Topic: Nobby's Green Thread. A great party with great ideas. A great bunch of lads!

[Devon Red]

If you happen to live in a Labour/Tory marginal seat then maybe there is some argument for tactical voting, although I would never criticise someone for voting with their heart. But most people don't live in Labour/Tory marginals, so it's not even an issue. I live in a Tory/Lib Dem dominated seat which will almost certainly return a Tory MP, voting Green is the obvious choice.

[viteslesrouges]

Voting Green is the obvious choice.

Voting Green isn't even an option for about 40% of the population as they won't be putting up candidates in all constituencies. (and that's with expected an increase of 50% candidates compared to 2010.........if they can raise the required funding/deposits).

[Hij]

Joined the party last week.

[Hij]

I voted Lib Dems last election to try and keep the Tories out. Tories won anyway where I am.

I'm voting Green because I believe in their policies, plus I can console myself with the Labour candidate having no chance in my area. If Labour want to regain my vote, they can move left.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I voted Lib Dems last election to try and keep the Tories out. Tories won anyway where I am.

I'm voting Green because I believe in their policies, plus I can console myself with the Labour candidate having no chance in my area. If Labour want to regain my vote, they can move left.

There's a bit of irony in there somewhere.

I may be voting Green, if I vote. Everyone should vote according to their beliefs, not tactically, otherwise as has previously been mentioned nothing will change.

[Hij]

There's a bit of irony in there somewhere.

I may be voting Green, if I vote. Everyone should vote according to their beliefs, not tactically, otherwise as has previously been mentioned nothing will change.

Wait, I just said "regain my vote" like I've ever voted for them (only had one general election, and was one of the muppets who voted Lib Dem).

But, generally its Labour or Tory and if Labour represented what I believed in more I wouldn't hesitate to boost their numbers, but they don't really.

[hide5seek]

If the Greens want to move on as a political force they really should be looking towards the unions to get funding.

[viteslesrouges]

Voting Green isn't even an option for about 40% of the population as they won't be putting up candidates in all constituencies. (and that's with expected an increase of 50% candidates compared to 2010.........if they can raise the required funding/deposits).

"We plan to contest 75% of all constituencies in England and Wales" - said The Green Party.

Your point being?

"The Green Party is polling at its highest levels ahead of a General Election since 1989, a breakthrough year.

The Green Party is standing candidates in at least 75% of seats in May 2015. That means 50% more people will be able to vote Green in 2015 than were able to do so five years ago."

http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/01/15/green-party-announces-new-slate-of-spokespeople-ahead-of-may-7-2015-general-election/

Even with that increase they're not reaching all voters............................which was my point.

[hide5seek]

Reading tonight (ukpollingreport) if Greens poll around 10% labour lose 5 seats to the Tories Green gain none.

[Twelfth Man]

Reading tonight (ukpollingreport) if Greens poll around 10% labour lose 5 seats to the Tories Green gain none.

Cool

[brownie 09]

Reading tonight (ukpollingreport) if Greens poll around 10% labour lose 5 seats to the Tories Green gain none.

maybe labour should do fucking more then to stop people voting green. There's a great idea.

By that I mean come up ideas and policies that work for the left, not just start screaming and shouting about how you vote green you get tory like they have recently.

Wonder why they haven't come up with it.

Maybe it's because deep down they sort of agree with the Tories and don't want to be a left wing party just a centre right party.

Maybe hidenseek instead of trying to guilt trip and saying people who vote green are helping the Tories, you should be questioning the Labour Party and its MPs for not being the party the left want to vote for.

[Red Viper]

Reading tonight (ukpollingreport) if Greens poll around 10% labour lose 5 seats to the Tories Green gain none.

And?

Your attitude suggests that you're blaming people who vote Green for strengthening the Torys when really you should be blaming the Labour party for letting voters down.

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, I've always been a Labour supporter but last year I cancelled my membership because I felt completely let down by them. They're the Labour party in no other way but name these days as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate that at the minute they're the only viable alternative to the Torys but that's not a good enough reason for me to continue to vote for them and therefore provide support for a version of a Labour party that is certainly anything but 'Labour'.

The only way I see any of the major parties starting to look inwards at their own inadequacies is by rejecting them and voting for the best policies rather than simply settling for picking the lesser of two evils. If voting for the Greens results in the Torys getting five more years then, as regrettable as that maybe, so be it, because the long term outcome might be us getting a Labour party that actually remembers it's roots and knows what it stands for.

[zebenzui]

Reading tonight (ukpollingreport) if Greens poll around 10% labour lose 5 seats to the Tories Green gain none.

And yet electoral reform is nowhere to be found on the public agenda, instead we ponder whether to vote for a party we dont want to keep out another party we dont want, or vote for a party we do want which would let in a party we dont want.

Fucking sweet democracy bro.

[RobinHood]

Met a Green candidate in my constituency today, lovely woman, and I reckon they could be polling even higher if they stuck to the main issues (min wage, railways) rather than going a bit mental and trying to decide who our cricket team can play.

Also I don't know if this has been posted here before but one of their councillors is called Phil McCafferty!

[Red Beret]

maybe labour should do fucking more then to stop people voting green. There's a great idea.

Your attitude suggests that you're blaming people who vote Green for strengthening the Torys when really you should be blaming the Labour party for letting voters down.

I already had this debate in the Tory thread.  Apparently I MUST vote Labour, even though they are plastic Tories, and the Greens are embarrassing and shite because they opposed allotments for Liverpool (or something...)

So I will reiterate what I have already said.  I live in a safe Labour seat and so I will register my opposition to them taking their core vote for granted by voting for a socialist party, the Greens.  If I were in a marginal seat then, yes, I would swallow my puke and vote Labour, but I am not going to let the politics of fear dictate my ballot paper.

PS: Just applied online to join them.

[Elmo!]

I already had this debate in the Tory thread.  Apparently I MUST vote Labour, even though they are plastic Tories, and the Greens are embarrassing and shite because they opposed allotments for Liverpool (or something...)

So I will reiterate what I have already said.  I live in a safe Labour seat and so I will register my opposition to them taking their core vote for granted by voting for a socialist party, the Greens.  If I were in a marginal seat then, yes, I would swallow my puke and vote Labour, but I am not going to let the politics of fear dictate my ballot paper

But that is exactly what you would be doing if you lived in a marginal and voted Labour.

EDIT: Don't take that the wrong way, I  can understand the temptation to vote Labour to keep the Tories out, but the motivation to do so is 'fear' of the Tories winning, so is by definition 'the politics of fear'.

[Red Beret]

But that is exactly what you would be doing if you lived in a marginal and voted Labour.

Indeed, I stand corrected.  Let me alter that to state I will not let the politics of fear make me worry about Labour losing a safe seat to the Greens.

I personally don't believe Labour will win the election outright anyway.  I reckon they'll top out at about 310 seats, in which case I'd suggest they go it alone as a minority government, rather than try to forge a coalition.  Any Green MPs - should we be fortunate enough to have some - would likely back Labour to a certain point in any case.  And if we can force concessions, so much the better.

[Red Beret]

http://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/17641-the-green-surge-and-the-new-politics-in-britain

It is now almost beyond comprehension, but Tony Blair oversaw the biggest increase in Labour membership since the 1940s. Between his election as leader in 1994, and his entry into Number 10 in 1997, Labour Party membership rose from 305,000 to 405,000. It declined every year he was in power, and fell similarly for his hapless successor, Gordon Brown.

Blair’s upturn, though, has quite a different dynamic to those seen previously. If previous Labour upturns had been dependent on the left, particularly amongst younger members, and matched by a leadership prepared (or presumed) to pitch also to the left, Blair’s was a surge against the left – whatever the intentions of those joining. Certainly, he would rely on activists, historically on the party’s left, to keep the faith and act as footsoldiers in election campaigns. But New Labour’s entire strategic vision was to drive the party as hard as possible into the presumed “centre ground”.

If the 1990s had followed the previous pattern, that anti-government, anti-Tory sentiment should have fed not just into a rise in Labour Party membership, but into a strengthening of the Labour left. It did not; to all intents and purposes, the left of the Labour Party has been in a state of decline ever since. The Labour left could not recruit significantly out of the Iraq War protests: why join Labour when it was a Labour government invading Iraq? And on the evidence of the most recent leadership elections, its historic base in the party membership has decayed beyond rescue. The party members, in the UK in 2010 and for Scotland last year, voted on both occasions with the Parliamentary leadership for the continuity Blairite candidate. It was only the votes of trade unionists that managed to finagle Ed Miliband into his current role – a result that has left him permanently weakened as leader.

Labour has dominated the left vote in this country since the General Strike, and the broader working class vote since the 1940s. Generations have voted Labour and, today, millions will still be voting Labour in May. They will do so, in the main, for the simple reason that of the two historic options for government, one side will broadly claim to defend working class interests, and the other side will not. One side in office has attempted to do so, the other side never has. Current debates over the NHS exemplify this longstanding good sense, and that history and experience will not be forgotten overnight. Even in recent years, it was New Labour in office that increased funding for the NHS after decades of Tory squeeze. It was New Labour who introduced Education Maintenance Allowance and Sure Start. And it was New Labour that finally brought in a minimum wage. All this counts; it is precisely this history that Gordon Brown drew on to no little effect in both the closing weeks of the 2010 election, and last year’s independence referendum. However weak the shield may be, it is better than no shield at all.

If that experience is challenged in a serious way, we can expect that support to change...  We are, at present, around 20% of the way through the proposed spending cuts. There is 80% still to come in the next four years. If actually implemented, this will take Britain to a level of public spending, as a share of GDP, last seen in the 1930s. Labour’s (somewhat vauge) spending plans ease off on George Gideon Oliver Osborne, son of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon and Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, educated at St. Paul's and Magdalen College, Oxford’s lunacy. But they stick to the broad line of march, and the situation will be all the worse if they end up in a coalition with the Lib Dems. (Or, for that matter, the Conservatives.) The pressure on Labour’s union backers to make a more serious – if not yet complete – break with the party could be immense. The fallout from the Falkirk selection row has already placed the relationship under serious tension in one, decisive, union. The Blairite true believers may well want to ditch the link, in any case, and their hand would be hugely strengthened if Miliband fails to make it through the black door in Downing Street.

[BUSHMILLS]

The Greens' leader Natalie Bennett was on TV earlier, saying that British citizens  should have the right to join Al Qaeeda and ISIS.

I'd stay away from the televised debates if I was her.

[Redman0151]

The Greens' leader Natalie Bennett was on TV earlier, saying that British citizens  should have the right to join Al Qaeeda and ISIS.

I'd stay away from the televised debates if I was her.

It's nice of you to remove the context like a daily mail headline, she really said:

“This is a part of our policy that dates back to the age of the ANC.

“What we want to do is to make sure we are not punishing people for what they think or what they believe.

“Obviously actions of inciting violence, supporting violence, those are absolutely unacceptable and illegal and should be pursued to the full extent of the law.”


In other words, people won't be arrested for what their opinions are.


If only you showed as much levelheadedness towards The Greens as you seem to do towards UKIP....

[BUSHMILLS]

It's nice of you to remove the context like a daily mail headline, she really said:

“This is a part of our policy that dates back to the age of the ANC.

“What we want to do is to make sure we are not punishing people for what they think or what they believe.

“Obviously actions of inciting violence, supporting violence, those are absolutely unacceptable and illegal and should be pursued to the full extent of the law.”


In other words, people won't be arrested for what their opinions are.


If only you showed as much levelheadedness towards The Greens as you seem to do towards UKIP....

I don't support UKIP. And it's not only the Daily Mail reporting it.

Anyway, good luck to her finding a member of ISIS who doesn't "support violence".

[Redman0151]

I don't support UKIP. And it's not only the Daily Mail reporting it.

Anyway, good luck to her finding a member of ISIS who doesn't "support violence".

If they support violence then they'll be prosecuted, simple as that.


I just find it interesting that when you're posting about issues such as UKIP or gun control you're more than willing to "be balanced" and argue down the other side, yet as soon as it comes to a left wing party genuinely trying to make a change in UK politics, you're ready to make sarky comments and take what she said out of context to make your point.

[Jshooters]

And it's not only the Daily Mail reporting it.

He likened your wilful dismissal of context to Daily Mail headline writing, nowhere did he say that it was solely a Daily Mail story.  But no doubt you knew that anyway but were just being obtuse

[B0151?]

Those groups solely exist for violent purposes so I don't think people should be allowed to join them. Obviously people are allowed to think what they want, but if you join groups like that, it's not just opinion, you're supporting hatred and violence.

[Red Beret]

At this moment in time you can only arrest people for what they think when they share it in a threatening and abusive manner.  It's not a crime to think it privately at home.  Actions on the other hand...

[BUSHMILLS]

He likened your wilful dismissal of context to Daily Mail headline writing, nowhere did he say that it was solely a Daily Mail story.  But no doubt you knew that anyway but were just being obtuse

I wasn't quoting out of context.

Have you seen the interview, by the way? If not, watch it on I-player. It's a car crash.

[Jshooters]

I wasn't quoting out of context.

As CW pointed out you did kind of miss this bit out:

"Obviously actions of inciting violence, supporting violence, those are absolutely unacceptable, illegal and should be pursued to the full extent of the law."

She added: "What we are talking about is a principle that you shouldn't be punished for what you think. And we need to balance, we do not protect freedom by destroying it."

[Yorkykopite]

It's a tough watch. He's prepared, she isn't. He knows the Green policies better than she does. He's thought about their implications, she hasn't. He cites evidence, she cites general principles. I watched it, but I wanted to hide behind the settee after 5 minutes. It was a demolition. I'd be amazed if Natalie Bennett now wants to go on national television again to defend the Green Party manifesto.

[BUSHMILLS]

As CW pointed out you did kind of miss this bit out:

"Obviously actions of inciting violence, supporting violence, those are absolutely unacceptable, illegal and should be pursued to the full extent of the law."

She added: "What we are talking about is a principle that you shouldn't be punished for what you think. And we need to balance, we do not protect freedom by destroying it."

How can you be a member if ISIS - a group whose whole raison d'être is to establish an Islamic caliphate by force, and murder anyone who resists - without "supporting violence"?


Would you be as keen to defend her if she'd spoke up for people's freedom to join the Ku Klux Klan?

[Redman0151]

How can you be a member if ISIS - a group whose whole raison d'être is to establish an Islamic caliphate by force, and murder anyone who resists - without "supporting violence"?


Would you be as keen to defend her if she'd spoke up for people's freedom to join the Ku Klux Klan?

If it's believed they're supporting violence then they'll be arrested, what do you think they'd do, allow an ISIS stronghold to be built in the centre of London or something?


One smell of blood and the sharks start to swarm, because you're all scared of any actual change away from right wing politics.


By all means keep attacking the Greens and telling them to stay away from leadership debates whilst UKIP and the Torys destroy the NHS, protect their friends in major corporations and attack the poor.

You'll get the country you deserve

[BUSHMILLS]

If it's believed they're supporting violence then they'll be arrested, what do you think they'd do, allow an ISIS stronghold to be built in the centre of London or something?


One smell of blood and the sharks start to swarm, because you're all scared of any actual change away from right wing politics.


By all means keep attacking the Greens and telling them to stay away from leadership debates whilst UKIP and the Torys destroy the NHS, protect their friends in major corporations and attack the poor.

You'll get the country you deserve

"One smell of blood and the sharks start to swarm". Yeah, the likes of Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farrage get no criticism at all, do they?

Welcome to politics. If the Greens want to invite increased scrutiny of their policies by demanding to be involved in televised debates, they're going to get it.

[Redman0151]

"One smell of blood and the sharks start to swarm". Yeah, the likes of Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farrage get no criticism at all, do they?

Welcome to politics. If the Greens want to invite increased scrutiny of their policies by demanding to be involved in televised debates, they're going to get it.

My point is more about people like you who seem to pop up in defence of the likes of UKIP whenever there's a slight bit of criticism then claim you're not supporters of them, then the moment there's a hint of weakness about a left wing party you finally make your appearance in the thread, completely take a quote out of context and start laying into them.

It'd be a lot simpler if you just came out and admitted where your political stance was rather than playing this game, because we both know the next time a UKIP policy has slightly been misquoted you'll be over it like a shot to correct everybody.


It wasn't a great interview, she's clearly not as media trained as the other party leaders, but The Greens are the only genuine change from the main parties, and the only option for left wing voters. So right now rather than exaggerating claims and quotes, people might be better suited attempting to support them unless they're happy for the rest of their lives to be a choice between far right and central right.

[BUSHMILLS]

My point is more about people like you who seem to pop up in defence of the likes of UKIP whenever there's a slight bit of criticism then claim you're not supporters of them, then the moment there's a hint of weakness about a left wing party you finally make your appearance in the thread, completely take a quote out of context and start laying into them.

It'd be a lot simpler if you just came out and admitted where your political stance was rather than playing this game, because we both know the next time a UKIP policy has slightly been misquoted you'll be over it like a shot to correct everybody.


It wasn't a great interview, she's clearly not as media trained as the other party leaders, but The Greens are the only genuine change from the main parties, and the only option for left wing voters. So right now rather than exaggerating claims and quotes, people might be better suited attempting to support them unless they're happy for the rest of their lives to be a choice between far right and central right.

"Come out and admit your political stance". In other words "are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of UKIP?".  As it happens, Mr/Ms Witchfinder-General, the answer is no. I've only ever voted Labour.

I "made an appearance" in the thread because, like most people, I've become more aware of the Greens, and started to take more notice of what their policies are, because of the publicity they've received over the last couple of weeks. I watched the interview their leader gave on TV today and it was frankly embarrassing. If she takes part in televised debates with the other leaders she'll be eaten alive.

[Red Beret]

It wasn't a great interview, she's clearly not as media trained as the other party leaders, but The Greens are the only genuine change from the main parties, and the only option for left wing voters. So right now rather than exaggerating claims and quotes, people might be better suited attempting to support them unless they're happy for the rest of their lives to be a choice between far right and central right.

Agreed.  To hear some talk you'd think the Greens actually had a shot a Government.  Less than that, that they're not allowed to screw up.  It's part of the learning curve.  They've been obscenely neglected by the media up until this point.  If I were cynical I'd suggest it might be for this very purpose.  God forbid that their spin doctors aren't as slick as the other parties'.

Welcome to the age where merely LOOKING the part virtually guarantees the part.  Our politicians have become actors and woe betide anybody joining the game who has actual principles.

[Yorkykopite]

Agreed.  To hear some talk you'd think the Greens actually had a shot a Government.  Less than that, that they're not allowed to screw up.  It's part of the learning curve.  They've been obscenely neglected by the media up until this point.  If I were cynical I'd suggest it might be for this very purpose.  God forbid that their spin doctors aren't as slick as the other parties'.

Welcome to the age where merely LOOKING the part virtually guarantees the part.  Our politicians have become actors and woe betide anybody joining the game who has actual principles.

She obviously didn't look the part. That's to say she looked incompetent. More than established politicians she wanted, in fact, to dodge the questions and give her pre-prepared answers. 

But more worryingly, the Green Party programme was shown up for what it evidently is - a bloody mess.

[HarryLabrador]

Green Party Wants To Put The Queen In A Council House 
 
 24/01/2015 13:59 GMT   

The Queen could move into a council house, the leader of the Green Party has suggested, as a result of her plans to abolish the monarchy.

The party would remove the royal family from Buckingham Palace, but Green leader Natalie Bennett said she was "sure we can find a council house for her" as a result of their programme to build more.

Among their radical policies are the abolition of the monarchy, but Ms Bennett said the Queen would not be left homeless.

"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," she said.

Bennet said she was "sure we could find a council house" for Her Majesty

Ms Bennett hinted that the Greens would have a top rate of tax higher than 50p, with a wealth tax on multi-millionaires as part of a plan to "restructure society with the rich paying their way and multinationals paying taxes".

The party has benefited from a membership surge and the broadcasters have now invited Ms Bennett to take part in two televised debates ahead of the general election in recognition of its popularity - and David Cameron's insistence that the Greens be included following the decision to let Ukip's Nigel Frottage take part.

Ms Bennett told The Times her party was attracting disaffected Labour supporters and "anti-Ukip voters".

She said: "People are really hungry for something different. There is an element of us being fresh and new, but we are also talking about ideas, optimism and changing things.

"We need to restructure society with the rich paying their way and multinationals paying taxes. People sometimes say to me, 'I saw you and I stopped shouting at the TV and throwing things at it. I finally agree with a politician'."

The Green leader defended her party's economic policies, despite critics' warnings, claiming that GDP was not as important as whether people had a "better quality life".

Bennett said abolishing the monarchy would be one of various "different" plans for the country

Asked whether she wanted the country to go into recession, she said: "It depends if you want to measure success by GDP. Even the people who invented GDP said it's a lousy tool for progress. The age of significant growth is over. We need to look at human measures now, not profits, but a better quality life."

She added: "We have been driven by this neoliberal Thatcherite idea that what motivates people is money. We want to focus on the fact that people don't just want to work to earn more and more, they want to do other things that often aren't recognised and valued."

Ms Bennett attacked "parasitical" global firms who did not pay tax and urged people to shop locally.

"These big multinationals are paying no taxes, making their staff work incredibly hard with no security on very little pay," she said.

"Meanwhile, they are using the resources that we pay for with our taxes. Amazon vans are using our roads to deliver, their workers are using our NHS to keep healthy, but the company isn't paying taxes to help ... they're parasitical."
 The Greens would raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour, with a guaranteed £71 a week universal basic income, whether they were working or not.

"It would be a universal basic income from the state, children would get a bit less," she said. "There would be hardly any administration costs because it would go to every member of society. The assumption is that those of working age will top it up, but pensioners and the disabled will need extra help. It means that no one falls through the gaps."

Half of the £280 billion cost of the policy would come from tax, she indicated, with the rest made up of money already paid out in benefits like jobseekers' allowance.

"We are going to tax the rich more. In our last manifesto we had the top rate of tax at 50p for anyone earning over £100,000. I think it is going to be higher this time," she said.

There would also be a tax of 1% or 2% on people worth more than £3 million.

"People say to me that the rich will dodge it, but in some of the countries that already have it there is a simple rule that says if you haven't declared something on your wealth tax, you don't own it."
That would mean the state could "potentially" seize assets from the wealthy, she indicated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/24/green-party-queen-council-house_n_6537208.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

[brownie 09]

Tristan Hunt seems to have shot himself in the foot attacking the green parties education policies. Saying they aren't modern they are actually more of a fallback to the 70s.

Greens want to increase the school starting age to 6. Getting rid of standardized testing and restricting school league tables.

If I remember correctly Finland had one of the most highly rated eduction systems in the world, children only start school at 7 and don't do tests until quite late on around 16 I think.

So it would seem on the face of it the Greens policy is infact more modern and seems to be based on the Finnish model.

[Red Beret]

Seems to be that the more tests, measures and stat collecting that is put into ANY British system, the worse that system becomes  The powers that be, however, have yet to cotton onto this fact.

The British obsession with red tape and regulation is bizarre.

[jooneyisdagod]

Just started watching the interview and I've been open about about how most of my ideology is similar to that of the greens but that my fear was that the movement will reflect the view of neo-hippies, listening to Natalie Bennett, I'm afraid that might be happening in the UK Greens.


Edit: This is a car crash. It's not even the media training that's the problem, it's the lack of any sense of realism. Reminds quite sadly of Arvind Kejriwal from the AAP in India, a populist movement that was similar to the Greens in that their politics were hugely populist and they were bolstered by a number of younger voters who were done with the older parties and eventually the party turned out to be a motley crue without a clue of what to do once in power and eventually fizzled out in about a couple of months. Natalie Bennett's interview rings all the wrong bells I'm afraid. She's in cuckoo land. 

[Elmo!]

I'd hope after that interview, they consider entering Patrick Harvie, the joint leader of the Scottish Green Party in to the debates as he is far more impressive, and has plenty of experience from the referendum campaign last year.  Not going to happen though.