The Green Party's policies sound bonkers

Scroll to see replies

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.

It would obviously increase the population of the United Kingdom. They would have no control over world population so they do contradict.

Reply 61

e aí rapaz

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/)

Original post by young_guns

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

Original post by Inexorably

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

This was the one I picked up on and gave a check on the website, and based on just this one that I checked, OP's list is complete spin. They may not be "labour lies", but they are very close to lies. I'm therefore disregarding the whole thing since I've no doubt that the rest is similarly edited to appear controversial.

The policy on the Greens website actually says this:

AR419 The Green Party will end puppy farming by banning the sale of young puppies and kittens unless the mother is present.

Which is perfectly sensible and would reduce the number of unethical, uncaring backyard breeders, and reduce the number of unwanted/dumped animals. Puppy farming is a horrible thing.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 62

Davij038

Original post by young_guns

The fourth policy, HE103, says "Health services create dependence".

Do you really believe that?

As somebody who has worked in care and the NHS, quite often people would be better off outside hospitals. Quite often people are given medication they don't really need, I do think and plenty of health professionals agree with me that we are an overly medicated society.

Their policy on alteternative medicines is new age rubbish though.

Reply 63

e aí rapaz

OP says: PD443 Legalise membership of terrorist organisations, including Al Qaeda and ISIS

Green Party Policy says:
PD443 Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.

Spin spin spin

Reply 64

Alfissti

I'm shocked there are actually persons who take them seriously.

Reply 65

Observatory

Original post by Gwilym101

Well the Greens for one,

Fine but you were contrasting Greens' opposition of it with other parties' claimed opposition to it. My guess is that both Labour and the Tories explicitly support this agreement. One of UKIP's key arguments against the EU is that it has meant we secured an agreement like TTIP later than we could have on our own and with more interference from protectionist continental countries.

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.

Governments can be forced to pay if they pass laws that breach the terms of the treaty, not that do just anything to reduce companies' profits. Indeed they can be forced to pay for passing laws that increase companies' profits, if those laws do so in an anti-competitive way. This is no different to how our EU treaty obligations are enforced, which the Greens support.

Reply 66

young_guns

Original post by e aí rapaz

Green Party Policy says:
PD443 Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.

Spin spin spin

So you accept it would legalise membership of Al Qaeda? Please look at the highlighted section, take a deep breath, and then concede I am right

Reply 67

young_guns

Original post by Davij038

quite often people would be better off outside hospitals. Quite often people are given medication they don't really need

Those two things are questions about what is right in a particular patient's case, which is a medical decision for a doctor.

That is simply not relevant to the claim "Health services create dependence" as a blind, generalised statement which is almost certainly inserted at the behest of the homeopathy wing of the party

Reply 68

e aí rapaz

Original post by young_guns

So you accept it would legalise membership of Al Qaeda? Please look at the highlighted section, take a deep breath, and then concede I am right

I accept that it shouldn't be a crime to simply be a member of a group or organisation, yes. I agree, in fact!

I'm not particularly politically-minded (I don't usually vote) but your thread led me to the Green party policy pages and I have to say I like a lot of their ideas. Think I'll vote for them at the GE actually. :smile:

Reply 69

The_Mighty_Bush

Original post by young_guns

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

They wouldn't.

We can look at the UK state's current attempts to influence behaviour to see how this would be a failure. The approach varies from outright banning (recreational drugs) to sin taxation (alcohol and cigarettes) to indoctrination in state education. We can see that demand still exists and because more likely to be serviced by a black market with increased state coercion.

Reply 70

Sempiternitas

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush

It would obviously increase the population of the United Kingdom. They would have no control over world population so they do contradict.

Yes, it would increase the UK population. But say if a family moved here from Germany, do new people immediately spring up back in Germany to fill the vacuum?

Reply 71

young_guns

Original post by e aí rapaz

I accept that it shouldn't be a crime to simply be a member of a group or organisation, yes. I agree, in fact!

I'm glad you accept that they would legalise membership of Al Qaeda.

Reply 72

young_guns

Original post by The_Mighty_Bush

I'm wondering if the fact I own a really comfy lambskin spread for my bed would be illegal? Would it be like possessing explosives or some such thing?

Also, the vast majority of people eat meat and don't want their taxes to be spent on trying to get them to stop. Eating meat is nothing like smoking, in fact eating meat is part of a healthy diet and it is what we evolved to do.

Why in the Greens' eyes is it immoral for me to eat meat but not immoral for a lion to eat meat?

Reply 73

e aí rapaz

Original post by young_guns

I'm glad you accept that they would legalise membership of Al Qaeda.

Okay.

You didn't address the point that your list tries to twist a good policy banning puppy-farms into a bad thing though. That kinda thing just devalues and undermines your whole post. And you have a puppy as your avatar!

Reply 74

KingStannis

They're absolutely bonkers. God I just don't understand why so many people are making these out to be the left option. It has all the negatives of left wing economics (restrictions on freedoms, inefficiency etc) while removing the benefits (greater social economic equality) by taxing the crap out of everything, penalising the poor on what bloody food they're allowed to eat. Let me spell it out for you; when the economy suffers, the poor suffer the most. Wow, such a great option for the working class left! At least they haven't forgotten their roots like labour!

Considering that they can't even run Brighton, how do you think they're going to mastermind the change of everything this country is by changing the nature of economic behavior itself. No. Even if it were a wise thing to do, they couldn't do it, they're just weed smoking imbeciles. They're not capable.

Now, as to getting to a steady state economic system; do you want a good economy that is stable, or do you want a bad economy that is stable? If you want the latter, we can illeagalise any economic behavior which may improve our economy (therefore, our lives) or, if you want a good economy that is stable.....you need growth.... yeah, well done Greens, thatnks for your input. But no thanks.

The fact that these lunatics might be in the national election debates is a very sorry state of affairs, and reflects very badly on our dumb electorate.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 75

young_guns

Original post by e aí rapaz

You didn't address the point that your list tries to twist a good policy banning puppy-farms into a bad thing though.

The policy is to ban the sale of puppies without their mothers. Few people will want to buy an old dog with their adorable new pup, and so it will effectively be banned.

It's also a nonsensical policy because only one pup can be sold with its mother. What happens to the rest of the litter?

I have no problem with increasing animal welfare standards; I almost always buy organic and free-range when I can. I'm a city boy but my family owns land in the country and I spent many a holiday there, riding, rounding up cattle from one paddock to the next, so I feel a strong connection to animals, I am against animal cruelty. But I am also against nonsensical policies that are extremist and impossible to implement

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 76

e aí rapaz

Original post by young_guns

The policy is to ban the sale of puppies without their mothers. Few people will want to buy an old dog with their adorable new pup, and so it will effectively be banned.

It's also a nonsensical policy because only one pup can be sold with its mother. What happens to the rest of the litter?

I have no problem with increasing animal welfare standards; I almost always buy organic and free-range when I can. I'm a city boy but my family owns land in the country and I spent many a holiday there, I am against animal cruelty. But I am also against nonsensical policies that are extremist and impossible to implement

I think you've misread the policy. The mother does not have to be sold with the puppy - that WOULD be nonsensical. The mother just has to be present at the sale of the puppy. So you have to buy from the breeder themself, rather than from a dodgy pet-shop or middle-man. Those kinds of practises are always associated with poor welfare for the puppies, so actually this policy is extremely sensible.

Reply 77

young_guns

Original post by KingStannis

Superb comment.

I'd also add, their policies for implementing negative growth (i.e. a perpetual recession) and massively reducing energy supply betrays that this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with hating consumption and a decent standard of living.

I would have thought they would be okay with whatever energy supply is required for our economy and homes, provided it is renewable. Instead, they demand reductions in energy use (and massive ones in a short period, in a way that would be highly destabilising).

Also, their demand that the economy contract betrays the same fervour. It is entirely possible to have a sustainable economic growth based on high levels of renewable energy use and recycling. But that's not what they want; they want the economy to contract.

As you say, it's bonkers and far outside what the vast majority of ordinary people want.