Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

The Green Party's policies sound bonkers

Scroll to see replies

Which parties oppose TTIP? I thought free trade was wildly popular in Britain - what are we some kind of Italy?

Well the Greens for one, given it stands to allow private companies to sue governments that pass legislation that negatively impacts their profits. That's one of several major issues that have been raised about TTIP.

Reply 41

AyGe

I have to agree with viddy9, these polices are radical yes but far from insane.

Reply 42

young_guns

Original post by viddy9

By what standard do you judge the Greens to be literally insane, may I ask?

What do you make of the claim that "health services create dependency"?

That's new-age vapidity, probably inserted by homeopathy obsessives.

And what do you make of the policy to introduce negative growth, ensuring a permanent recession?

Or the policy of reducing energy supplies by 30% within 5 years, as opposed to simply replacing fossils with renewables which might get people like me onboard?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 43

SerLorasTyrell

Hardly insane, only odd thing was allowing terrorist organisation membership

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 44

young_guns

Original post by AyGe

I have to agree with viddy9, these polices are radical yes but far from insane.

Of course, when they got into power in Brighton they were hardly radical. In fact, one of their councillors identified undermining the Labour Party as their chief objective; didn't mention anything about making the life of Brightonians better, improving services.

And of course, the Brighton Greens council attacked workers and trade unionists working for the council, and reduced the salaries of male workers in the name of "equality"

Reply 45

young_guns

Original post by SerLorasTyrell

Hardly insane, only odd thing was allowing terrorist organisation membership

Posted from TSR Mobile

What about the policy to ban the sale of puppies?

Or the policy to implement negative economic growth, thus ensuring a permanent recession?

Or slash overall energy supply by 30% over 5 years, rather than increasing the supply of renewables? That last one shows this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with hatred of consumption and the modern way of life

Reply 46

goldie56

Original post by SerLorasTyrell

Hardly insane, only odd thing was allowing terrorist organisation membership

Posted from TSR Mobile

That should be the one thing that discourages your vote surely

Reply 47

viddy9

Original post by young_guns

What do you make of the claim that "health services create dependency"?

That's new-age vapidity, probably inserted by homeopathy obsessives.

The phrase does seem to be a bit ambiguous. I'll have to withhold judgment on that one.

Original post by young_guns

And what do you make of the policy to introduce negative growth, ensuring a permanent recession?

Or the policy of reducing energy supplies by 30% within 5 years, as opposed to simply replacing fossils with renewables which might get people like me onboard?

I'm fine with simple living, personally. Self-sufficiency is quite palatable to me. They probably go too far on energy, although any type of consumption is indeed bad for the planet. But, I didn't see the reducing energy supplies policy cited by you in the original post?

Reply 48

The_Mighty_Bush

Voluntarily limiting population growth (what does that entail? Like a Sin tax situation?) and removing immigration controls is contradictory.

Reply 49

young_guns

Original post by viddy9

They probably go too far on energy, although any type of consumption is indeed bad for the planet.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. What would you say if, say, a community set up a co-operative and bought some land, set up wind turbines, grew their own vegetables and made things, which they also sold to the outside world?

That is consumption and trade. How is that bad for the environment?

But, I didn't see the reducing energy supplies policy cited by you in the original post?

Policies EN110 and EN141. It's in my original post

Reply 50

young_guns

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush

Voluntarily limiting population growth (what does that entail? Like a Sin tax situation?) and removing immigration controls is contradictory.

I'm also curious to know how they would implement a progressive transition to a vegetarian society (AR410) without some form of coercion?

Reply 51

Asolare

What is wrong with selling puppies...?
--
Some of those are a bit radical but nothing completely bonkers (well maybe legalising terrorist organisations...) tbh :tongue:

Reply 52

BrightonDunkley

Original post by young_guns

Why on earth would anyone vote Green, unless they don't know what their policies are? Here below are a nice taste of policies.

You can't say these are "Labour lies" because each policy is quoted in their own words next to its policy ID number and can be found here (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/)

I completely agree with you. I have the misfortune to live in a Green constituency but at least they'll be voted out in May.

Reply 53

young_guns

Original post by BrightonDunkley

I completely agree with you. I have the misfortune to live in a Green constituency but at least they'll be voted out in May.

I really, really hope so. I understand they've introduced some really mad policies, and one even involved reducing the pay of male employees for up to 4,000 pounds in the name of "equality".

And in doing so, they were very happy to attack the GMB trade union which was opposing this bizarre venture. In fact, the Greens even threatened to sack every one of those trade unionists and re-employ them on new terms

Reply 54

young_guns

Original post by Inexorably

What is wrong with selling puppies...?
--

I know

I love my dogs, they're splendid animals and the policy is strange, to say the least

Some of those are a bit radical but nothing completely bonkers

Don't you think forcibly implementing negative economic growth (i.e. a permanent recession) in the name of the environment is mad?

(well maybe legalising terrorist organisations...) tbh :tongue:

What does that policy tell you about the mindset of the people who run the party?

Reply 55

Sempiternitas

Original post by viddy9

By what standard do you judge the Greens to be literally insane, may I ask?

AR402 To take pressure off wild animals by voluntarily limiting our population - excellent policy, wild animals shouldn't be under great deals of pressure and voluntarily limiting our population will help to reduce population growth, and therefore the destruction of the environment by humanity.

The Green Party will support a progressive transition from diets dominated by meat and other animal products to healthier diets based on plant foods - again, excellent policy. The vast majority of people here who eat meat do so unnecessarily. Thus, they are unnecessarily inflicting suffering on other sentient beings, which, under the scope of almost any ethical theory, is immoral. In addition, the meat industry is one of the biggest contributors to global warming and, as the Greens point out, meat is high in saturated fat which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, and red meat, the processed type in particular, increases one's risk of cancer and Type 2 diabetes. So, it will reduce the burden on the NHS if more people adopt a vegetarian diet.

The stuff about energy efficiency is a no-brainer, our infatuation with short-term economic growth has proven to be foolish time and time again and is bad for the environment. Nationality is irrelevant - we're all humans and, more importantly, sentient beings at the end of the day. The concept of nationality is a primitive, short-sighted one.

I don't know much about politics so I can't say much for the rest, but these two policies I am particularly fond of and see nothing "insane" about them.

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush

Voluntarily limiting population growth (what does that entail? Like a Sin tax situation?) and removing immigration controls is contradictory.

They're not contradictory if the ends is to reduce pressure on wildlife: allowing more immigrants in does not increase world population on the whole. It only gives some people a better chance at life while no more animals are hurt in the process.

Original post by young_guns

Don't you think forcibly implementing negative economic growth (i.e. a permanent recession) in the name of the environment is mad?

What is so mad about putting the environment, and by extension the world we live in, before money-making? Is your wallet more important than the wild animals' habitats, which, from a selfish perspective, have an impact on humans too?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 56

rosietherose

I think the terrorist thing is linked to people joining groups either not realising what they were getting themselves into or changing their mind. Then if they want to pass information onto, or seek help from the police they can do so without fear of being penalised (provided they haven't already committed a crime).

Reply 57

Davij038

The first four i would support now, the rest I would support in the year 2200.

Reply 58

young_guns

Original post by rosietherose

I think the terrorist thing is linked to people joining groups either not realising what they were getting themselves into

You really think people join Al Qaeda not knowing what they're getting themselves into?

or changing their mind. Then if they want to pass information onto, or seek help from the police they can do so without fear of being penalised (provided they haven't already committed a crime)

The police and intelligence services, working with the CPS, can already forbear prosecution if someone is providing them with good information.

Banning violent organisations is a very practical way to really turn the screws on those bent on doing harm to us.