It'd be suicide.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> there's no chance they'll endorse Goldsmith. It'd be suicide.



Especially since the Corbyn victory and the likely loss of much GP support to Labour


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2015)

It is significant though. It was posted as a response to a series of posts by taffboy in which he was denying that greens are tories on bikes. which they are.

when did everyone turn into green apologist liberals?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> It is significant though. It was posted as a response to a series of posts by taffboy in which he was denying that greens are tories on bikes. which they are.
> 
> when did everyone turn into green apologist liberals?


You turn your back for a couple of days..


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2015)

Who's a green apologist liberal? You were just wrong is all.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2015)

that's what a green apologist liberal would say


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2015)

Come on, I'm all for attacking taffboy, but there really isn't any need to make stuff up to do it.


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> It is significant though. It was posted as a response to a series of posts by taffboy in which he was denying that greens are tories on bikes. which they are.
> 
> when did everyone turn into green apologist liberals?



Some individual Greens doubtless are "Tories on bikes" (it's a good line), but not all. There are far better responses you could make than an ES article from May where the story didn't justify the headline even then, and where things have moved on to the extent that even those Greens who still favour Goldsmith are unlikely to be endorsing him for London Mayor.

The Green Party is still shit, but not for the reason you're claiming


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2015)

You'll be saying they don't want to genocide the working class to save the Bolivian arse wasp next


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2015)

I suppose all the left leaning floaters who were green will by on the C-Wagon now (chevy impala, hydraulics. Hittin the three wheel motion). So how would that affect the london mayoral race I wonder. I know party elections and mayorals are different beasts but there must be some crossover of voting intentions.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I suppose all the left leaning floaters who were green will by on the C-Wagon now (chevy impala, hydraulics. Hittin the three wheel motion). So how would that affect the london mayoral race I wonder. I know party elections and mayorals are different beasts but there must be some crossover of voting intentions.


I don't know, maybe looking at the green vote in past elections and making a few presumptions.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> You'll be saying they don't want to genocide the working class to save the Bolivian arse wasp next


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> You'll be saying they don't want to genocide the working class to save the Bolivian arse wasp next



I've just tried to google "green party conference" to find out whether this was discussed, and funnily enough when you get to "green party c" the second suggestion is "green party cancel membership"


----------



## Celyn (Oct 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> I've just tried to google "green party conference" to find out whether this was discussed, and funnily enough when you get to "green party c" the second suggestion is "green party cancel membership"



Not "Green Party conference" or "Green Party citizens income"?


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2015)

Celyn said:


> Not "Green Party conference" or "Green Party citizens income"?



"Green Party conference" was the first suggestion, "... Corbyn" was third and "... contact" was fourth.

" ...citizens income" doesn't get a mention


----------



## Santino (Oct 3, 2015)

I get "green party Cameron fucked a pig".


----------



## Celyn (Oct 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> "Green Party conference" was the first suggestion, "... Corbyn" was third and "... contact" was fourth.
> 
> " ...citizens income" doesn't get a mention



Oh well, truly Google is a thing of wonder.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jan 13, 2016)

Here's a little beauty for you. A green party member writes a puff piece in local rag about how she supports Jeremy Corbyn but won't vote for the Bristol mayoral candidate for Labour.  She instead supports the current mayor because he's forward thinking, has '360 degree vision' and has tried to make the city a fairer place (totally ignoring the huge rise in homelessness and the overseeing of the gentrification of several areas of Bristol and sky rocketing rents and his near contempt of people protesting a fly infestation due to a corporation's waste disposal failure in a poorer area).  The support given to the candidate for the party she's actually a member of? Zero 

'I support Corbyn, but won't vote for Marvin'


----------



## Vivity Report (Jan 14, 2016)

I support Corbyn but Sadiq Khan won't do much for homelessness either. Can we just clone Corbyn and put his clones up for election everywhere (Is honesty and decency an inheritable trait ?). He does have his problems mind you, but he is honest and is trying to work for the betterment of the country for the working and lower classes.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 14, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Here's a little beauty for you. A green party member writes a puff piece in local rag about how she supports Jeremy Corbyn but won't vote for the Bristol mayoral candidate for Labour.  She instead supports the current mayor because he's forward thinking, has '360 degree vision' and has tried to make the city a fairer place (totally ignoring the huge rise in homelessness and the overseeing of the gentrification of several areas of Bristol and sky rocketing rents and his near contempt of people protesting a fly infestation due to a corporation's waste disposal failure in a poorer area).  The support given to the candidate for the party she's actually a member of? Zero
> 
> 'I support Corbyn, but won't vote for Marvin'



Why would a Green Party supporter vote for an intelligent, working class, committed social activist from the south Bristol estates, when there's a smarmy, gropey-fingered, entitled upper middle class carpetbagger like Fergo to prop up?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2016)

Vivity Report said:


> I support Corbyn but Sadiq Khan won't do much for homelessness either. Can we just clone Corbyn and put his clones up for election everywhere (Is honesty and decency an inheritable trait ?). He does have his problems mind you, but he is honest and is trying to work for the betterment of the country for the working and lower classes.



Khan will have few powers as mayor to do anything about the homeless. The powers lie with the individual local authorities, most of whom have a track record of providing minimal services to homeless people.


----------



## Vivity Report (Jan 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Khan will have few powers as mayor to do anything about the homeless. The powers lie with the individual local authorities, most of whom have a track record of providing minimal services to homeless people.



Except for steel studs unless you don't see that as a service


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2016)

Vivity Report said:


> Except for steel studs unless you don't see that as a service



Homeless spikes are usually fitted by private individuals or businesses.


----------



## Vivity Report (Jan 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Homeless spikes are usually fitted by private individuals or businesses.



Oh ok, I stand corrected.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> he's forward thinking, has '360 degree vision'


He's some sort of mutant?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 14, 2016)

emanymton said:


> He's some sort of mutant?



Or a nice owl


----------



## sihhi (Feb 2, 2016)

#GreenerIn #StrongerIn

Caroline responds to Tusk Letter | Caroline Lucas

weak stuff - can't even go for the kill when their man is on the ropes.


----------



## elbows (Feb 3, 2016)

sihhi said:


> Caroline responds to Tusk Letter | Caroline Lucas
> 
> weak stuff - can't even go for the kill when their man is on the ropes.



Weak indeed. But I don't think there are many political parties out there looking at this as an opportunity to kill a political opponent, but rather as part of the stage-setting for the referendum. And the Greens are likely to be a bland force in that debate. They are about as exciting as the EuroNews channel in terms of message delivery style, even at times where policy documents contain radical ideas, so I'm not anticipating the Greens energising many beyond their base to vote yes to the EU. Perhaps I'll be wrong on that, but another possibility is media ridicule if its too obvious that the green stance is 'stay in the EU but have it magically reform itself in an incredible and unlikely manner'. If that happens like it did when some journalists actually read some of the green manifesto and started calling them out of radical detail, we are in for another spectacle of radical ideas being watered down to politically non-toxic levels before our very eyes.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 3, 2016)

elbows said:


> Weak indeed. But I don't think there are many political parties out there looking at this as an opportunity to kill a political opponent, but rather as part of the stage-setting for the referendum. And the Greens are likely to be a bland force in that debate. They are about as exciting as the EuroNews channel in terms of message delivery style, even at times where policy documents contain radical ideas, so I'm not anticipating the Greens energising many beyond their base to vote yes to the EU. Perhaps I'll be wrong on that, but another possibility is media ridicule if its too obvious that the green stance is 'stay in the EU but have it magically reform itself in an incredible and unlikely manner'. If that happens like it did when some journalists actually read some of the green manifesto and started calling them out of radical detail, we are in for another spectacle of radical ideas being watered down to politically non-toxic levels before our very eyes.




That's very well argued. but there's something about the greens - they can't even say something that's more honest:-  we know we're not going to win a general election so we're not declaring anything we remain opposed to austerity. end.

at least that way they'd have antis / eurosceptics / britain to how it was in the 60s/ still potentially alongside them


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2016)

Who the fuck is TUSK?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2016)

SpineyNorman said:


> Who the fuck is TUSK?



Former Polish prime minister, currently chief EU panjandrum. Not related to the political movement T.U.S.C. sadly.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 9, 2016)

"Worth checking out"?

Why?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> "Worth checking out"?
> 
> Why?



I can't use if for my latte. Screw you then Greens, screw you.


----------



## speedstar (Mar 9, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Former Polish prime minister, currently chief EU panjandrum. Not related to the political movement T.U.S.C. sadly.



Funny you say that as back in 2010 T.U.S.C (Trade Union & Socialist Coalition)* actually stood as "TUSK" *in the Salford & Eccles constituency as they wanted "Hazel (Blears) Must Go" (an anti expenses campaign) on the ballot paper which is restricted to 6 words only!!

TUSK - Hazel Must Go: David Henry - Charter for Salford


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2016)

SpineyNorman said:


> Who the fuck is TUSK?



It's her belated response to Fleetwood Mac's somewhat eccentric follow up to 'Rumours'.

It was 1979. Wake up Caroline you dozy hippy!


----------



## Sherman Tank (Mar 9, 2016)

I don't know why people here have it in for the Green Party??? I have never been a member, but I normally vote for them (except in 2010 when I could see that voting Liberal was the only way to bring about some progressive change) and most Green types seem to want a fairer, cleaner society. I would have thought they were exactly what most people here want. 

Say what you like about the Green Party, but they're nice people.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 9, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> Say what you like about the Green Party, but they're nice people.


 
Apart from those that aren't, that is.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> I don't know why people here have it in for the Green Party??? I have never been a member, but I normally vote for them (except in 2010 when I could see that voting Liberal was the only way to bring about some progressive change) and most Green types seem to want a fairer, cleaner society. I would have thought they were exactly what most people here want.
> 
> Say what you like about the Green Party, but they're nice people.


3/10

I awarded an extra point for the 2010 bit.


----------



## Sherman Tank (Mar 9, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Apart from those that aren't, that is.



Who is that then?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 9, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> I don't know why people here have it in for the Green Party??? I have never been a member, but I normally vote for them (except in 2010 when I could see that voting Liberal was the only way to bring about some progressive change) and most Green types seem to want a fairer, cleaner society. I would have thought they were exactly what most people here want.
> 
> Say what you like about the Green Party, but they're nice people.



lol 

*Apart from our AuntiStella of course, who is fucking ace!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 9, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> Who is that then?


Where might someone find pointers on this, I wonder..?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 10, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> I don't know why people here have it in for the Green Party??? I have never been a member, but I normally vote for them (*except in 2010 when I could see that voting Liberal was the only way to bring about some progressive change*) and most Green types seem to want a fairer, cleaner society. I would have thought they were exactly what most people here want.
> 
> Say what you like about the Green Party, but they're nice people.



That went well then.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2016)

Lol


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 10, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> lol
> 
> *Apart from our AuntiStella of course, who is fucking ace!


Thankyou  & I've been thinking of leaving for a while tbh


----------



## Nylock (Mar 10, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> ....(except in 2010 when I could see that voting Liberal was the only way to bring about some progressive change)...


Hahahahahahaha! No, please stop! My fucking sides!!! 


...wipes away tears...


----------



## Sherman Tank (Mar 12, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Where might someone find pointers on this, I wonder..?



it's a rather long thread, I was hoping you may have some quick examples at hand. 

And yes very droll everyone, I hold up my hands to voting Liberal being a mistake, but in 2010 I didn't have much else to go on.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

Sherman Tank said:


> it's a rather long thread, I was hoping you may have some quick examples at hand.
> 
> And yes very droll everyone, I hold up my hands to voting Liberal being a mistake, but *in 2010 I didn't have much else to go on*.



Only history and thinking.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2016)

Wow - make sure that you wait till the smug at the end.


----------



## LDC (Apr 7, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Wow - make sure that you wait till the smug at the end.




Holy fucking christ that is awful. And the ethics of using kids like that...?


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2016)

They're actors.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 7, 2016)

I dunno.  I thought it was quite funny to start with then it went on too long and yeah the ending was just embarrassing.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 7, 2016)

That was ghastly .   	By the way, how is voting Green at local elections going to save the NHS?  Or is "NHS" just a guaranteed feelgood thing to mention so that it sounds nice and friendly and fluffy?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 7, 2016)

Celyn said:


> That was ghastly .   	By the way, how is voting Green at local elections going to save the NHS?  Or is "NHS" just a guaranteed feelgood thing to mention so that it sounds nice and friendly and fluffy?



No political party is going to admit they are basically irrelevant, they always go on about "If we were in charge we'd do X" 

Personally I loved that broadcast, the end wasn't great but it pretty much summed up a lot of what politics is these days and little Tim Farron was funny as hell.


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2016)

Thats how parties operate, they have to work on the basis that their policies will come to fruition, manifestos are this made concrete

of course, they don't always carry them out anyway.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 7, 2016)

Yes, but I'm not sure that "saving the NHS" is within the remit of local councillors. Perhaps it is. If not, then it's a damned annoying thing to promise in local council elections.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 7, 2016)

I've quit the Green Party. It's too white, too cis, and too midle class for me.


----------



## chilango (Apr 7, 2016)

I'm far softer on the Greens than I probably should be, but that was rubbish.


----------



## Beermoth (Apr 7, 2016)

Don't quite see the point of that. They're basically saying 'mainstream politics is stupid, yeah? Come and join the grown-ups'. But if the Greens actually got a lot of support behind them they'd be entering the arena of stupid and have to respond accordingly. Not because they want to - it's just how the game works.

The Labour cabinet made me laugh, though. Someone knows how to edit.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2016)

Green Party – Greens urge dialogue over library dispute



> Greens have today called on the Council and Library Assistants to work together to resolve dispute over shift patterns, after Library Assistants announced their intention to strike. In last year’s city-wide consultation, the public fed back they wanted library opening times to change. This has led to changes in shift patterns for Library Assistants.



Who's doing the imposed shift cuts and wider cuts to the service i wonder?

The Green Party's asst Mayor Daniella Radice.


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2016)

Celyn said:


> That was ghastly .   	By the way, how is voting Green at local elections going to save the NHS?  Or is "NHS" just a guaranteed feelgood thing to mention so that it sounds nice and friendly and fluffy?


don't forget 'greedy corporations'


----------



## Celyn (Apr 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> don't forget 'greedy corporations'



Oh, I'm sure you're right and it promised to sort out "greedy corporations" as well, but I really couldn't bear to watch it again to be certain.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 5, 2016)

The Greens have got it: alliances can work for Britain’s progressive parties | Zoe Williams

fluffy greens, corbyns stubborn, socialists are dour arseholes. Cheers zoe

vote lucas 

and this is blates made up:




> I’m not talking exclusively about hatred between Greens and Reds, incidentally, though the guy standing outside the Green party conference saying “another mouth to feed” in a self-righteous monotone every time anyone walked past did remind me how much there is to distinguish between environmentalism and socialism. All progressives prefer to debate their own fine distinctions than the glaring ideological chasm that separates us from the real foes. On dark days, I think this is because purity is part of the mind-set, and the smaller compromises that would create the swell are harder to make than a peace with failure. And on bright days, I think this is because we are simply the more intelligent group, and the work of pointing out what’s wrong with Theresa May – all the meanness of Margaret Thatcher with none of the frankness or ambition – is too obvious to hold our attention. Either way, it bodes ill for meaningful togetherness.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> The Greens have got it: alliances can work for Britain’s progressive parties | Zoe Williams
> 
> fluffy greens, corbyns stubborn, socialists are dour arseholes. Cheers zoe
> 
> ...



I was at the uni yesterday for an hour to play pokemon go, the green party conference was in the area I was riding around and I didn't get told I was another mouth to feed. Obviously this "person" might have been inside or there on a different day or I just missed him or whatever but it does sound very, very, very made up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 5, 2016)

BigTom said:


> I was at the uni yesterday for an hour to play pokemon go, the green party conference was in the area I was riding around and I didn't get told I was another mouth to feed. Obviously this "person" might have been inside or there on a different day or I just missed him or whatever but it does sound very, very, very made up.


ennit, just rings false as fuck. Could easily go in the 'guardian is shit' thread as well


----------



## free spirit (Sep 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ennit, just rings false as fuck. Could easily go in the 'guardian is shit' thread as well





> I’m not talking exclusively about hatred between Greens and Reds, incidentally, though the guy standing outside the Green party conference saying “another mouth to feed” in a self-righteous monotone every time anyone walked past did remind me how much there is to distinguish between environmentalism and socialism.


tbh it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true, there are a few of those types still kicking around the fringes of the party. I've occasionally ended up arguing the toss with the odd one who pops up on some of the green forums.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 5, 2016)

Which one you in now?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

Backing the yellow scum in the Richmond by-election


> “I’d now urge Labour to join us in forming a progressive alliance against the forces of Conservatism and narrow-mindedness.”
> 
> Chair of Richmond’s Greens, Richard Bennett, said local Liberal Democrats recognised that in the 2018 council elections the parties should work together in some wards “to ensure people get the best chance both of Green partyrepresentation and of a council not controlled by the Conservatives.”


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Backing the yellow scum in the Richmond by-election



Daft (and suicidal in the long run) move.


----------



## inva (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Backing the yellow scum in the Richmond by-election


vacuous tosser John Harris also banging the same drum for the 'progressive alliance':


> As strange as it may sound, for the next few weeks, the future of left-of-centre politics might revolve around a verdant corner of west London, where a trailblazing step into a better future has been taken by two underrated revolutionary organisations, the Richmond and Twickenham branch of the Green party, and its counterpart in Kingston-upon-Thames.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

Gross but unsurprising. Loads of m/c liberals in Labour wanted their party to do the same.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

and every time its that mantra 'We must stop the tories!'

you hear it from lib dems and labourites as well. As if thats the be all and end all to politics and you forget our records in power and look at the bad man over there.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> and every time its that mantra 'We must stop the tories!'
> 
> you hear it from lib dems and labourites as well. As if thats the be all and end all to politics and you forget our records in power and look at the bad man over there.



It's barely been a fucking year since they were in government with the Tories FFS


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 28, 2016)

Not just standing aside but actually working to get the LibDems elected


> The Greens’ sole MP, Caroline Lucas, joined the Liberal Democrats on the campaign trail in Richmond on Saturday, where she revealed she would vote against the triggering of article 50, saying she cannot “throw the country into the potential nightmare of a hard Brexit within two years”.
> 
> She said: “A regressive alliance of the Tories and Ukip are working together to reinstall a pro-Brexit MP. We have stepped up at this unique moment and are backing Sarah Olney as the best hope of denting the government’s plans for a painful Brexit from the European Union.”


Nevermind the bedroom tax, the huge increase on tuition fees, the VAT increase and shifting of the tax burden onto the poor, the privatisation of the Royal Mail, what really matters is the EU.


----------



## chilango (Nov 28, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Not just standing aside but actually working to get the LibDems elected
> 
> Nevermind the bedroom tax, the huge increase on tuition fees, the VAT increase and shifting of the tax burden onto the poor, the privatisation of the Royal Mail, what really matters is the EU.



Foolish.


----------



## Tom A (Nov 28, 2016)

The rehabilitation of the Lib Dems by the mainstream media (particularly in the wake of Brexit) depresses me.


----------



## gosub (Nov 28, 2016)

Green party membership card is plastic and looks a looks a lot harder to recycle than the cardboard tory ones  - though equally surprisingly probably better for chopping up coke.



(I own neither)


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2016)

Tom A said:


> The rehabilitation of the Lib Dems by the mainstream media (particularly in the wake of Brexit) depresses me.


I shouldn't worry, no-one's listening. They've been polling under 10% with no significant movement for two years now.


----------



## Tom A (Nov 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> I shouldn't worry, no-one's listening. They've been polling under 10% with no significant movement for two years now.


They made some pretty big inroads at the Witney by-election though, and they must be hedging their bets on winning over Labour votes should Labour totally lose the plot under Corbyn/be torn asunder by bitter infighting (but then, such erstwhile Labour voters are just as likely to go to UKIP).


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2016)

They'll always be able to get enough suckers in by-elections in seats where _Labour Can't Win Here!_ to get a respecatble number in, but it's just the corpse twitching. That's all they've got now.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 30, 2016)

Some Kingston Greens next door don't like Lucas's support for the LDs in the byelection at all ...




			
				Green dissidents said:
			
		

> And we hope it won’t be forgotten that the Lib Dems are ultimately responsible for the decision to expand Heathrow airport, having launched the Airports Commission in 2012 along with their coalition partners in government.



They're urging Greens in Richmond Park to vote Labour instead ...


----------



## free spirit (Nov 30, 2016)

This Richmond thing and the whole progressive alliance concept is causing some internal Green Party ructions.

My take on it is that while I can see the logic to it if there were a proper alliance going on between Labour, Lib Dem and Green's to ensure the Tories lost every byelection this term, this is nothing of the sort at the moment, it's just the Greens unilaterally standing aside apparently to allow the Lib Dems a free run at Goldsmith, but while Labour are still standing and the Lib Dems AFAIK haven't passed any motions or done anything that would prevent their leadership from deciding to prop up the tories again anyway even if we did get them down to a minority government situation.

Frankly, the E&W Green Party is a tattered mess at the moment, with no concept of how to go about winning any parliamentary seats, no money and no motivation, and a good proportion of the party in open revolt about this alliance thing.

I've given up doing owt for the time being as it seems to be a complete waste of time unless they find a clue somewhere soon.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 30, 2016)

shows how little depth there is in the Green Party, just a bunch of vacuous losers and chancers


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> They'll always be able to get enough suckers in by-elections in seats where _Labour Can't Win Here!_ to get a respecatble number in, but it's just the corpse twitching. That's all they've got now.



I'm not so sure. I think there is a role for them as the nice Tories or the anti Tories in wealthy seats at certain times, as they once were. Having been in government with them is not only not a negative, it's positive for these people. And that will carry over into a general election if that element of the electorate decide they're bored of the Tories.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 2, 2016)

free spirit said:


> This Richmond thing and the whole progressive alliance concept is causing some internal Green Party ructions.
> 
> My take on it is that while I can see the logic to it if there were a proper alliance going on between Labour, Lib Dem and Green's to ensure the Tories lost every byelection this term, this is nothing of the sort at the moment, it's just the Greens unilaterally standing aside apparently to allow the Lib Dems a free run at Goldsmith, but while Labour are still standing and the Lib Dems AFAIK haven't passed any motions or done anything that would prevent their leadership from deciding to prop up the tories again anyway even if we did get them down to a minority government situation.
> 
> ...




Yeah my Green Party mate is very unhappy with the Greens at the moment, theres a lot of idiocy going about and tales of this progressive alliance are just fucking annoying. If nothing else the only people who benefit are the big parties.

But fwiw I think standing aside in Richmond was the right thing to do, Zac needed to fucking go and its not like the Greens could have put in a decent showing there anyway.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2016)

Dom Traynor said:


> I'm not so sure. I think there is a role for them as the nice Tories or the anti Tories in wealthy seats at certain times, as they once were. Having been in government with them is not only not a negative, it's positive for these people. And that will carry over into a general election if that element of the electorate decide they're bored of the Tories.


Slightly more suckers then. We'll see I guess.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 2, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Yeah my Green Party mate is very unhappy with the Greens at the moment, theres a lot of idiocy going about and tales of this progressive alliance are just fucking annoying. If nothing else the only people who benefit are the big parties.
> 
> But fwiw I think standing aside in Richmond was the right thing to do, Zac needed to fucking go and its not like the Greens could have put in a decent showing there anyway.



There is not much of a chance for a decent showing for the Greens in more than about 10 - 20 areas depending on your definition of decent. Should they stand aside for all of them? A party that cannot stand in most seats is not a party worth voting for even where they do stand. I wouldn't vote Green anyway so it doesn't matter to me, but if I was a Green supporter I'd be quite concerned by this approach.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 2, 2016)

Dom Traynor said:


> There is not much of a chance for a decent showing for the Greens in more than about 10 - 20 areas depending on your definition of decent. Should they stand aside for all of them? A party that cannot stand in most seats is not a party worth voting for even where they do stand. I wouldn't vote Green anyway so it doesn't matter to me, but if I was a Green supporter I'd be quite concerned by this approach.




As long as its not a habit the odd one is fine, the danger is that Ms Lucas makes it one and yes that is concerning.

The Greens are not exactly known for clear thinking sadly, I agree with many of the policies but there is a very dominant arty farty idiocy wing in it.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Slightly more suckers then. We'll see I guess.



Why are they suckers? The Libdems offer what they want, Tory with a smiley Cameroonian face. These people will never vote Labour or support socialist revolution, if the Libdems didn't exist they would probably vote Tory with a heavy heart.


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2016)

Dom Traynor said:


> Why are they suckers? The Libdems offer what they want, Tory with a smiley Cameroonian face. These people will never vote Labour or support socialist revolution, if the Libdems didn't exist they would probably vote Tory with a heavy heart.


Their whole strategy is to get over the line with labour voters who know labour can't win in that seat. Those are the suckers we're talking about aren't they?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Their whole strategy is to get over the line with labour voters who know labour can't win in that seat. Those are the suckers we're talking about aren't they?


 
That might be one strategy however I don't believe they will win over Labour voters as such, maybe, and I'd be interested to see how many Labour voters even in Richmond voted Libdem as opposed to staying at home. That's not to say there are not a section of voters who swing between all three or five main parties, who probably did this time vote Libdem, maybe they're the suckers.

Edited to say - just looked at results back to 2005 and I think there are clearly a large number of people swapping between Libdems and Tories, the Labour vote is basically erratic and marginal.


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 7, 2016)

The Green Party was offered a £250,000 inducement not to stand a candidate against the LibDems in Richmond, according to the chairman of the local Greens. Ryan Coley, the Kingston Green Party chair, claims his members were pressured by party officials not to run a candidate because the party had been offered £250,000 conditional on standing aside for the LibDems.

Guido has obtained an internal report written by the local chairman and members Clare Keogh and Kieron Merrett. They complain “party staff added pressure” on them, “telling us that there was an offer of a large donation to the party which was conditional on the party demonstrating its desire for a progressive alliance”. They allege the offer amounted to £250,000 and the order to stand aside came “on the instruction of the Chief Executive“.

The report says the offer failed the party’s donation scrutiny procedures and the donation did not go through. 


Green Party 'Offered £250,000 Bung Not to Stand in Richmond' - Guido Fawkes


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> The Green Party was offered a £250,000 inducement not to stand a candidate against the LibDems in Richmond, according to the chairman of the local Greens. Ryan Coley, the Kingston Green Party chair, claims his members were pressured by party officials not to run a candidate because the party had been offered £250,000 conditional on standing aside for the LibDems.
> 
> Guido has obtained an internal report written by the local chairman and members Clare Keogh and Kieron Merrett. They complain “party staff added pressure” on them, “telling us that there was an offer of a large donation to the party which was conditional on the party demonstrating its desire for a progressive alliance”. They allege the offer amounted to £250,000 and the order to stand aside came “on the instruction of the Chief Executive“.
> 
> Green Party 'Offered £250,000 Bung Not to Stand in Richmond' - Guido Fawkes


Has Oakeshott written all over it.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 7, 2016)

He's a twat but he does get some good scoops


----------



## brogdale (Dec 7, 2016)

Dom Traynor said:


> He's a twat but he does get some good scoops


As (alleged) donor/briber.


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2016)

Greens could really fuck up (even by their standards) with this nonsense.


----------



## inva (Dec 7, 2016)

chilango said:


> Greens could really fuck up (even by their standards) with this nonsense.


how come?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As (alleged) donor/briber.


I mean Guido not Oakhshott


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 9, 2016)

A party insider I know (and trust) says everyone's really pissed off because not only had they taken the decision to step aside before the donation was offered, it was also turned down by the oversight people. So the party ended up with a needless PR mess and didn't even get any money. The big problem atm is roughly what you'd expect, political drift and infighting in the face of getting outflanked to their left by Labour.


----------



## Tom A (Dec 9, 2016)

The Greens have always had their 'kooky' elements, but now the majority of people who were in the Greens went to Labour when Corbyn became leader, those kooky elements are now more concentrated, and the party now seems to be struggling to have any purpose now Labour are proposing all the things that initially won people over to the Greens, but with the added advantage of being the official opposition party to the government.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2017)

seems their canadian brethren do no better:
The Hard Green Line


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2017)

Twats


----------



## Tom A (Jul 9, 2017)

Our Green Party also has a less-than-illustrious record when it comes to trade union support. This is from their 2010 manifesto:



> [The Green Party will] bring in a fair system of state funding for political parties so there’s no longer a need for reliance on private and *trade union* donations, which can have a corrupting effect.



Source: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/resources/Manifesto_web_file.pdf

Then there was the mishandling of the bin workers' dispute in Brighton when they controlled the council.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2017)

Got it all this one:



> Looks like yet another Green Party councillor’s PUBLIC pronouncements on housing don’t quite match his PRIVATE arrangements.
> 
> An irate ACORN tenants union member calls to tell us that the Green Party Councillor for Southville, Bristol Pound bigwig and er, ACORN tenants union member Stephen “Daddy” Clarke, has EVICTED a tenant from one of his numerous local buy-to-let investments after the tenant told him that his rent increase of 28 per cent was unaffordable!


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2017)




----------



## Sea Star (Aug 15, 2017)

gosub said:


> Green party membership card is plastic and looks a looks a lot harder to recycle than the cardboard tory ones  - though equally surprisingly probably better for chopping up coke.
> 
> 
> 
> (I own neither)


as far as i know the green Party doesn't issue membership cards. I haven't been sent one in years and when i did - nearly a decade ago - it was papery i seem to remember.


----------



## gosub (Aug 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> as far as i know the green Party doesn't issue membership cards. I haven't been sent one in years and when i did - nearly a decade ago - it was papery i seem to remember.


Was in pub between two party members iirc


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 15, 2017)

gosub said:


> Was in pub between two party members iirc


i went to conference a few years ago and i asked because i'd not been issued with a card and i was told GP doesn't issue cards so I don;t know what they had. Have not seen anyone with a card either - not for years.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 24, 2017)

In defence of Tories:

Worcester Green Party


----------



## redsquirrel (May 18, 2018)

Spotted by elbows from the local elections thread.


elbows said:


> I also note that the green councillor, who only got elected in the first place some years back due to NIMBY house-building issues in tory estates that are on the posh side of the tracks here, abstained on the leader vote and voted for the tory for the deputy leader position.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 18, 2018)

Bullshit thread.  Caroline Lucas one of the few MPs to speak out against arms sales to Israel.


----------



## Santino (May 18, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Bullshit thread.  Caroline Lucas one of the few MPs to speak out against arms sales to Israel.


How do you feel about her anti-worker activities?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 18, 2018)

Santino said:


> How do you feel about her anti-worker activities?



If you're talking about wanting to stop UK arms companies selling weapons to dodgy regimes, I'm fine with that...  but maybe you can tell me what you had in mind?


----------



## J Ed (May 18, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Bullshit thread.  Caroline Lucas one of the few MPs to speak out against arms sales to Israel.



Bizarre comment. Thread title, and content, is not 'Why Caroline Lucas' position on arms sales to Israel is shit'.


----------



## Santino (May 18, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> If you're talking about wanting to stop UK arms companies selling weapons to dodgy regimes, I'm fine with that...  but maybe you can tell me what you had in mind?


How do you feel about Caroline Lucas undermining the attempts of workers to strike for better pay and conditions?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 18, 2018)

Santino said:


> How do you feel about Caroline Lucas undermining the attempts of workers to strike for better pay and conditions?



Link to story?


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Link to story?


Or you could, oh I don't know. Maybe read the op of the thread you are posting on.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 18, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Or you could, oh I don't know. Maybe read the op of the thread you are posting on.



Maybe i will, tomorrow. I forgot urban only accepts Labour voters. Personally, i think environmental issues are hugely important, in that there's an enormous kick back against humans if the environment isn't a priority in the agenda, and shit gets worse for us all in the long run. So the Greens are just one party i'd consider voting for depending on their policies coming up to an election..


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> I forgot urban only accepts Labour voters


Fucking hell seriously. Maybe you should try reading some of what is posted on here beyond just the op.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 19, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Maybe i will, tomorrow. I forgot urban only accepts Labour voters.


Of course it does.


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Maybe i will, tomorrow. I forgot urban only accepts Labour voters. Personally, i think environmental issues are hugely important, in that there's an enormous kick back against humans if the environment isn't a priority in the agenda, and shit gets worse for us all in the long run. So the Greens are just one party i'd consider voting for depending on their policies coming up to an election..



Seriously???


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 19, 2018)

chilango said:


> Seriously???



Which bit?


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Which bit?



This bit.



> I forgot urban only accepts Labour voters. Personally, i think environmental issues are hugely important,


----------



## Johnny Vodka (May 19, 2018)

chilango said:


> This bit.



Environmental issues aren't hugely important?


----------



## chilango (May 19, 2018)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Environmental issues aren't hugely important?



No, I mean your assumption that criticizing the Greens means that we think not.


----------



## stethoscope (May 19, 2018)

Have the Green party ever been that central to fighting environmental issues beyond general concerns (genuine question)? Whenever I think of environmental stuff I always think of radical direct action and eco-activist groups as the ones that have always led this stuff and eventually it sifts slowly through to policies being adopted by Green, Labour, Dem even Tory parties.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 19, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Have the Green party ever been that central to fighting environmental issues beyond general concerns (genuine question)? Whenever I think of environmental stuff I always think of radical direct action and eco-activist groups as the ones that have always led this stuff and eventually it sifts slowly through to policies being adopted by Green, Labour, Dem even Tory parties.



When I was in the Greens, a far few people on the left of the party were active in stuff like Climate Camp, Kingsnorth etc. I still know some Greens involved in anti fracking stuff. A lot of the most active people have (like me) left over the last 10 years to either other left groups, Labour since Corbyn, general eco activism without a party or inactivity. Tbf there's a fair few current or ex members who have faced or got arrested on various environmental protests down the years. There are also some snobby'buy organic' lifestyle twats as well, of course.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 19, 2018)

Santino said:


> How do you feel about Caroline Lucas undermining the attempts of workers to strike for better pay and conditions?



Much as the Green council in Brighton was predictably shit on the bin strikes, iirc Lucas herself visited the pickets and pledged to support them. Major split in Green Party as Caroline Lucas joins Brighton wildcat strike


----------



## elbows (May 19, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Have the Green party ever been that central to fighting environmental issues beyond general concerns (genuine question)? Whenever I think of environmental stuff I always think of radical direct action and eco-activist groups as the ones that have always led this stuff and eventually it sifts slowly through to policies being adopted by Green, Labour, Dem even Tory parties.



And the spectacle of the Daily Mail claiming to be leading the fight against plastic waste!


----------



## sihhi (Oct 22, 2018)

Green candidate MP for Bath 

attacks anyone who doesn't want a to keep Britain in EU



> I have absolutely no respect for anyone who says the result should be ‘respected’. Anyone who accepts it is basically supporting fraudulent elections and criminals.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2018)

Worse than that - that covers remainers who think the result should be respected as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 22, 2018)

sihhi said:


> Green candidate MP for Bath
> 
> attacks anyone who doesn't want a to keep Britain in EU


all electoral results are fraudulent, no reason why the referendum should be any different


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 22, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Much as the Green council in Brighton was predictably shit on the bin strikes, iirc Lucas herself visited the pickets and pledged to support them. Major split in Green Party as Caroline Lucas joins Brighton wildcat strike



Lucas did then organise community strike breaking teams, for balance.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Oct 22, 2018)

They were speaking out against the SNP yesterday over the SNP pretending to care about arms sales to places like Saudi when they really don't.  Good on the (Scottish) Greens!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 22, 2018)

tbf you'd vote for anyone who legalised green


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Oct 22, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> tbf you'd vote for anyone who legalised green



I'll vote only for parties that are for drug law reform - and not for selfish reasons.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2018)

What else?


----------



## kebabking (Oct 22, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> What else?



Subsidised munchies?

Guaranteed availability of Pringles at 3am?


----------



## A380 (Oct 26, 2018)

kebabking said:


> ...Guaranteed availability of Pringles at 3am?



Only the green ones.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 26, 2018)

A380 said:


> Only the green ones.



Murderer!

Sour cream? Cheese? hater! Cow rapist! Baby killer!


----------



## A380 (Oct 26, 2018)

kebabking said:


> Murderer!
> 
> Sour cream? Cheese? hater! Cow rapist! Baby killer!


All the others ( with perhaps a minor exception for paprika) are like bitter weeds of disappointment upon the tongue. A Pringle that isn’t from a green sour cream and onion tube  is like  that time you were seven and there was a massive present under the Christmas tree, but when you opened it it was a coat.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 26, 2018)

A380 said:


> All the others ( with perhaps a minor exception for paprika) are like bitter weeds of disappointment upon the tongue. A Pringle that isn’t from a green sour cream and onion tube  is like  that time you were seven and there was a massive present under the Christmas tree, but when you opened it it was a coat.



They sound ideal for members of the Green Party...


----------



## sihhi (Dec 3, 2018)

SpineyNorman said:


> Inspired by the legendary 'why the Lib Dems are shit' thread and prompted by the Green led council strikebreaking in Brighton, this is your opportunity to give examples of their shitness and prove that those of us who think they'd genocide the working class to save the Bolivian arse wasp are right. As with the why the lib dems are shit thread, this could be policies, personalities or anything else - provided it's evidence of Green shitness it needs to go in here.
> 
> I'll start us off with the aforementioned strike breaking in Brighton, details of which can be found in this thread.



Hateful stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2019)

Greens oppose extended hours for bars during Rugby World Cup 2019


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 28, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Greens oppose extended hours for bars during Rugby World Cup 2019



CUNTS


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 28, 2019)

Forgot to post this gem actually: The Green Party wants to ban Mr Whippy ice cream vans - here's why


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 29, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Greens oppose extended hours for bars during Rugby World Cup 2019



Well at least they can't be accused of populism.


----------



## strung out (Nov 10, 2019)

My friend was the PPC for the Greens in Filton and Bradley Stoke, but has now quit the party because of the electoral pact with the Lib Dems



Click through for the whole thread


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 10, 2019)

From a comment on the above thread:


----------



## Indeliblelink (Nov 27, 2019)

Caroline Lucas will bake you a cake if you donate


> For £100, the former Green Party leader will bake you a cake.


----------



## seeformiles (Nov 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Forgot to post this gem actually: The Green Party wants to ban Mr Whippy ice cream vans - here's why



I’m disappointed it wasn’t because Thatcher was part of the team that developed soft-serve ice cream in the 1950s


----------



## Poi E (Nov 27, 2019)

seeformiles said:


> I’m disappointed it wasn’t because Thatcher was part of the team that developed soft-serve ice cream in the 1950s



Sold in the US since the thirties. The old cow nicked that idea from the US.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 27, 2019)

Indeliblelink said:


> Caroline Lucas will bake you a cake if you donate


Vegan?


----------



## Indeliblelink (Nov 27, 2019)

emanymton said:


> Vegan?


Vegan hash brownies


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 27, 2019)

seeformiles said:


> I’m disappointed it wasn’t because Thatcher was part of the team that developed soft-serve ice cream in the 1950s


the guardian weighs in Was Margaret Thatcher really part of team that invented Mr Whippy?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2020)

A Head-Scarf Ban and Carbon Taxes: Austria’s Kurz to Govern With Green Party in Unlikely Partnership


_That’s how, in a 300-page coalition contract presented in Vienna on Thursday, plans for a head scarf ban for Muslim girls and deportation centers for unsuccessful asylum seekers sat side by side with a carbon tax on airline tickets and a target to make Austria carbon neutral by 2040.

As far as political transformations go, it was certainly remarkable — and it was being watched closely in neighboring European countries, where identity politics and climate change have crystallized as two main political fault lines in the Continent’s simmering culture wars._


----------



## Red Sky (Jan 2, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Lucas did then organise community strike breaking teams, for balance.



You mean people tidying up?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 2, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> A Head-Scarf Ban and Carbon Taxes: Austria’s Kurz to Govern With Green Party in Unlikely Partnership...


Also tax cuts


> Kurz also announced that corporation tax will be cut to 21% from 25%. Income taxes will also be reduced for those for those in the current 25%, 35% and 42% brackets, with corresponding rates cut to 20%, 30% and 40%.





> If [the coalition] succeeds, it may set an example for other European democracies, where Green parties appear poised to enter government coalitions.
> .....
> The new Austrian coalition may prove to be a harbinger especially for Germany, where there is already talk of forming a similar coalition after the next election, slated for 2021.


Too true. And something those cheering on the German Greens would do well to think about.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2020)

Red Sky said:


> You mean people tidying up?



Tidying up people who were scabs? 
Please explain .....


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Tidying up people who were scabs?
> Please explain .....


SF is arguing that Lucas actions amounted to organising strike breaking. RS is saying that those actions were merely getting people to tidy up and so implying that is was not strike breaking.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 3, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> A Head-Scarf Ban and Carbon Taxes: Austria’s Kurz to Govern With Green Party in Unlikely Partnership
> 
> 
> _That’s how, in a 300-page coalition contract presented in Vienna on Thursday, plans for a head scarf ban for Muslim girls and deportation centers for unsuccessful asylum seekers sat side by side with a carbon tax on airline tickets and a target to make Austria carbon neutral by 2040.
> ...



Greens will be Green Slime anyone who believes the Greens in Britain would be any different is an idiot.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 4, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Tidying up people who were scabs?
> Please explain .....



Got my eye on you, scab


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 4, 2020)

Of course it's fucking scabbing, why is there even any question?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2020)

Bit of cross-over from the Lab leadership thread, but...this caught my eye in Nandy's Guardian pitch:



Hmm


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 4, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Also tax cuts
> 
> 
> Too true. And something those cheering on the German Greens would do well to think about.



the german greens have been coopted for some time now- more and more they are viewed as a smug urban based party by those outside the big conurbations

eta there has been a conscious policy of distancing themselves from the atomkraft nein danke lefty image of yore


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 5, 2020)

Sorry William of Walworth I meant to quote Red Sky not you! 

I don't like this new set up its confusing change is bad.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 22, 2020)

butchersapron said:


>



For some reason I couldn't see this pic until I replied. I needed this pic. As you were.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 22, 2020)




----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 22, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> For some reason I couldn't see this pic until I replied. I needed this pic. As you were.



Weird. I can see this when I am writing a reply but not when I post. If anyone could send me that pic I would be grateful I need it forever.


----------



## strung out (Aug 22, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Weird. I can see this when I am writing a reply but not when I post. If anyone could send me that pic I would be grateful I need it forever.




How's that?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> For some reason I couldn't see this pic until I replied. I needed this pic. As you were.





strung out said:


> View attachment 227551
> 
> How's that?


11-4. Howzat?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2020)

I thought it might be that one, but SO provided before i did. What a...fucking thing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 23, 2020)

strung out said:


> View attachment 227551
> 
> How's that?



Thanks!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2020)

strung out said:


> My friend was the PPC for the Greens in Filton and Bradley Stoke, but has now quit the party because of the electoral pact with the Lib Dems
> 
> 
> 
> Click through for the whole thread



ermmm..."sorry that page doesn't exist"????


----------



## strung out (Aug 23, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> ermmm..."sorry that page doesn't exist"????


It was a tweet from last year.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2020)

strung out said:


> It was a tweet from last year.


ahhh...ah well, no biggie


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 3, 2020)

Green council just took over in Brighton & Hove again, & up to their auld tricks. Cutting the salary of the in-house housing maint’ team of up to 4 grand, & not paying sick pay from Feb to Aug 2020. Seeing as the sub contractor Mears ripped the council off for millions over the years hence losing the contact & maint’ brought back in house, this is lower than a fucking snakes belly. Strike on!

And the Greens have halted all negotiations with the GMB.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 4, 2020)

Urgh scumbags


----------



## teqniq (Sep 4, 2020)

What the actual fuck is the matter with them?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 6, 2020)

teqniq said:


> What the actual fuck is the matter with them?





redsquirrel said:


> Urgh scumbags


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 9, 2020)

Local Greens, when not attacking worker’s pay:

“We’re going to set up a community parklet at the back of the ****** Street on the 19th, where the empty car parking spaces are. We’re not going to ‘advertise’ it as such, just set up a nice space, with a large piece of astroturf, chairs and a few deck chairs and some bunting, plants and autumn leaves. We’ll create a few info boards about the Liveable Neighbourhood to show who we are, to put at the back of the parklet – so if anyone wants to contribute to the content, let’s talk. I thought a sandwich board signposting the Pop-up Park, or the like on ******* Street would be nice too.  We need to keep numbers down to 30 of course: I’ve pasted in the Govt guidelines below and would say we fall into ‘community event’. Hope you agree! I might tell the local PCSO it’s happening too – what do we think?”


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 16, 2020)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Green council just took over in Brighton & Hove again, & up to their auld tricks. Cutting the salary of the in-house housing maint’ team of up to 4 grand, & not paying sick pay from Feb to Aug 2020. Seeing as the sub contractor Mears ripped the council off for millions over the years hence losing the contact & maint’ brought back in house, this is lower than a fucking snakes belly. Strike on!
> 
> And the Greens have halted all negotiations with the GMB.



Latest update: Brighton Greens have undermined the industrial action & shipped in agency scabs. Cunts.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 17, 2020)

Fucking pricks never change


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Sep 17, 2020)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Latest update: Brighton Greens have undermined the industrial action & shipped in agency scabs. Cunts.


You got a link?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 17, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> You got a link?



A link? You think this is msn?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2020)

strung out said:


> View attachment 227551
> 
> How's that?



You can tell Ginge counts himself as one of those he wishes power to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2020)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Green council just took over in Brighton & Hove again, & up to their auld tricks. Cutting the salary of the in-house housing maint’ team of up to 4 grand, & not paying sick pay from Feb to Aug 2020. Seeing as the sub contractor Mears ripped the council off for millions over the years hence losing the contact & maint’ brought back in house, this is lower than a fucking snakes belly. Strike on!
> 
> And the Greens have halted all negotiations with the GMB.



Mears are fucking awful. I recently upset one of their bosses - they're supposed to be "overseeing" a project here - when I said "a resident asked me whether your company is dependable & reliable. I told her that a pirate would be a better choice".
Pretty sure they're going to take a hit in 2021, as they're losing a lot of local authority contracts to DLOs. Even council CEOs are cottoning on to the fact that these "full service" companies are appalling value for money. We worked out a quick & easy explanation for why such shit work got done on these contracts: "For every £200 the contractor gets paid, roughly £30 filters down to the sub-contractor that actually does the work". Most of them can't believe it, yet here, over the last 12 months, they've taken tree maintenance, some highways maintenance, & grounds maintenance back in-house, It looks like the big contracts will also be broken up into smaller ones, and tendered locally. Tough shit to Mears, Morrisons, Access et al.

As for the Greens, as a former party member, I'll say the same thing I've been saying since before I left. It's a white middle class party for the white middle classes. Until it has the courage & conviction to broaden its outlook, it'll carry on acting like we expect the bourgeoisie to act.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 24, 2021)

Latest shit from the Green fash in Brighton & Hove - all council workers won’t be getting their % pay rise in April as they’ve removed that payment from their budget.
They really are the are boil on worker’s arses.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 8, 2021)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Latest shit from the Green fash in Brighton & Hove - all council workers won’t be getting their % pay rise in April as they’ve removed that payment from their budget.
> They really are the are boil on worker’s arses.



Just noticed another bin strike is under way, over your way, how can Brighton and Hove City Council be so fucking shit with their direct labour force?

FFS, despite both Adur District Council & Worthing Borough Council being Tory controlled, our bin service hasn't been contracted out, and are still provided by the joint A&W Councils' direct labour force, and there's never been a bin strike in the 20 years I've lived here, how can the Greens fuck-up so much over in B&H?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 8, 2021)

The Greens are fucking useless. Not a pot of fucking glue. But tbh, senior management at City Clean is just as bad.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 12, 2021)

The Brighton bin strike made it onto the main national BBC news at 6 pm today, together with footage of rubbish piling up on the streets, grim.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 12, 2021)

I've been reading Derek Wall's book Climate Strike. Derek is International Co-oridnator for the UK Green Party.
In the book there is a chapter which goes through the Green Parties around the world and points out the different ways in which they are all crap!  Its a refreshing read. He still concludes there is a role to play for Green Parties, but he is under no illusions.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 12, 2021)

Starting to stink now. Love it.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Just noticed another bin strike is under way, over your way, how can Brighton and Hove City Council be so fucking shit with their direct labour force?
> 
> FFS, despite both Adur District Council & Worthing Borough Council being Tory controlled, our bin service hasn't been contracted out, and are still provided by the joint A&W Councils' direct labour force, and there's never been a bin strike in the 20 years I've lived here, how can the Greens fuck-up so much over in B&H?



That why politicians like to privatise things. "Pay us more or we'll make you lose the next election" is a lot more effective than "pay us more and you will never get that plum FTSE100 CEO job".


----------



## Indeliblelink (Oct 16, 2021)

Greens bringing in scab labour now.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Oct 17, 2021)

Pond life. Green scum.


----------



## Red Sky (Oct 17, 2021)

What are the issues in the Brighton bin strike.  The last one was about pay, this seems a bit vaguer.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 17, 2021)

Red Sky said:


> What are the issues in the Brighton bin strike.  The last one was about pay, this seems a bit vaguer.


GMB say:








						GMB members at Brighton and Hove City Clean vote 100% for strike action
					

GMB can announce that Brighton’s city clean refuse, recycling, commercial waste, and com-bin HGV drivers have voted overwhelmingly to take strike action.




					www.gmb-southern.org.uk
				





> The strike vote comes over a dispute with the city’s Green council over their refusal to intervene and settle an ongoing dispute around unilateral imposed daily changes and removal of drivers from long standing rounds without process, by management whim.
> 
> These constant one-sided enforced driver removals, changes of duties, crew variations and alterations in plans around the collection of dropped work has had a detrimental impact on the HGV driver’s health and well-being at the city’s Hollingdean depot, and this very strong ballot outcome is a clear message to their employers that enough is enough.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 6, 2022)




----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 6, 2022)

I wonder if any party members are thinking they could have at least used a pic of Brenda wearing green?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 6, 2022)

teqniq said:


>




"Congratulations on not dying"


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 6, 2022)

Why did they post that up ?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 6, 2022)

not-bono-ever said:


> Why did they post that up ?



Everyone seems to be congratulating the old lady today. I assume it's some milestone like a birthday or anniversary. I've not bothered to dig deeper.


----------



## JimW (Feb 6, 2022)

wrong thread, doh


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2022)

teqniq said:


>



Fawning fucking lickspittles


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Feb 10, 2022)

teqniq said:


>



Fucking royal rimmer wankers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 10, 2022)

teqniq said:


>



what was she doing before 1952 then? such abject lickspittlery is emetic


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> what was she doing before 1952 then? such abject lickspittlery is emetic


hands up if anyone knows?


----------



## ska invita (May 29, 2022)

Thought experiment: what degree of entryism would it take to create a left majority faction within the green party?
Total membership is 53,000 according to a quick search.
Of that number there are already some...lets call them "socialists" in the ranks. Impossible to say how many but Id take a stab in the dark at 20%.
By that equation it would take 20,000 'socialists' to join to become a majority.
It is reported 200,000 Labour Party members have left since Starmer.
If a tenth of them joined the Greens could it then become a genuinely eco-socialist party?
*Ive no idea what internal party democracy is like within the Green, but Id expect its a lot better than the LP.


----------



## ska invita (May 29, 2022)

yeah i was expecting this....dont hold back now!


----------



## ska invita (May 29, 2022)

Talking of left factions in the Green Party, years ago I met someone from "Green Left", an explicit faction within the Greens pushing an ecosocialist agenda - he said he often got stick from other members for being "factional" and told "that kind of thing isn't necessary in the greens" <it clearly was and is of course. I think that group is just about still going - on facebook at least (having googled)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 4, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Thought experiment: what degree of entryism would it take to create a left majority faction within the green party?
> Total membership is 53,000 according to a quick search.
> Of that number there are already some...lets call them "socialists" in the ranks. Impossible to say how many but Id take a stab in the dark at 20%.
> By that equation it would take 20,000 'socialists' to join to become a majority.
> ...



There was a Green Left faction at one point, they all left I think.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jun 5, 2022)

SpackleFrog said:


> There was a Green Left faction at one point, they all left I think.


I think they're still going actually ska invita


----------



## Dystopiary (Jun 5, 2022)

Blech.



Didn't go down too well so...

Caroline Lucas, retweeted by the Green Party: "Yes, thanking Queen’s 70 yrs isn’t incompatible with challenging this model of inherited privilege & debating alternatives"

Of course it isn't when you don't give one shit for the working class, you ignorant, obsequious, scab-reliant, privately educated twit.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 5, 2022)

If anyone cares- this is the Green Party of England & Wales- the Scottish party has taken a much different line, basically ignoring it all.

Not that it matters. The handling of the Brighton bin strike, this cringing pathetic lickspittlery from Lucas, and Scottish Green "ministers" sitting on their hands whilst the SNP flogged off the sea bed to energy multinationals, shat on striking workers up here, and kicking the can down the road on recycling schemes, tells you all you need to know about Greens in power.

Basically vegan Lib Dems with a slightly more public conscience. Fuck 'em.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 12, 2022)

You might expect Conservatives to resist workers’ rights, but Labour? Only the Greens stand with strikers | Zack Polanski
					

Higher wages would help with both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis, says Zack Polanski of the Green party




					www.theguardian.com
				




"Only the Greens stand with strikers"​
Except when they scab.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Sep 12, 2022)

emanymton said:


> You might expect Conservatives to resist workers’ rights, but Labour? Only the Greens stand with strikers | Zack Polanski
> 
> 
> Higher wages would help with both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis, says Zack Polanski of the Green party
> ...


I think you mean scab.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 12, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I think you mean scab.


Bloody phones


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 6, 2022)

Just seen this, via Palestine Action's Instagram:


Make your own Naftali Bennett jokes, I suppose?


----------

