Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

Scroll to see replies

What it really comes down to is whether or not the pursuit of economic growth above all else is advisable. All the Green party is doing is suggesting that it's more important that everyone has somewhere to live, enough food, healthcare when they need it, a good education etc. than it is for the economy to be 'growing'.

They're not suggesting that, that's what you're hoping they stand for.

In fact, given their policy is to introduce Citizen Income (72 pounds a week) and abolish all other benefits, including housing benefit, you will see many people thrown out of their homes, including many of Britain's most vulnerable people.

Reply 261

young_guns

Original post by redferry

I would advise stepping away from the PC and doing a bit of reading on the subject.

Just as others conflated economic growth with resource consumption, you are conflating economic growth with inequality.

You could have economic growth in a purely socialist economy. In fact, you could even have it in a pure environmentally-friendly economy.

What the Greens are demanding is "negative growth" (i.e. an economic contraction), which means fewer goods and services produced and fewer goods and services consumed.

The fact that instead of demanding we use renewable energy they simply demand an 80% cut in energy supplies demonstrates that this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with hating consumption in and of itself.

A "Green" society would be colder, darker and poorer. And there's no question is would increase inequality, given the Greens would abolish all benefits in favour of the 72 pounds a week of Citizen Income (which means many people would love substantial amounts of benefits such as HB which they rely on to survive). The Greens are utterly irresponsible and clueless

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 262

Aph

Original post by reallydontknow

What he means was, was the Nazi regime and the nazi society no worse than ours?

Posted from TSR Mobile

As much as my disdain for fascism yes. We are no better.

Reply 263

Anonynmous

Original post by redferry

So you deny that inequality has risen since the 80s then?

Growth happens at the expense of the environment. Until a solution to that occurs no, you cannot have infinite growth.

Economic Inequality is not always bad thing. I think the poster above has clarified this a bit further.

As for your second point - take a look at this in another perspective: http://andrewleach.ca/uncategorized/finite-resources-and-infinite-growth/

Not arguing wheather you agree with me or not, just informing you of the other ways this can be seen.

Reply 264

redferry

Original post by Anonynmous

I'd just like to point out that peer reviewed science disputes your first point thoroughly.

There would have to be a VERY big shift to enable infinite growth though. As things stand we're already taking the planet down with us.

Reply 265

redferry

Original post by young_guns

Just as others conflated economic growth with resource consumption, you are conflating economic growth with inequality.

No i'm not, but the two are linked in the respect inequality restricts economic growth.

You could have economic growth in a purely socialist economy. In fact, you could even have it in a pure environmentally-friendly economy.

I never said you couldn't. Scandinavia and Japan have both experienced very high levels of growth with low inequality levels and as a result are pretty much the best places to live in the world

What the Greens are demanding is "negative growth" (i.e. an economic contraction), which means fewer goods and services produced and fewer goods and services consumed.

The fact that instead of demanding we use renewable energy they simply demand an 80% cut in energy supplies demonstrates that this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with hating consumption in and of itself.

Well at the moment we consume too much. Even if we have green energy what we use goes way beyond sustainability. Especially in terms of plastics and pollutants. Until we 'green' all those processes then yes, clearly there does need to be lower levels of consumption.

A "Green" society would be colder, darker and poorer. And there's no question is would increase inequality, given the Greens would abolish all benefits in favour of the 72 pounds a week of Citizen Income (which means many people would love substantial amounts of benefits such as HB which they rely on to survive). The Greens are utterly irresponsible and clueless

I don't see why you are having a go at me about this, you do realise I'm a Labour supporter? Like I go out canvassing and ****? The greens green policy is an absolute crock of ****e and the reason I could never vote for them.

Reply 266

Clip

Original post by raineandfyre

That's a very simplistic viewpoint you seem have there. How exactly does economic growth make everyone richer in real terms?

What it really comes down to is whether or not the pursuit of economic growth above all else is advisable. All the Green party is doing is suggesting that it's more important that everyone has somewhere to live, enough food, healthcare when they need it, a good education etc. than it is for the economy to be 'growing'.

Ultimately money is only something we invented to make our lives easier and we should not be slaves to it. People must always come before profits and that is what the Greens stand for.

And of course please bear in mind that the Telegraph is incredibly biased against anything anti-neoliberal so it's hardly a realistic source of information on the Greens. I'd suggest reading their manifesto instead, whether or not you end up agreeing with it.

Saving the planet is something you can only do if you have the money to do it. Historically, it's only the rich countries that can do it. The developing countries of any political colouring couldn't give two hoots. People will only care about the environment if they are otherwise "safe" from more immediate concerns and it's no good telling starving people that the key to their salvation would be worldwide sustainable agriculture. They want food and shelter right now, and to hell with your green politics.

The Green Party seem to be sticking to an exceptionally philosophical "big picture" type of politics, almost like VI Form socialists, and implying unilateral action, assuming the acquiesence of everyone else on Earth. This is utterly mad. You would see the UK turn into Greece within a few years and Rwanda within a decade.

Reply 267

reallydontknow

Original post by Aph

As much as my disdain for fascism yes. We are no better.

That's just ridiculous.

Even I, as a Muslim acknowledge that the British society, the 1st world society is better than the crappy society from the countries I come from. And it's a hell of a lot better than the nazi society, because you aren't punished for being a certain faith.

Anybody who believes a civil society with freedoms is just as bad as the nazi society, is just stupid beyond belief.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 268

Anonynmous

Original post by redferry

1) I'd just like to point out that peer reviewed science disputes your first point thoroughly.

2) There would have to be a VERY big shift to enable infinite growth though. As things stand we're already taking the planet down with us.

1) And mathematics says otherwise. It is possible. Case closed.

2) No there wouldnt be. The markets will simply adjust. It's all supply and demand, by increasing prices you stave off collapse. It's a simple concept which I don't see why you don't get.

Reply 269

Aph

Original post by reallydontknow

Now I'm not saying that I'd like to live in nazi Germany all im saying is that from a purely scientific objective standpoint no one society is better

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 270

redferry

Original post by Anonynmous

'Mathematics' says nothing of the sort.

Reply 271

Anonynmous

Original post by redferry

'Mathematics' says nothing of the sort.

You obviously got my point...

Reply 272

young_guns

Original post by redferry

In which case we are in total agreement, my apologies.

Reply 273

redferry

Original post by young_guns

In which case we are in total agreement, my apologies.

Good! Bloody greens. If we get another conservative government because of them I'm going to kick off :mad:

I was going to leave the country if that happened but then I realised that's basically just a more extreme version of saying you aren't going to vote, plus Canada and Australia are now even more crappy than the UK politically.

Reply 274

young_guns

Original post by Aph

As much as my disdain for fascism yes. We are no better.

We are no better than the Nazis? Wow. Just wow.

Are you a Holocaust denier?

Reply 275

young_guns

Original post by redferry

Good! Bloody greens. If we get another conservative government because of them I'm going to kick off :mad:

It would be a mistake to leave a democratic country merely because the wrong party is in power.

It's far more important that people like you and I, people with solid social democratic or Fabian socialist values, stay and fight the good fight; vote and participate in party politics, persuade our friends and colleagues, do everything in our power to push the country towards the kind of society we'd like to see.

Ultimately, if you are a democrat (small d) then you have to accept that electoral politics is not like the weather, it's not some force of nature. It is the direct outcome of millions of micro-decisions. We as citizens have a responsibility to try to influence as many of those micro-decisions as possible towards ones which will be positive, and also accept that we can't always have what we want because there are millions ofother citizens with an equal stake and say

This is where I find the Greens exceptionally irritating; they seem to believe that unless the Labour Party agrees with every one of their policy preferences, it must be corrupt and evil, rather than accepting that the only way a centre-left party can cobble together a broad enough coalition of interests and electoral demographics to take power is by being a broad church, rather than an extremist organisation.

That's even leaving aside the fact that tacking to the hard left would be a mistake in policy terms, as well as electoral terms.

Edit: And I would just add, the Greens do have a rather dubious claim on being left-wing,given Citizen Income would deprive many of our most vulnerable fellow citizens of housing benefit and other provisions on which they live. 72 pounds a week is not enough to live on.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 276

TimmonaPortella

Yep they're complete lunatics. Fortunately I don't expect they'll do much more than split the labour vote in some places.

Reply 277

Aph

Original post by young_guns

We are no better than the Nazis? Wow. Just wow.

Are you a Holocaust denier?

No I don't deny it happened and we can't let it happen again but I cannot honestly say we are better

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 278

reallydontknow

Original post by Aph

Now I'm not saying that I'd like to live in nazi Germany all im saying is that from a purely scientific objective standpoint no one society is better

Posted from TSR Mobile

You cannot study society scientifically. That's your mistake.

You're probably one of those people who believes psychology, sociology and economics are real sciences.

The fact is the society we live in is just subjectively better than the nazi regime.
You could probably also say it's objectively better becaus else's people died/less people are suffering.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 279

Aj12

Original post by Aph

No I don't deny it happened and we can't let it happen again but I cannot honestly say we are better

Posted from TSR Mobile

You can't see how our society is better than one that attempted to exterminate entire ethnic groups and started one of the most destructive wars in human history? I suggest your review your opinions.

Posted from TSR Mobile