Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So the only countries without monarchies are Leninist communist countries. OK then. Better tell america.
    No, the point was that this is exactly the same thinking which Mao used to provoke the poor peasants to rise against and kill the richer peasants. Getting rid of the Monarchy serves no practical purpose; it's just class hatred. The Greens, with these social policies and their disaterous economic policy, are the epitimisation of modern Maoism.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    i believe ther is no need for the queen, and some silly people like them too much what what
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There is a problem to this proposal in that there may not be a council house available. Unless you call any house owned by the local authority a council house, in which case you just transfer ownership of Buckingham Palace to the London Borough of Westminster.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    No, the point was that this is exactly the same thinking which Mao used to provoke the poor peasants to rise against and kill the richer peasants. Getting rid of the Monarchy serves no practical purpose; it's just class hatred. The Greens, with these social policies and their disaterous economic policy, are the epitimisation of modern Maoism.
    Fullopsupirses doesn't think so.

    also

    "

    1. Peers and members of the royal family shall have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
    2. A settlement of property held by the current royal family shall be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property. "


    That isn't a bloody revolution where we put the queen in a guillotine. That and the Greens are nothing like Marxist-Leninist in sooo many ways. Respect for political opposition to the point they will allow people to and organize and express themselves as fascists (the exact opposite of their political quadrant). They believe in decentralization of government. Believe in freedom of speech. Decentralized economic democracy in the form of cooperatives. They are not about some transition from capitalism to "communism" is the main one. To compare them to the likes of the Bolsheviks is just stupid.

    Plus there are good reasons why people are disgusted with the idea that people can be born into a position of privilege and power and be totally uncountable and immune to democratic scrutiny.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Fullopsupirses doesn't think so.

    also

    "

    1. Peers and members of the royal family shall have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
    2. A settlement of property held by the current royal family shall be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property. "


    That isn't a bloody revolution where we put the queen in a guillotine. That and the Greens are nothing like Marxist-Leninist in sooo many ways. Respect for political opposition to the point they will allow people to and organize and express themselves as fascists (the exact opposite of their political quadrant). They believe in decentralization of government. Believe in freedom of speech. Decentralized economic democracy in the form of cooperatives. They are not about some transition from capitalism to "communism" is the main one. To compare them to the likes of the Bolsheviks is just stupid.

    Plus there are good reasons why people are disgusted with the idea that people can be born into a position of privilege and power and be totally uncountable and immune to democratic scrutiny.
    Those policies are not moderate by any means. The first entails that they have no constitutional rights above that of others (ie, removing what makes them Royal) and the second is code for stripping their private housing away from them.

    Now, I'm no Royalist, but I am not concerned that a family has a good life due to their birth. It's no different from being from a Rich family, only coming from a rich family includes not having your privacy exposed and living life in the public eye as payment for your wealth. Although I know the Greens are against people being rich at all on principle. Add to that the argument that they bring in money, and you have little reason to remove them.

    Their policy is similar to Maoism (Note, not necessarily Marxism-Leninism) in that they want to collectivise everybody, have them work for each other not themselves, want to remove all capitalist leanings of people's economic activity and advocate class warfare.

    With regards to their support for free speech; they want to make identify as a British National illegal in the long term.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy4041)
    What's surpising about that exactly? It's in keeping with the Green policy, and belief in democracy. Where should the Queen stay when the monarchy is abolished?




    I agree wholeheartedly.

    This is in keeping with the Greens policies. I believe the abolishment of the monarchy, and the honors system is crucial to abolishing the house of lords, and getting a democratically elected second chamber. The greens would prefer a national assembly for England as well as increased powers of devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    Also say what you want about the Greens...at least they have a manifesto, and stick to it.
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    For people who don't want to hear twisted versions of it from the Times or other parts of the Murdoch-owned press, here are the actual Green policies on the constitution and government of the UK. Basically they want to modernise and democratise Britain. Many of the things that are worst in this country, such as government secrecy, over-centralisation, imperialist wars abroad and the lack of true accountability, derive ultimately from the lack of a constitution and the ways powers are assumed to be vested in the Monarch and devolved from there to a 'loyal' parliament.
    http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pa.html

    This is the actual policy about the royal property. No mention of council houses.

    "
    1. Peers and members of the royal family shall have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
    2. A settlement of property held by the current royal family shall be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property. "
    Finally some people with sense on this forum.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Ye I'd go with this. It's like EU membership. It should be put to a referendum.
    Exactly! How many people have actually had a vote on Europe, those who voted in the original referendum do not necessarily represent the majority anymore, and like the Scottish independence referendum, 16 year olds should get to vote, it is the young peoples future that is at stake.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Exactly! How many people have actually had a vote on Europe, those who voted in the original referendum do not necessarily represent the majority anymore, and like the Scottish independence referendum, 16 year olds should get to vote, it is the young peoples future that is at stake.
    And the death penalty

    And Trident

    And tuition fees

    And UN membership

    And the NHS

    where would the referendums stop? They cost a small fortune to run...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    And the death penalty

    And Trident

    And tuition fees

    And UN membership

    And the NHS

    where would the referendums stop? They cost a small fortune to run...
    All those things are dealt with in parliament, there has never been a referendum on any of them, there has on EU membership, some fourty years ago, most people who voted in that one would be very old or dead, it is time to give the younger generation a choice in their future.

    Actually if a referendum was held every ten years, alongside the General election vote, it would be cheaper, as long as the government did not spend public money on advertising it's position.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    All those things are dealt with in parliament, there has never been a referendum on any of them, there has on EU membership, some fourty years ago, most people who voted in that one would be very old or dead, it is time to give the younger generation a choice in their future.

    Actually if a referendum was held every ten years, alongside the General election vote, it would be cheaper, as long as the government did not spend public money on advertising it's position.
    So you'd run referendums on the EU, Northern Ireland sovereignty, AV and Scottish independence every decade?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    I had enjoyed seeing the Greens rise in popularity without having to do much as the main parties imploded. Now they are destroying their prospects. I endeavour to lead a Green lifestyle as far as practical but that does not mean i have to insult the Royal Family.
    The Greens are just the modern vehicle for the sort of person who used to join Militant Tendency or CPGB. They've always held these sorts of loony left beliefs that have nothing to do with environmentalism; they've just never never received enough media attention for most to notice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That isn't a bloody revolution where we put the queen in a guillotine. That and the Greens are nothing like Marxist-Leninist in sooo many ways. Respect for political opposition to the point they will allow people to and organize and express themselves as fascists (the exact opposite of their political quadrant). They believe in decentralization of government. Believe in freedom of speech. Decentralized economic democracy in the form of cooperatives. They are not about some transition from capitalism to "communism" is the main one. To compare them to the likes of the Bolsheviks is just stupid.
    They're a bit different: the Bolsheviks, while evil, at least believed in a rising standard of living driven by developments in science, technology, and industrial organisation. They believed the best way to achieve this was by pervasive state control of society.

    The Greens live in a world where it is no longer plausible to argue that pervasive state control results in higher and faster increases in the standard of living than free markets. However their commitment is to the means, not the ends, so instead of deciding to support free markets like most of the rest of the political spectrum, they've instead decided to argue that an increasing standard of living is bad.

    This is where environmentalism enters their philosophy: it provides a semi-plausible practical justification for supporting policies that have cleared failed on the terms they were originally conceived.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The Greens are just the modern vehicle for the sort of person who used to join Militant Tendency or CPGB. They've always held these sorts of loony left beliefs that have nothing to do with environmentalism; they've just never never received enough media attention for most to notice.
    i...i just feel so stupid... they tricked me into thinking they were about Green issues.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    i...i just feel so stupid... they tricked me into thinking they were about Green issues.
    They just attract left wingers since rightly or wrongly a lot of environmental people tend to put the environment etc above the importance of say an oil companies profits. Left wingers are generally more critical and willing to be critical of capitalist institutions. Basically it attracts left leaning people.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    All those things are dealt with in parliament, there has never been a referendum on any of them, there has on EU membership, some fourty years ago, most people who voted in that one would be very old or dead, it is time to give the younger generation a choice in their future.

    Actually if a referendum was held every ten years, alongside the General election vote, it would be cheaper, long as the government did not spend public as money on advertising it's position.
    So you think only the opposing side should use public money? Or it should be entirely dependent on rich people?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    So you think only the opposing side should use public money? Or it should be entirely dependent on rich people?
    No one should be using public money, if the political parties want to push their option, then let the cost come out of their funds. You certainly like to make inaccurate assumptions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You can't just keep on calling an election until you get he result you want, you mugglefish


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    You can't remove the royal family. What will we do without them? loooooooooooooooooooooool

    Some people on here are funny!

    Remove them. Bring their assets under national ownership and start Buckingham Palace tours lol That's loads of free monies looooooooooooooooooooool
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kumon)
    Glad the greens said this. They are a real alternative who actually give a toss about the 99%.
    Leaving aside the royal issue, perpetual economic recession (as the Greens have as their stated aim) will not benefit the 99%
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This Bennett woman is clueless. When asked if she wanted perpetual recessions, she said that GDP was a lousy measure and we needed "human measures", not a measure of "profit".

    The silly puerile fanatic doesn't seem to be aware that GDP is not a measure of profit. You could in theory have a zero profit society and still have GDP growth. GDP is the measurement of the total value of all the goods and services produced in that year, basically it's the sum of all output. If you want GDP to reduce, you are axiomatically saying you want lower living standards
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.