Would a more centrist Green Party be polling higher now?

You have to tread carefully. From an environmental perspective there may be much sense from nationalising the railways and the utility companies but is there any sense and logic in banning private schools or home education? In contrast the traditional left is ideologically opposed to private ownership of almost everything.

The current set up can not continue if you are an environmentalist. Maybe we could have a capitalist system built on top of green energy and environmentalism. Yet the lazy right wing do not want to do anything other than accelerating the problems. There is lots of stuff we could try that fits within mainstream pro capitalist economics, but it get labeled as socialism by a right wing that is intellectually retarded. Socialism may not have the answers but that doesn't mean environmental socialists are wrong when they point out the problems with capitalism and the anthropocene. Someone has to come up with something otherwise we as a species are going to encounter some ugly stuff.

You can nationalize a sector of the economy without reverting to Leninism. This kind of stupidity may well get us killed. If the threat of Marxism is this serious then why will the right not implement sane environmental policies? Why risk letting idealogical communists getting power?

I can easily imagine a new holocaust occurring in Europe over the coming centuries. All that needs to happen is to have mass migrations caused by climate changed mixed with ethnic nationalism.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 21

the bear

20

the Green Party were the whimsical party until Crazy Jezza took over at Labour. now the Greens are seen as sensible and fiscally prudent; similar to the Liberal Party until that nice Mr Thorpe had to leave.

Reply 22

Arran90

OP

20

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

You can nationalize a sector of the economy without reverting to Leninism. This kind of stupidity may well get us killed. If the threat of Marxism is this serious then why will the right not implement sane environmental policies? Why risk letting idealogical communists getting power?

There's also the ethical question whether the owners and shareholders of a nationalised sector of the economy should be compensated using taxpayer's money. Old Labour believed in compensation because it was based on Christian principles - thou shalt not steal - but the Green Party is not, so it will not pay a penny if it doesn't want to and will demand surrender of the assets or take the shares off the stock exchange.

Reply 23

AperfectBalance

21

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

The current set up can not continue if you are an environmentalist. Maybe we could have a capitalist system built on top of green energy and environmentalism. Yet the lazy right wing do not want to do anything other than accelerating the problems. There is lots of stuff we could try that fits within mainstream pro capitalist economics, but it get labeled as socialism by a right wing that is intellectually retarded. Socialism may not have the answers but that doesn't mean environmental socialists are wrong when they point out the problems with capitalism and the anthropocene. Someone has to come up with something otherwise we as a species are going to encounter some ugly stuff.

You can nationalize a sector of the economy without reverting to Leninism. This kind of stupidity may well get us killed. If the threat of Marxism is this serious then why will the right not implement sane environmental policies? Why risk letting idealogical communists getting power?

I can easily imagine a new holocaust occurring in Europe over the coming centuries. All that needs to happen is to have mass migrations caused by climate changed mixed with ethnic nationalism.

Your view of the right wing as people that are lazy and just want things to stay the same is wrong and shows how incorrect you are. "Green" energies have been increasing a lot no matter what government has been in power. in 2011 we had around 9% of total energy being "green" in 2015 we had around 23/24% that is a great increase and it is continuing to rise

If you actually want someone to blame blame the EU/Germany the EU has put big sanctions on Chinese solar cell imports, this really makes solar energy cost more and Germany gets to protect its solar industry (what a great "Free market")

Germany also burns a LOT of coal and not all of it is just standard coal in 2016 40%!!!! of their total energy comes from coal and 23% of it is lignite, a dirtier and worse coal that produces more emissions and worse emissions, compare that to us that uses around 2% coal for all our energy and we had our first coal free day in a long time this year.

Overall the UK is doing good for the enviroment and this clearly shows how the EU is stunting growth and how Germany is a big hypocrite and liar

Reply 24

ChaoticButterfly

20

This is relevant to his thread.

"Prof Glen O’Hara, an expert on political history and polling at Oxford Brookes University, said higher-earning public sector professionals and former Green voters who may have voted Lib Dem over Brexit were now “solid Corbyn”".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/27/lib-dems-facing-fight-for-political-future-in-2018

@Arran90

We already have a centrist party that has green values. It's doing **** and hemeraging support to Labour. Although that could also be because the lib dems are just ****.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 25

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Arran90

There's also the ethical question whether the owners and shareholders of a nationalised sector of the economy should be compensated using taxpayer's money. Old Labour believed in compensation because it was based on Christian principles - thou shalt not steal - but the Green Party is not, so it will not pay a penny if it doesn't want to and will demand surrender of the assets or take the shares off the stock exchange.

I don't really care about that beyond what the wider repercussions would be.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 26

Arran90

OP

20

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

We already have a centrist party that has green values. It's doing **** and hemeraging support to Labour. Although that could also be because the lib dems are just ****.

Too yellow to be green!

The environmental credentials of the Lib-Dems are only so so and often ring hollow when looked at in conjunction with other policies, especially economic policy. The party has various members who people who put the environment at the top of their agenda don't resonate with like social liberals, classic Victorian / Edwardian liberals, and libertarians. Historically the Liberal party were the capitalists and more free market than the Conservatives.

Reply 27

So-Sarah

7

Original post by Arran90

It's also notable that the Greens have been ineffective at winning any significant support from traditional blue collar Labour supporters or the very poor and the underclass of society.

Greens = Tories on bikes
Iow: middle class hypocrite tossers that live in Brighton

they offer nothing to the average man on the street

Reply 28

L i b

19

There's a rather oddly popular misinterpretation that persists, which suggests "green politics" are simply environmentalism. The name may suggest that, but they are not and never have been. Green parties around the world share a fairly common viewpoint and it is one of the left (and, in the UK, particularly the far-left). They're actually fairly candid about this.

Still, it doesn't stop lots of middle class Tories throwing them the odd vote here and there because they think of them as cuddly and caring about trees. The very best way to defeat green politics is by bringing them out into the light.

Reply 29

Arran90

OP

20

Original post by So-Sarah

Greens = Tories on bikes
Iow: middle class hypocrite tossers that live in Brighton

they offer nothing to the average man on the street

I wouldn't say that Tories on bikes is justified considering that the economic policy of the Green Party is more anticapitalist than that of Labour.

The problem is that the Greens seem to derive much of their support from a certain breed of people who are financially in the middle class but they fail to win much support from the C2 and D socioeconomic groups that in more recent times has switched to supporting UKIP - a party generally deemed to be on the right of politics.

A theory I have is that social liberals tend to be found in the B and C1 socioeconomic groups whereas C2 and D socioeconomic groups are generally socially conservative.

Reply 30

So-Sarah

7

sure, and it's mainly because you need a certain level of wealth and comfort to buy into the 'Green' ideology - ie. it's all well and good to go eco and follow the Earth Goddess but not after an 8hr shift at Greggs

Reply 31

Arran90

OP

20

Original post by So-Sarah

sure, and it's mainly because you need a certain level of wealth and comfort to buy into the 'Green' ideology - ie. it's all well and good to go eco and follow the Earth Goddess but not after an 8hr shift at Greggs

I don't think that's the explanation. As I previously stated, the C2 and D socioeconomic groups are generally socially conservative whereas the Green Party is socially liberal.

Reply 32

So-Sarah

7

but what percentage of Greens are socially liberal and poor?

Reply 33

Chicken.M.

20

nah cus then they'd just be the labour party lol

Reply 34

Arran90

OP

20

Original post by So-Sarah

but what percentage of Greens are socially liberal and poor?

I don't have figures (does anybody) but there are people out there who aren't very rich who vote Green for their economic policies more than anything else. Whether they would vote for a more centrist Green Party is dependent upon the individual.

Would a more centrist Green Party be polling higher now?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you