The Green Party's policies sound bonkers

Good man. I do believe that it's a good policy and would be for any party, so telling people that it's something it's not, would be a shame.

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?

Just because the vast majority of people eat meat and only a minority smoke does not give the government the right to persecute those who do.

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.

AR402 To take pressure off wild animals by voluntarily limiting our population

AR410 The Green Party will support a progressive transition from diets dominated by meat and other animal products to healthier diets based on plant foods

HE103 Health services can create dependence on the part of users, which is itself unhealthy

EN110 We will require energy use for space heating, and electrical use to be reduced by a third by 2020, by half by 2030 and by two-thirds by 2050, based on 2012 final energy demand levels.

EN141 We will target energy efficiencies for the UK industrial sector of reductions on 2012 levels of 15% by 2020, 33% by 2030 and 60% by 2050

EC201 Current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth

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

MG203 Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG403 We will abolish the 'primary purpose' rule under which partners are refused entry if it is thought that the primary purpose of relationship is for them to gain entry to the UK.

NY500 The Green Party will therefore base the right to vote and to stand in elections on residence rather than nationality.

NY511 The concept of nationality is inherently racially discriminatory

NY203 In the long term, the Green Party wishes to see the concept of legal nationality abolished.

NY300 We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a 'British national' is irrelevant and outdated.

I've forgot his name, but there was this guy in the middle ages or post middle ages (forgot again lol) who predicted that if population increased more than what it was (at the time, the country's population wouldn't have been much more than one million I don't think) then the whole of humanity would be reduced to killing each other for the few remaining resources before we finally died off. Obviously, he was incorrect, becuase he didn't take into account the above.

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

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

The reasoning behind this policy is that Government have labelled groups as terrorist organisations to push their agenda, not because they're actually terrorists, you only have to look at the ANC to realise that

The policy intends to give people accused on terrorism charges the same rights as other criminals, right to legal representation etc.

But I do think that the NHS is in some ways creating a nanny state snd medicalising people who'd probably be better off at home.

Which of the currently banned terrorist groups do you believe are comparable to the ANC? Which would you say are merely misunderstood?

By the way, you do realise the armed wing of ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a terrorist organisation? It implemented a campaign of bombings and shootings, and elements of the ANC were extremely violent against other black people they considered their enemies.

Give me an example of how people charged with terrorism offences don't have the same rights as other accused?

If you are under the impression they don't get legal representation, you are mistaken.

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.

Terrorism has become so subjective, what you consider terrorism I might consider a struggle for freedom. Are you really surprised that the ANC took up arms against their oppressors? Of course there was no justification for attacks on civilians but their aims were freedom not to terrorise.



I can tell you from first hand experience, being detained without charge for 24 hours without legal representation, without any contact with the outside world, while your house is raided, my friend it is you that is mistaken.

Non terror suspects can be detained for longer than 24 hours.

Of course there was no justification for attacks on civilians but their aims were freedom not to terrorise

I can tell you from first hand experience, being detained without charge for 24 hours without legal representation, without any contact with the outside world, while your house is raided, my friend it is you that is mistaken

Tbh, I'm not sure it's right to say that they're hospitalising people who don't need to be.

One of my best mates is a newly-minted doctor doing his residency, and he tells me about how desperately short of beds they are and what a battle it is every single night. If they can avoid putting someone in a hospital bed and send them home, they do because they simply can't afford to take up a bed with someone who isn't sick.

Their aim was to terrorise, it's just that it was to terrorise people you didn't like. There is no such thing as a "freedom bomb".



Are you claiming you were interviewed without legal representation? You're lying.

And if you claim terrorists are charged and convicted without ever having had legal representation, you're lying again.

I wasn't suggesting different. I was simply highlighting my personal experience with the Labour's anti-terrorism laws. A non-terror suspect would have had access to a solicitor in the vast majority of cases, this can be denied to a suspected terrorist for up to 36 hours.