|
Umiapik posted:The Greens seem pretty cool to me..? I mean, 90% of their policies seem pretty good or very good, so I should vote for them, right? I'm struggling to find a reason not to, right now. Are you in a swing seat? edit: vote with your head THEN vote with your heart. The obligation of voters to absolutely represent their views in a FPTP system is literally a release valve to ensure radical ideas are filtered away. CoolCab fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Oct 10, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
I showered today, and I will shower tomorrow. Can't wait to see how neutral, normal and clean smelling I can get. Thanks for the motivation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:Sounds a bit like entryism Never said otherwise Umiapik posted:The Greens seem pretty cool to me..? I mean, 90% of their policies seem pretty good or very good, so I should vote for them, right? I'm struggling to find a reason not to, right now. Exactly. I disagree with the Greens on a lot of things but I disagree with them less on the whole than I do any other party with any chance of getting elected (shame about the SSP etc)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
...umm immigration LBC: Ukip Voter Is Skillfully Dispatched By James O'Brien 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:Sounds a bit like entryism Is it still entryism if it is not actually planned or organised or intentional?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:The Greens seem pretty cool to me..? I mean, 90% of their policies seem pretty good or very good, so I should vote for them, right? I'm struggling to find a reason not to, right now. Anti nuclear, anti animal testing (depending on how you feel), anti GM crops, anti stem cell research, generally anti/really bad at science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:55
|
|
£
|
 Amazing
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:So can anyone explain to me briefly on what the Common Weal bases it's fundelementals on and what it wants to achieve? Their website does a pretty good job of telling you what they want to achieve
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Universal suffrage: a good idea on paper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
twoot posted:...umm immigration I heard that happen live and it was absolutely glorious. How to completely obliterate someone without ever raising your voice or even arguing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I heard that happen live and it was absolutely glorious. How to completely obliterate someone without ever raising your voice or even arguing. It comes across to me as someone obliterating a very easy target. If you got someone that uninformed on the radio who backed the Greens/Conservatives/Whoever, I think it would be equally cringeworthy. The guy couldn't even think to bring up UKIP wanting us out of the EU as far as I've listened. Aromatic Stretch fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:It comes across to me as someone obliterating a very easy target. If you got someone that uninformed on the radio who backed the Greens/Conservatives/Whoever, I think it could be equally cringeworthy. He did another interview with Farage and Farage didn't do that much better. http://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-nigel-farage-v-james-obrien-live-from-1130-90532
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Pound_Coin posted:Anti nuclear, anti animal testing (depending on how you feel), anti GM crops, anti stem cell research, generally anti/really bad at science. Is there any diffirences between the Scottish Greens and Green party of England & Wales, considering they are independent parties that follow at least a green guideline. But how far does their Anti-Science stretch between each other? Which is less...anti.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Aromatic Stretch posted:It comes across to me as someone obliterating a very easy target. If you got someone that uninformed on the radio who backed the Greens/Conservatives/Whoever, I think it would be equally cringeworthy. Well to be honest, If you have people who call up a radio show that asked it's viewers on the basic questions of a politcal party like "What are they for" and you have a voter who voted for any party that can't back up their basic policies...well they deserve to be destroyed easily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Pound_Coin posted:Anti nuclear, anti animal testing (depending on how you feel), anti GM crops, anti stem cell research, generally anti/really bad at science. People are obnoxiously loving stupid is the gist of what I'm saying. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:I love science but I'd happily give it up if it meant the poor weren't dying in the streets. As has been said by other posters earlier in the thread, several of the Greens' policies are actively harmful to the poor. Certainly their anti-GMO stance will at best make handling the cost of living even more difficult for struggling families and at worst result in actual famines, and their anti-animal testing stance will result in more people dying of treatable illnesses. Is it really worth it just to tweak the nose of a Monsanto shareholder? kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Is there any diffirences between the Scottish Greens and Green party of England & Wales, considering they are independent parties that follow at least a green guideline. But how far does their Anti-Science stretch between each other? Which is less...anti. I'm not sure if there is a science-positive part to the Scottish Greens (which could concievably be strengthened by the influx of members), but according to their 2014 manifesto the Scottish Greens oppose any expansion of nuclear energy and any use of GM crops in the EU. There is no mention in their manifesto of stem cell research, there is a general stated principle that state research funding should be increased increased in general with any research funding provided containing a requirement that the results be published in open-access journals, nothing specific to stem cells, though. There is no mention of a ban on animal testing, however there is a section which specifically deals with animal welfare, mostly focusing on animal farming, calling for higher welfare standards for food animals, and a ban on the use of animals in violent sport. So if the Greens of England and Wales want all 4, then you could probably call the Scottish Greens more science positive. It is also worth reiterating that while opposition to GM crops and nuclear power are definitely wrongheaded, they are two bulletpoints on a 34 page document that has stuff like this on it: quote:Our MEP will: It's probably worth asking yourself the questions "are my views on nuclear power and GM crops the most important part of my politics?" and "does any other party who agrees with me on those issues (a) agree with me on all the other stuff I consider important and (b) have any chance of getting elected representatives in the body I'm engaged in electing?" EDIT: A is especially important when you consider that you'd be very hard pressed to find a party left of Labour which is not anti-nuclear and anti-GM. Reveilled fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Zephro posted:And parties, in the short-term, have no incentive at all to build broad coalitions of voters, because the simple truth is that in purely electoral terms the votes of 90%+ of the people in this country are irrelevant. To win an election under FPTP you focus only on wavering voters in marginal constituencies, so a few hundred thousand people de facto decide the election. This happens in non-FPTP systems as well though. Australia has one of the Western world's better ballot systems, and its elections are still largely decided by the western suburbs of Sydney. It deeply shits me that democratic elections all over the world are mostly decided by the 10% of fuckwits who can't decide which basic political philosophy they want to get behind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:As has been said by other posters earlier in the thread, several of the Greens' policies are actively harmful to the poor. Certainly their anti-GMO stance will at best make handling the cost of living even more difficult for struggling families and at worst result in actual famines, and their anti-animal testing stance will result in more people dying of treatable illnesses. Is it really worth it just to tweak the nose of a Monsanto shareholder?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:It is also worth reiterating that while opposition to GM crops and nuclear power are definitely wrongheaded, they are two bulletpoints on a 34 page document that has stuff like this on it: But it is worth considering that climate change and energy and food security are by far the most pressing global concerns that we currently face (alongside the water security, although that's not really a major issue at home), and any political party should have sensible, evidence-based positions on them. Likewise it is not much good having solid policies on the European working time directive if you're going to completely decimate one of the UK's prime industries (biomedical research) and hamstring healthcare for those that can't afford treatment abroad (the rich will always be able to afford healthcare, no matter what restrictions are placed on it in the UK). The Greens are the party of poo poo and the wall, they've thrown as much of one against the other to attract the widest possible demographic but in the end never have to worry about actually implementing any of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:Maybe I'm just a naive optimist but I think if that were the case, we'd stand a better chance of changing the minds of people who were killing the poor accidentally than of those who were doing it intentionally. The Greens' anti-GMO policy, like their anti-nuclear policy, are articles of faith in the same way that Thatcherites believe in Private Sector Efficiency over Public Sector Waste. The dismantling of the British biomedical research industry would be a one time thing, once it is gone, it's gone. Closing off avenues of treatment (xenotransplantation for instance) would disproportionately affect the poor, the rich would go abroad. That's deliberate, not accidental.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:The Greens are the party of poo poo and the wall, they've thrown as much of one against the other to attract the widest possible demographic but in the end never have to worry about actually implementing any of them. And that's just the thing - this also used to be very true of the Liberal Democrats. They could say anything they liked, because they would never actually have to be called out to make good on their promises... until the time came when they actually got a role in government. Considering that so many of this thread's regulars are ex-Dems who felt humiliated by  and still bear a grudge over the tuition fee rise, you'd think they wouldn't want to get burned again. Goons ought to wait a bit before proclaiming the Greens their next Great Red Hope.
kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
EDIT: Nevermind
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
The problem is that for the Greens the good social policies seem like an afterthought that they just happen to have alongside their real objectives of no nuclear plants or GMOs. I guess that now that I no longer work directly in animal experimentation I could vote for them though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:EDIT: Nevermind One of your better posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I guess that now that I no longer work directly in animal experimentation I could vote for them though. That's a little bit gently caress You Got Mine, isn't it? I definitely wouldn't get away with it in this thread if I said "now that I own a home, I'm voting Tory  *pushes ladder away* "
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
There is no great red hope. Everyone is poo poo. Buckle in, comrades, because there ain't buggery we can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:The problem is that for the Greens the good social policies seem like an afterthought that they just happen to have alongside their real objectives of no nuclear plants or GMOs. Yeah this is probably right. I have high hopes that the two strands might be made more equitable, if not reversed, in Scottish Green's future, as the topics of dicussion were far more 'anti-poverty and pro-democracy and pro-socialism' at the last meeting than 'anti-science, nuclear, GMO'. In fact, nuclear was mentioned a few times but the others barely at all. Parties are always going to have parts you disagree with, and the Greens are technically speaking more democratic internally and open to change than most. With the new influx of members in Scotland, this seems possible. I'd be far more uncomfortable voting Labour because I disagree with them on the same number, if not more, things, and yet see no real opportunity to change that from within. Hungry posted:There is no great red hope. Everyone is poo poo. Buckle in, comrades, because there ain't buggery we can do. Probably this tbh. I'll wait till after the RIC conference to hang up my red flag though. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:The problem is that for the Greens the good social policies seem like an afterthought that they just happen to have alongside their real objectives of no nuclear plants or GMOs. How so? They identify (or did) explicitly as an anticapitalist party with a focus on improving quality of life instead of purely pursuing economic growth. Caroline Lucas seems to be one of the few consistent voices attacking the government's record and social policies, as well as more general social issues. I mean some of the core membership might be focused on their pet issues, but the party itself seems fairly leftist in its political activity
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
The Green Party have good policies, without a doubt, but they hardly form part of the big working-class political movement that we need. Sadly, Greens will fail to extend beyond their core vote of middle-class liberals. I still vote Labour at every election because they are the party the trade unions have backed, and still represent the labour movement at large. As soon as the unions jump ship, that will be time to stop supporting Labour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
freebooter posted:This happens in non-FPTP systems as well though. Australia has one of the Western world's better ballot systems, and its elections are still largely decided by the western suburbs of Sydney. It'd "poo poo you" a lot more if they did decide and decided on the philosophy you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
why does it not surprise me that the fact that moderates decide elections is hard for this thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:That's a little bit gently caress You Got Mine, isn't it? I was joking, but I can see how it might have been hard to tell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Margaret Thatcher posted:The Green Party have good policies, without a doubt, but they hardly form part of the big working-class political movement that we need. Sadly, Greens will fail to extend beyond their core vote of middle-class liberals. I still vote Labour at every election because they are the party the trade unions have backed, and still represent the labour movement at large. As soon as the unions jump ship, that will be time to stop supporting Labour. That's the challenge. Here's a good article on the potential for a broader leftist party incorporating lots of different interests (Greens included) in the near future: http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/blog/the-landscape-of-no-scotland/
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:The problem is that for the Greens the good social policies seem like an afterthought that they just happen to have alongside their real objectives of no nuclear plants or GMOs. The no-nuclear and anti-GMO things are fairly small parts of a much larger fight - that of defending the environment. Nuclear can be a big part of progress on that front. I think that's something they have wrong. GMOs are an interesting one. They may have a great deal of potential for sustainable agriculture but the way they have been employed up to now has made their impact has been significantly negative. I would argue they're not really necessary anyway, with hunger distribution of food is a much bigger issue than production. I'm not a single issue voter on environmental matters but for me it is the biggest issue we face and even if the Greens' policy on that front isn't perfect it's so much better than any other party there's no comparison. I wouldn't say their social policy is an afterthought, while those positions and environmentalism tend to have similar ideological bases I think it's also an acknowledgement that protecting the environment is going to take a lot of leftist policy anyway. So I will be voting green, since we used to be fairly marginal but seem to be solid Tory since they made Our Justine a minister. Is that usual? Some kind of halo effect?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
It is a little bit awkward, though, that the Greens' love of pseudoscientific woo means that the most advertised part of their platform is the one they're weakest on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
They cannot hold themselves out as Green if they officially back scaremongering and loving pseudoscience. Get with the goddamn program instead of the head in the clouds terminator seed GM is evil bollocks and maybe people will vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:It is a little bit awkward, though, that the Greens' love of pseudoscientific woo means that the most advertised part of their platform is the one they're weakest on. Is this true at all though? I've been exposed to zero 'pseudoscientific woo' as a recent member, active meeting attendee and long-time voter. Strikes me as the kind of thing said of the Greens to discredit them, not by them. There are far too many academics/students involved for it to be true in any meaningful way; plenty of sciencey types and plenty who disagree with a lot of the party line (i.e. animal testing) ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
They're also the only party that talks about the broader issue of population instead of the easy get out of blaming it on ~the immigrants~. I can't see that being too popular though, because population growth is necessary to keep the pyramid scheme of capitalism going. Growth for the growth god! I wonder what the reaction would be if Ed turned around and launched a scathing attack on the population bubble and resource inequality instead of blaming migrants now that people are urging him to go hardline on immigration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Is this true at all though? Their transport policy is basically "what will make middle-class liberals in Camden happy", instead of effective environmental policies. They're generally in favour of railway electrification, for example, but that doesn't even get a look-in on their transport policy page.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 12:22
|
|
