Turn on thread page Beta
    • TSR Community Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...-election.html

    Having read all of the recent Q&As on TSR from Nicky Morgan, Nick Clegg and Natalie Bennett, it is clear to see that the Green Party stand apart from the other political parties. They appear to me to be capable of idealism as they are at no risk of being voted to lead so it makes me wonder how their ideals might change if one day they won a general election...


    What do you make of the Green Party?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP are the new Lib Dems, Green will be doing well if they surpass the actual Lib Dems currently. The government will either be Labour, Conservatives, or Con + UKIP (if enough pressure from Conservative backbenchers), with Green and Lib Dems being non-issues.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I support the Green Party because they seem to be the only ones with any sense in regard to public policy, human rights, housing, social justice, intellectual property, the environment, etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The article doesn't seem to have very much to do with the headline. Almost by definition, if UKIP draw more net Conservative defectors than the Green Party draw net Labour defectors, then UKIP played a larger part in determining whether Labour or the Conservatives win more seats.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I voted green at the last election but I certainly don't blame anyone for being put off by the political correctness and the *****ing about trivial things like offending someone. It's like the sort of people who get mad over rape jokes when the premise of the humour is the shock factor. There's nothing shocking about squashing a bug, so squashing bug jokes aren't funny, but the people who make rape jokes clearly acknowledge rape as shocking. They also like to make random connections with someone's figure of speech to catch them out and have something to complain about. They're also the first to point out when something like Top Gear is racist for making a joke about anyone who isn't American, even if the situation has nothing to do with race.

    Perhaps there's also marketability. UKIP is about "taking back powers". There's some catharsis in that, the Greens are very passive outside of taking part in anti-fracking protests. UKIP also tends to want to fight the nit-picky system of political correctness while you could argue the Greens are trying to reinforce that. So from one perspective they're trying to change the Labour/Conservative pair system but on the other hand they're everything wrong with modern society.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    While the Greens like to pretend that they are fuzzy social democrats that you'd like to hug, the reality is that that they have explicit policies surrounding reducing consumption and international trade and also wish to take a number of businesses into direct public ownership. They are the socialists of the 1970's reborn.

    They are ultra-feminists and pro-censorship and they'd sooner stand by and watch ISIS take the Middle East than actually fight for what they believe in.

    Thankfully they came out today and opposed the continued fuel duty freeze among other things, if Bennet turns up to the debates Cameron will tear her a new one, the British people don't want more tax on them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, people on here actually deny climate change?

    Even if global warming wasn't contributed to by humans, the Greens want to end the use of fossil fuels and reduce pollution and deforestation. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want these things.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Queen Cersei)
    What do you make of the Green Party?
    Fools who want to think they're significant just because they've gained a few potential votes with the decline of the LDs and have some pretty piss poor policies.


    (Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
    Wow, people on here actually deny climate change?

    Even if global warming wasn't contributed to by humans, the Greens want to end the use of fossil fuels and reduce pollution and deforestation. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want these things.
    Because they also deny nuclear, we need one or the other (or both) to meet our energy needs, purely renewable is almost certainly not enough because we lack the potential for enough hydroelectric to meet base load.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    UKIP are the new Lib Dems, Green will be doing well if they surpass the actual Lib Dems currently. The government will either be Labour, Conservatives, or Con + UKIP (if enough pressure from Conservative backbenchers), with Green and Lib Dems being non-issues.
    Or a hung parliament...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    UKIP are the new Lib Dems, Green will be doing well if they surpass the actual Lib Dems currently.
    They may be polling similarly, but LD will have many, many more seats, wouldn't be surprised if LD lost very few and have at least 10x the number green has, their support is focused, Green's isn't.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think this pretty much sums up the Green party...

    http://russia.prochan.com/wtf/t/123_1417377005
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I have some difficulties taking them seriously after the Glasgow debate pre the Scottish Referendum, where Patrick Harvie of the Green Party and Nichola Sturgeon of the SNP were trying to sell the Yes campaign argument.

    There is a great section when Nicky is arguing about the vast oil resources still within the North Sea, the wealth of which she argues will accrue to Scotland post a Yes vote, heated arguments with the No campaigners as to whose expert is correct in estimating however many billion barrels of oil are left. Ten minutes later, Patrick, showing his Green credentials, says that of course they would never extract all of the oil anyway, that would not be responsible.

    Not the most joined up tag team to shoot your partner in the head; would be interesting to see how the Greens might fare in a coalition post May. (With Friends like this who needs enemies)
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    And of course voting Green is a gamble. But I'd rather vote for a party that has its heart in the right place and give it a chance to prove itself than to vote in the ancient establishment that time and time again has proven that it is incapable of managing the natural environment and is incapable of real change, be it political or social.
    So you would rather vote for a party with "its heart in the right place" which will nearly certainly screw everybody over rather than one that knows what its doing and will screw over a few people?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Firstly, I think it'd be quite difficult for them to screw everybody over more than the current parties. Secondly, I don't agree that the current political system is only screwing over "a few" people..
    Does anybody who's opinion actually counts for anything think that the policies of the Greens would not **** up the economy? I'm pretty sure a screwed up economy would screw over more than the groups that are screwed over by the main parties in that the majority will be screwed rather than a few relatively small groups
    I never disagreed with nuclear... What I said is that being anti-nuclear is a lesser evil. They are not unwilling to invest in scientific funding - they are the only major party that openly states the intention of increasing scientific funding and I honestly believe that they've got a chance of following it up. You're a complete defeatist - you'd rather live with the miserable status quo than take a chance on a party that has a chance of actually doing some good.

    And if Bennett's Q&A on here is anything to go by they may as well not put the spending up and save a bit of money
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Queen Cersei)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...-election.html

    Having read all of the recent Q&As on TSR from Nicky Morgan, Nick Clegg and Natalie Bennett, it is clear to see that the Green Party stand apart from the other political parties. They appear to me to be capable of idealism as they are at no risk of being voted to lead so it makes me wonder how their ideals might change if one day they won a general election...


    What do you make of the Green Party?
    I think the Greens are the UKIP of a few years ago. They are increasing in support but I think they also need to go through the professionalising stage that UKIP is going through, as clearly they have some issues.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    our energy bills will sky rocket with the greens in charge
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The Greens are the new far left party replacing CPGB. Note that within the 'Westminster bubble' people see UKIP in terms of votes they take and waste from the Tories and the Greens in terms of votes they take and waste from Labour.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Killsworth)
    Use the correct language, e.g. 'Anti-science' would suggest going against the proofs of science. Therefore you suggest that Green's do not believe that energy can be conceived by nuclear reaction, whereas they do. They are against nuclear energy mainly because it is not renewable and has potentially disastrous effects. This is not 'anti-science' as you claim. This, along with other points, has led to misunderstandings.
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.