Turn on thread page Beta

'Forget Ukip: why the Green Party could decide the election' watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    the problem with the Greens is that they do not admit that 98% of the people in this country are greedy moneygrabbing ***** who do not give a flying **** for the environment as long as their tasteless consumerised griefholes are safely increasing in value by 10% a year.
    I would say the issue is more that the Green party are ideological extremists who do not understand that environmental issues need to be balanced against other concerns. Like UKIP seem to link Europe to absolutely everything, the Greens link the environment to everything. But the Greens go a step further in being so ideologically hypocritical- they rant about fuel poverty yet aggressively push the building of wind and solar power which are adding massively to household bills because they are uneconomical, they rave about the lack of affordable housing but seem to oppose every single development project that would provide some, as well as blaming everything on the rich and then advocating such an insane tax system that tax yields would end up falling hurting the very poor people they claim to be defending.

    They are the perfect party for angry teenagers who think the world is "so unfair" and "we need change". Anyone who has grown up and moved beyond the rhetoric and idealism will realise they are not a feasible party of government.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenkinsear)
    I would say the issue is more that the Green party are ideological extremists who do not understand that environmental issues need to be balanced against other concerns. Like UKIP seem to link Europe to absolutely everything, the Greens link the environment to everything. But the Greens go a step further in being so ideologically hypocritical- they rant about fuel poverty yet aggressively push the building of wind and solar power which are adding massively to household bills because they are uneconomical, they rave about the lack of affordable housing but seem to oppose every single development project that would provide some, as well as blaming everything on the rich and then advocating such an insane tax system that tax yields would end up falling hurting the very poor people they claim to be defending.

    They are the perfect party for angry teenagers who think the world is "so unfair" and "we need change". Anyone who has grown up and moved beyond the rhetoric and idealism will realise they are not a feasible party of government.
    While the Greens certainly underpin a lot of their policy making with the environment, the 'Green New Deal' is at the heart of their thinking; tackling economic collapse, climate change and inequality. Policies such as actively pursuing large companies engaged in tax avoidance schemes - as but one example - aren't ideologically linked to the environment.

    The argument about investing in renewable energy and bemoaning fuel poverty is a bit of a straw man as the Greens advocate a lot of this investment being financed via policies such as wealth and mansion taxes, not raising taxes across the board. Yes, they do champion renewable energy sources with expensive infrastructure (and limited levels of effectiveness for mass production of power), but 'fuel poverty' is closely linked to the extortionate rates charged by 'Big 6' energy companies; which they wish to re-nationalise.

    The points on "opposing every development" that would provide affordable housing needs to be substantiated. They seem to have a fairly robust policy on ensuring homes are occupied, finding affordable housing and actively taking a stand against evictions/privatising social housing. Likewise, referencing an "insane tax system" would have more credibility if you defined why you believe that to be the case.

    Crucially though, they know they aren't going to be in government. They aren't interested in collaborating with the LabConLib parties as they aren't interested in free market neoliberalist ideology. With an FPTP system in place, they're well aware they couldn't garner the support to win enough seats to form a government; their election strategy hinges on re-securing Brighton Pavilion for Caroline Lucas and targeting around 3 - 5 key seats that may swing. The point is that they're building a party for the future and a genuine alternative to the commonly espoused narrative of austerity measures and large corporate interests. They need to represent ordinary people and prove - perhaps some way to go here - that they are a genuine alternative standing up for the average person; a 21st Century socialist Labour model, with policy input from their members. As such, what's important for them is providing a voice of dissent and getting MPs into the Commons to have a vote in debates there. Rhetoric and idealism feature heavily because they are trying to build a fairer society from the grassroots up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:


    my face when i read the article.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    While the Greens certainly underpin a lot of their policy making with the environment, the 'Green New Deal' is at the heart of their thinking; tackling economic collapse, climate change and inequality. Policies such as actively pursuing large companies engaged in tax avoidance schemes - as but one example - aren't ideologically linked to the environment.
    There has been no "economic collapse" unless we're truly in the realm of hyperbole.

    Their policies for dealing with tax avoidance are, to anyone with any expertise in tax law, ridiculous. Partly because they haven't even sought to give some solid examples of what legislation they'd introduce beyond weak declarations that they'll somehow raise billions (good luck, the companies will be out like a flash), and partly because they haven't supported things like the GAAR which actually have done a lot on avoidance.

    All of this avoiding the fact that tax avoidance by large companies actually helps a lot of ordinary people by keeping companies and industries employing people who otherwise wouldn't be, as well as boosting the share prices of said companies which basically every single person with a pension scheme benefits from. It's not, as the Greens like to imagine, a case of tax avoidance simply being "evil", it's actually a large part of making an economy competitive and providing ancillary benefits like pension yields.

    (Original post by zjs)
    The argument about investing in renewable energy and bemoaning fuel poverty is a bit of a straw man as the Greens advocate a lot of this investment being financed via policies such as wealth and mansion taxes, not raising taxes across the board. Yes, they do champion renewable energy sources with expensive infrastructure (and limited levels of effectiveness for mass production of power), but 'fuel poverty' is closely linked to the extortionate rates charged by 'Big 6' energy companies; which they wish to re-nationalise.
    Wish to re-nationalise.... how much do we think that will cost? Tens of billions I would expect? The government can't just seize property- to do so would destroy all investment in the country. How will our Green masters fund this?

    Given if you actually read the Green manifesto they link their economic and tax policies to the environment repeatedly, I don't agree that they have nothing to do with their ideology.

    (Original post by zjs)
    The points on "opposing every development" that would provide affordable housing needs to be substantiated.
    Google "green party opposes housing development" and you will find literally dozens of examples. Interesting reasons include there being an owl in residence (we could just move the owl...) or a tree they quite like. So we'll not house hundreds of people to save a tree or an owl that could easily be moved elsewhere. Green logic for you (Y)


    (Original post by zjs)
    They seem to have a fairly robust policy on ensuring homes are occupied, finding affordable housing and actively taking a stand against evictions/privatising social housing. Likewise, referencing an "insane tax system" would have more credibility if you defined why you believe that to be the case.
    How do you "find" affordable housing when the whole issue is lack of availability? Unless you build more, the market will force prices higher. Rising population especially in London and the South East = desperate need for more building. Greens however wholeheartedly refuse to accept any need for building on the green belt, despite the fact brownfield sites just cannot provide the housing needed.

    As for the tax system, it blindly assumes rich people won't move capital/assets abroad or engage in any form of avoidance scheme. They are living in a fantasy world if they think that won't happen. Add to that their ignoring HMRC studies that suggest tax rates over 45% actually lead to LOWER revenues due to avoidance/capital removal being encouraged, and it's hard to respect their tax policy.

    (Original post by zjs)
    Crucially though, they know they aren't going to be in government. They aren't interested in collaborating with the LabConLib parties as they aren't interested in free market neoliberalist ideology.
    Hmm but it's interesting how many greens tend to be middle class & wealthy (particularly inherited cash...) from my experience, so they have an interest in "free market neoliberalist ideology" as they can sit there drinking champagne having already benefited from it.

    (Original post by zjs)
    With an FPTP system in place, they're well aware they couldn't garner the support to win enough seats to form a government; their election strategy hinges on re-securing Brighton Pavilion for Caroline Lucas and targeting around 3 - 5 key seats that may swing. The point is that they're building a party for the future and a genuine alternative to the commonly espoused narrative of austerity measures and large corporate interests.
    Talk me through how the Greens have shown that there is any alternative to the current austerity measures. Asides from delusionally claiming you can find tens of billions from "tax dodgers", they seem to have a bit of a hole in the balance sheet...


    (Original post by zjs)
    They need to represent ordinary people and prove - perhaps some way to go here - that they are a genuine alternative standing up for the average person; a 21st Century socialist Labour model, with policy input from their members. As such, what's important for them is providing a voice of dissent and getting MPs into the Commons to have a vote in debates there. Rhetoric and idealism feature heavily because they are trying to build a fairer society from the grassroots up.
    Their voter and membership base is far from "ordinary"- it's mainly middle class yuppies, students and environmental extremists. If they hold Brighton Pavillion I would be amazed, and I think they'll be hard pushed to win anywhere else. UKIP appeal to the average man, Greens do not and will not unless they ditch the extremist ideology they are so wedded to.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I agree and a lot of the general ideas the Green Party stands for but I don't agree with all of their specific policies.

    For instance they're very anti-nuclear power and whilst I can understand the reasons, at the moment atleast its probably the best non fossil fuel solution to the UKs power needs.

    I would like them to get more power and I think they would if the press were not massively biased in favour of UKIP to the point that when polling is doing Green get lumped in with "Misc" in spite of out performing the lib dems as they did in the EU elections. They're also a good deal saner than UKIP but given they haven't gotten into power before, I fully acknowledge that principles may get dropped if they ever do. Although their environmental stance can't shift too negatively given its the issue their party is named after.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Seriously i'd like to sympathise with a left wing movement that's moved away from the centre. But if the Greens are it then just lol​.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I skimmed through the article and stopped when I saw the pic of the woman wearing a nomore page three t-shirt.

    would never vote for them now.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    I would like them to get more power and I think they would if the press were not massively biased in favour of UKIP to the point that when polling is doing Green get lumped in with "Misc" in spite of out performing the lib dems as they did in the EU elections.
    Not sure about that at all. The BBC was running a lot of stories about the Greens suggesting they were a party of the future when UKIP was getting no coverage at all; the press were forced to respond to UKIP coming in shooting distance of the big two and even winning a national election, whereas with the Greens they've tried as hard as they could to push them but can't justify it any more than they are doing already. The Greens have overtaken the Lib Dems only because of the collapse in the Lib Dem vote, not any positive desire for the Greens, who actually polled worse in the EU elections than they had last time.

    As I've argued before the Greens are a turbo-establishment party: on any issue where they disagree with the median voter, they are closer to the position of people who work in the civil service, academia, media, and politics, whereas UKIP voters are further.

    This is both an advantage and a disadvantage: the Greens will always be treated more favourably by the quality press but in practice there is much less to distinguish them from the mainstream parties. If you vote for a mainstream party you will end up in the same place as voting for the Greens, just more slowly, whereas if you vote for the Greens you might help a more conservative mainstream party to take power by splitting the establishment vote. UKIP voters on the other hand feel like all the mainstream parties are their enemies, so they're much less inclined to vote tactically.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They overestimate the magnitude of those potential negative effects and also overestimate the technical and commercial viability of alternatives to reduce CO2 emission from energy generation. I think it is reasonable, though perhaps not certain, to suggest that they do this is to retroactively justify a pre-conceived conclusion in favour of renewables, rather than because they started with all options on the table and then interpreted the evidence differently to me.
    I agree I almost can't blame them though, can you imagine the headlines of Green's being for a source of energy which is 100% sustainable :lol: they could never live that down
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Queen Cersei)
    X
    The content of your OP doesn't match the title. You say the Greens could decide the next general election. Not only that it's not going to happen, you don't even address that in your post.

    It is up in the air as to whether they will even hold onto Brighton.

    And you ask how their values might change if they won power? You only need to look at what they did in Brighton local government. They totally screwed some of the most vulnerable workers, and slashed the pay of male workers in order to make it "fairer" and "close the gender pay gap". They used the power of the state to grind down on trade unions, which is a total betrayal of what they claim to stand for

    Many political observers suggest the Greens have blown it in Brighton. If they can't manage and navigate holding onto their ideals while governing in a local government scenario, that tells you everything you need to know about national government.

    Also, the Greens are wholly disingenuous to make some kind of claim to the support of traditional Labour voters. Traditional Labour voters would not appreciate the policies of a party that places the wellbeing of insects, rats and birds over jobs, industry and working families.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Torum)
    I do like that the Greens actually seem to care about climate change and do think they have some good policies. However their economic policy is too green, if it can be so, although it does have a few good ideas it doesn't really address some economic issues. But the Greens are more important than UKIP as I think it will grow into a sizeable party, whereas UKIP is likely to fade when economic issues have gone. I hope they do well in the next election as I think they could make an actual difference and do something in Parliament.
    I really see and agree with what you are saying, they don't have very strong economic policies but they are in a position where they don't need to have them, I think the next general election will just provide them with more seats/at least more public support and I think having them in parliament to push their ideals, to vote for things that match the parties ideals is a good thing. Anyway I would trust them with my money more than I would trust farage!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Killsworth)
    I agree I almost can't blame them though, can you imagine the headlines of Green's being for a source of energy which is 100% sustainable :lol: they could never live that down
    It's not clear to me how sustainability is linked to environmentalism in this way. No plant is sustainable at least in the sense that the plant itself will need maintenance and eventual replacement. So long as the fuel source lasts at least as long as the design life of the plant, sustainability is irrelevant, since a sustainability cap has already been reached.

    I think sustainability is more of a brainbug that is wrapped up with the wider environmentalist worldview, which is basically fearful, insular, and parochial. People have a preternatural fear of running out of food. In some people this fear is greater than in others. Some people are hoarders. Environmentalists are hoarders who think big. Their actions are similarly bizarre and irrational to outsiders, not achieving their ostensible aims and causing a lot of harmful side effects. But to the hoarder himself, they are a necessity of survival.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Labour need to move away from this vague lefty flip flopping, and back to the middle ground.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Complimentary medicines =/= homeopathy! Homeopathy would never get through the trials required for any drug or treatment to be proved effective enough to be offered by the nhs. It's about acupuncture, osteopathy, alternative therapies in Mental health like MBCT. Homeopathy is bull I will give you that but just because they support complimentary therapies does not mean they are a terrible party.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Labour need to move away from this vague lefty flip flopping, and back to the middle ground.
    Can you be more specific? What flip-flopping, what policies, specifically, are you talking about?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Their immigration policy
    /endthread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Can you be more specific? What flip-flopping, what policies, specifically, are you talking about?
    What policies; precisely. The party has been just trying to rely on the anti tory vote, while being as vague as possible in their policies from what i can see. Under Blair the party had a clear direction and identity. And i think the whole "Third Way" thing is rather the right idea.

    I'm becoming more and more skeptical of the left wing as I get older. Ideologically, i find i disagree with a lot of the bs the social left comes up with (called on this site "liberalism", with proponents "liberals". When actually the market intervention to force more women into certain positions is the antithesis of liberalism from what I can see) such as the feminism I've just read that the Greens propose. ****ing cutting men's pay?? ****ing giving women even more advantage in the courts, and not letting female criminals to be punished?? Increasing tax so no company will invest in the UK?? omg I'd sooner have UKIP in even though I disagree with their ideology almost completely. Nigel Farage and David Cameron are at least bloody intelligent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    What policies precisely. The party has been just trying to rely on the anti tory vote, while being as vague as possible in their policies from what i can see.
    Vague on their policies? Only if you haven't been paying attention. You might think their policies are too left wing for you, but you can't seriously accuse them of not being clear about what their policies are

    100 Labour Party policies with each point evidenced by link

    I'm becoming more and more skeptical of the left wing as I get older. Ideologically, i find i disagree with a lot of the bs the social left comes up with (called on this site "liberalism", with proponents "liberals".
    Funny that. I used to be very right wing when I was younger, but the older I get the more convinced I become that we only have this one life to live, that being kind to our fellow creatures is important, that working together and helping each other out are important values. The older I get, the less hysterical and worked up I get over, for example, the idea that a poor council estate dweller might have claimed an extra 10 pounds of benefits, as opposed to the idea that on the whole it is a good thing that we help out those people who really are struggling. With age my empathy for other people grows.

    When actually the market intervention to force more women into certain positions is the antithesis of liberalism from what I can see) such as the feminism I've just read that the Greens propose. ****ing cutting men's pay??
    I agree that this Green policy was utterly idiotic. And a truly left-wing party would not have done that. Labour or trade unions would have fought to bring the womens' pay up to that of the men, not lower the mens pay to that of the women.

    ****ing giving women even more advantage in the courts, and not letting female criminals to be punished??
    I'm not really getting how any of that is a Labour policy.

    Increasing tax so no company will invest in the UK??
    I'm sorry, but that's a fatuous comment. France's corporate tax rate is 33.3%. Germany's is about 29%. The United States' corporate tax rate for income over $18 million is 35%. The UK's is 26%. Ed Miliband's policy is merely to cancel any further reductions.

    The idea that no company will invest in the UK because of that is simply hysterical. Are you suggesting no company will invest in the US because its corporate tax rate is 35%?

    Nigel Farage and David Cameron are at least bloody intelligent
    You don't think Ed Miliband is intelligent? By that, do you mean "I disagree with his policies", or do you genuinely mean "I think there are unintelligent Oxford graduates"
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Ed Millibot is only intelligent when his handler remembers to wind up his brain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    What policies; precisely. The party has been just trying to rely on the anti tory vote, while being as vague as possible in their policies from what i can see. Under Blair the party had a clear direction and identity. And i think the whole "Third Way" thing is rather the right idea.

    I'm becoming more and more skeptical of the left wing as I get older. Ideologically, i find i disagree with a lot of the bs the social left comes up with (called on this site "liberalism", with proponents "liberals". When actually the market intervention to force more women into certain positions is the antithesis of liberalism from what I can see) such as the feminism I've just read that the Greens propose. ****ing cutting men's pay?? ****ing giving women even more advantage in the courts, and not letting female criminals to be punished?? Increasing tax so no company will invest in the UK?? omg I'd sooner have UKIP in even though I disagree with their ideology almost completely. Nigel Farage and David Cameron are at least bloody intelligent.
    Most socialist Labour supporters would argue that Blair and New Labour was the whole problem. The tack to the right of the 'Third Way' is something Labour isn't recovering from, as they try to pick up votes from the centre right (in their austerity and immigration policy), while simultaneously ensuring support doesn't trickle off to the left; attempting to throw out a genuinely socialist policy every now and then.

    Both the Greens and UKIP have economic policies of fantasy, but at least the former offers an alternative to the austerity narrative. Pursuing tax avoidance isn't the same as levying higher taxes on business; though I'm sure this is supported by the party also.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.