|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What stops you from joining the Green Party?
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What stops me from joining the Greens?
Same same things that stop me from joining ANY party, but particularly the Greens and Labour:
1. The overly-simplistic nature of debate and argument (where allowed) and the childish nature of some of its received orthodoxy - vix nuclear power, population, wind power, etc.
2. The almost stalinist approach of many greens to honest questions or debate.
3. The sanctimony of so many members
4. The people I know who are members of the party ...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Orb - I don't vote on the basis of environmental platform. Economic issues are more important to me, and underpin environmental issues anyway.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
Orb have you read this report and understood what it says and the implications of them?
Further the green party continues to ratchet up the crisis talk, consistently, to the point that anyone who dares to express any doubt over research, or present alternative research, to the current line on man-made climate change is not deemed a sceptic, but labelled outright as a crazy denialist whether they deny climate change or not. To restrict the freedom of discussion and debate (as seems to happen a lot in this world - I take for example Richard Dawkins recent comments on Islam and a lack of scientific ability, how a valid presentation of facts has led to spurious charges of racism (how can a religion be a race?) and hate mongering - which of course raises the question where were all the people decrying his comments when he lays into Christianity? Hey? Double standards much...? Anyhow off-topic!- which only seeks to demonise proper debate and discussion rather than protect anyone) is not the sign of a truly liberal political agenda, but is one of the trademarks of fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies, namely persecution of dissent.
Further, hand-in-hand with fascism, the Greens believe that most things are the responsibility of the state, whether they relate to national, local or even personal matters (in a similar way to how Plaid's Leanne Wood's report several years back called for dissemination of power to the people, not by actually giving them power but by more centralisation and government control - the report was a contradiction in terms) and when tied into the sort of language that Lucas uses about environmental controls, which is overly centralist and imposed rather than relying on free-markets and freedom of thought or action, we have the predominant hallmarks of the fascist ideology.
[ 10. August 2013, 11:29: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
L'organist - fair enough. For me, I can put up with the excesses/annoying characteristics of the people (similar to putting up with people at a church) because I need a vessel for what I think about politics in the world. NGOs do campaigns which aren't joined up, and I think all the other political parties aren't radical enough, so it just makes sense. I think sanctimony is the thing we're battling against, yes...
Jade - again, I don't understand this. The Greens are the only party that is remotely critical of the excesses of capitalism. Having professed your love of dark green philosophy, what kind of economy do you actually want?
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
False dichotomy. Free market and fascist are not antonyms.
The problem you face is that free markets are not set up to tackle climate change. They deal with short term profits and are happy to externalise costs regardless of consequences. Until you can demonstrate how free markets are going to magically solve the problem (and no, pretending there isn't a problem isn't going to fly) then state intervention is the only show in town.
State intervention is the reason we have fresh water, safe food, readily available healthcare, education, protection from unsafe and exploitative working practices, pensions etc. etc. Are all these fascist too?
[ 10. August 2013, 11:33: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re the Greens and socialism - I take your point about William Morris and that particular type of socialism. I don't think that most of their supporters or even most of their members are socialists, though. Probably the point at which socialism and liberalism intersect.
That's true of any party, though. There are more people who vote SNP than who want Scottish independence, for example.
IME Green supporters tend to be disaffected Old Labour types who go on demonstrations and get involved in community action programmes. The two Greens on the city council represent a ward which is relatively well-off for the city, but relatively poor in national terms.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
For the simple reason that a lot of them talk about a rural idyll that perhaps never was - but if we rediscover it we'll rediscover exploitation of another kind. Not of the land but of people.
Most of the greens know nothing of running an eco system beyond the scale of heir back garden. You can't just gear it up to field sizes you know.
That's the issue - as well as the trendy middle class liberals who support CND, NCT etc.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Orb have you read this report and understood what it says and the implications of them?
Further the green party continues to ratchet up the crisis talk, consistently, to the point that anyone who dares to express any doubt over research, or present alternative research, to the current line on man-made climate change is not deemed a sceptic, but labelled outright as a crazy denialist whether they deny climate change or not. To restrict the freedom of discussion and debate (as seems to happen a lot in this world - I take for example Richard Dawkins recent comments on Islam and a lack of scientific ability, how a valid presentation of facts has led to spurious charges of racism (how can a religion be a race?) and hate mongering - which of course raises the question where were all the people decrying his comments when he lays into Christianity? Hey? Double standards much...? Anyhow off-topic!- which only seeks to demonise proper debate and discussion rather than protect anyone) is not the sign of a truly liberal political agenda, but is one of the trademarks of fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies, namely persecution of dissent.
Further, hand-in-hand with fascism, the Greens believe that most things are the responsibility of the state, whether they relate to national, local or even personal matters (in a similar way to how Plaid's Leanne Wood's report several years back called for dissemination of power to the people, not by actually giving them power but by more centralisation and government control - the report was a contradiction in terms) and when tied into the sort of language that Lucas uses about environmental controls, which is overly centralist and imposed rather than relying on free-markets and freedom of thought or action, we have the predominant hallmarks of the fascist ideology.
Haha! You're funny. REALLY funny.
If you met Caroline, or indeed anyone in the Green Party, you wouldn't accuse us of being fascist. Come for a pint if you live near Brighton - we'll all be there at Conference on the weekend of the 13/14/15/16 September. Easy to spot - we'll be the ones with the Swastika armbands.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli, 'free' markets will never deliver decent environmental outcomes so long as the environmental costs of doing business can be externalised.
Carbon trading schemes being an excellent example of people going "oh my god, we might actually have to pay for dumping our gaseous waste into the atmosphere, what a horrifying idea after having been able to do it at no cost for all these decades".
The last couple of days I've also been hearing yet more horrors about what our processed foods are doing to an increasing percentage of the world's population, pumping us all full of sugar and creating an obesity and diabetes epidemic. That's what the 'free' market delivers - they want to sell you yummy, tasty, SHITTY food and externalise the costs of dealing with the consequences. Because the market is all about making a buck, not about considering the long term consequences of making a buck.
So yeah, call me a centralist. Today is one of those days where I think we desperately need the nanny state to keep us from killing ourselves with 'pleasure'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Orb - at the moment there's no main party I want to vote for. The Greens would never get in where I live and I see no point in wasting my vote on a candidate who wouldn't get in, even if I would agree with them on some policies.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
IME Green supporters tend to be disaffected Old Labour types who go on demonstrations and get involved in community action programmes.
Interesting. In Bristol, we have four councillors. One is ex-Labour, two are always been Greens, and I am an ex-Lib Dem voter (but not member). It produces a good mix. I like the mixture of social liberalism, old Labour socialism, and ecological philosophy that our platform and social milieu offers. No two Greens are the same - despite the stereotypes.
The upcoming generation are much more socialist than those who are in their late-30s/40s/50s, some of whom are very deep green.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Orb have you read this report and understood what it says and the implications of them?
Further the green party continues to ratchet up the crisis talk, consistently, to the point that anyone who dares to express any doubt over research, or present alternative research, to the current line on man-made climate change is not deemed a sceptic, but labelled outright as a crazy denialist whether they deny climate change or not. To restrict the freedom of discussion and debate (as seems to happen a lot in this world - I take for example Richard Dawkins recent comments on Islam and a lack of scientific ability, how a valid presentation of facts has led to spurious charges of racism (how can a religion be a race?) and hate mongering - which of course raises the question where were all the people decrying his comments when he lays into Christianity? Hey? Double standards much...? Anyhow off-topic!- which only seeks to demonise proper debate and discussion rather than protect anyone) is not the sign of a truly liberal political agenda, but is one of the trademarks of fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies, namely persecution of dissent.
Further, hand-in-hand with fascism, the Greens believe that most things are the responsibility of the state, whether they relate to national, local or even personal matters (in a similar way to how Plaid's Leanne Wood's report several years back called for dissemination of power to the people, not by actually giving them power but by more centralisation and government control - the report was a contradiction in terms) and when tied into the sort of language that Lucas uses about environmental controls, which is overly centralist and imposed rather than relying on free-markets and freedom of thought or action, we have the predominant hallmarks of the fascist ideology.
Haha! You're funny. REALLY funny.
If you met Caroline, or indeed anyone in the Green Party, you wouldn't accuse us of being fascist. Come for a pint if you live near Brighton - we'll all be there at Conference on the weekend of the 13/14/15/16 September. Easy to spot - we'll be the ones with the Swastika armbands.
You see I specifically avoided bringing Godwin into this since the NSDAP are not the only fascist political organisation to have existed... but hey ho, one of my points seems to be proving itself to an extent...
I needn't pop round for a pint, although heading to Brighton would be a good chance to catch up with some old friends, all I need to rely on is what is written, published and spoken by official representatives of the Green Party. It is possible for those on the inside to kid themselves that they are not the people they are, but when the ideology litters the reports and speeches, it seems rather obvious that you are...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Greens would never get in where I live and I see no point in wasting my vote on a candidate who wouldn't get in, even if I would agree with them on some policies.
I've moved past this. Vote for what you WANT. If that's no one, then spoil your ballot. If everyone stopped being scared/voting for the lesser of two evils, we'd get somewhere.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I needn't pop round for a pint, although heading to Brighton would be a good chance to catch up with some old friends, all I need to rely on is what is written, published and spoken by official representatives of the Green Party. It is possible for those on the inside to kid themselves that they are not the people they are, but when the ideology litters the reports and speeches, it seems rather obvious that you are...
I honestly don't understand how you can think that. It's not kidding myself. It's just not my lived experience of what Greens are like. (If I went to Tory Party conference, I would expect to get on well with many of them - I do, mostly, on the local council!)
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The last couple of days I've also been hearing yet more horrors about what our processed foods are doing to an increasing percentage of the world's population, pumping us all full of sugar and creating an obesity and diabetes epidemic. That's what the 'free' market delivers - they want to sell you yummy, tasty, SHITTY food and externalise the costs of dealing with the consequences. Because the market is all about making a buck, not about considering the long term consequences of making a buck.
So yeah, call me a centralist. Today is one of those days where I think we desperately need the nanny state to keep us from killing ourselves with 'pleasure'.
Well surely then you can exercise your right to not buy those shitty foods, instead buying organic, free range, free from additives etc. etc. foods from wherever the hell it is you decide to shop... I don't need the state to tell me that I'm not allowed to eat such and such because it does not contain the required level of nutritional value in it, I want to have the right to make that decision (I was watching the episode of Star Trek NG the other day where the replicator denies Troy a chocolate sunday as it doesn't meet minimum nutritional merit) to make a decision rather than be dictated to.
As for environmental issues, business probably wont, and some measures are probably required, but then it is a case of groups bringing pressure to bear rather than governments encroaching on civil liberties to 'fix' a problem. A culture change is required, not a legislative dictate, working through organisations ot bring to bear on issues (hey I hold up M&S as a rather good example of environmental concern and a business working hard and fairly to implement a strong environmental policy without any overbearing burden from government demands... It's a matter of culture not of legislation which invariably messes something else up or ends up restricting my freedoms)
Someone up-thread mentioned fresh water etc... sorry but that is a none starter of an argument and really does not merit any sort of response since it should be evident just how flimsy an argument it is...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
anyone who dares to express any doubt over research, or present alternative research, to the current line on man-made climate change is not deemed a sceptic, but labelled outright as a crazy denialist whether they deny climate change or not. [...] one of the trademarks of fascism, and other totalitarian ideologies, namely persecution of dissent.
Hm, well of the comments:
a. Climate change sceptics are crazy denialists;
b. Greens are fascists;
I would say both have the effect of shutting down debate, but at least (a) has broad scientific consensus on its side.
quote:
when tied into the sort of language that Lucas uses about environmental controls, which is overly centralist and imposed rather than relying on free-markets and freedom of thought or action, we have the predominant hallmarks of the fascist ideology.
The energy market is already an entirely artificial creation of central government. Central government decides whether power stations will be built.
Buying and selling (say) gas is basically a trade in complicated legal contracts that wouldn't mean anything at all without government regulation to set the parameters. I mean if I switch gas suppliers it's exactly the same gas that comes out of the pipe, but some complicated financial adjustments have taken place behind the scenes, and this imaginary switch is entirely a result of the way the Conservative government decided to set up the energy market.
All Lucas is proposing is in effect to change the rules, not to create new ones in what was hitherto a natural market.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I needn't pop round for a pint, although heading to Brighton would be a good chance to catch up with some old friends, all I need to rely on is what is written, published and spoken by official representatives of the Green Party. It is possible for those on the inside to kid themselves that they are not the people they are, but when the ideology litters the reports and speeches, it seems rather obvious that you are...
I honestly don't understand how you can think that. It's not kidding myself. It's just not my lived experience of what Greens are like. (If I went to Tory Party conference, I would expect to get on well with many of them - I do, mostly, on the local council!)
Don't get me wrong, on a personal level I get on very well with people who hold opposing political views to myself (hell Mr S-M is about as opposite to me on the political scale I'm surprised we do get on sometimes - however his slow political movement to the right is heart warming and nice to see, just taking too long!) but that does not mean that I cannot see, or prove, the ideology which they hold for what it truly is (in some respects they occasionally see too!)
You are continuing to try and shut down a proper discussion on the 'dark' side of the Green party ideology by questioning my, I have no idea what you are questioning actually, or by claiming that your experience overrides what your official spokespeople and representatives have actually written and said... If you officially proclaim something that is what you officially believe even if it runs counter to your 'experience' - although of course that raises the question, are any of the greens that you know actually greens or just disaffected labour/Lib. Dem/NSDAP ( ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) members/voters looking for a group to belong to and have pint with.
Alternatively another flaw in the Green Party is revealed, an inability for constituent parts to actually talk to ach other before producing policy and announcements, in which case I'm not sure they could be trusted with organising a piss-up in a brewery if internal communication is so lacking, let alone with national government (well local government has shown this as well, I refer you back to the discord between the Council Party, local party association and national level party...)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Someone up-thread mentioned fresh water etc... sorry but that is a none starter of an argument and really does not merit any sort of response since it should be evident just how flimsy an argument it is...
You can't answer the argument so pretend you don't need to. Nice.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The Greens would never get in where I live and I see no point in wasting my vote on a candidate who wouldn't get in, even if I would agree with them on some policies.
I've moved past this. Vote for what you WANT. If that's no one, then spoil your ballot. If everyone stopped being scared/voting for the lesser of two evils, we'd get somewhere.
Erm, I was under the impression that I got to decide how I voted, not you - it's ultimately none of your business. But speaking personally, where elections are close-run things between a good local candidate and one I don't want to see become my local MP, I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils. A good local MP is a good local MP, regardless of party and well worth a tactical vote.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Winterbottom wrote:
quote:
In answer to the question about sucking up: NZ is currently in the grip of a libertarian, monetarist government. When this government was formed, it did not have quite enough seats to have a clear majority for some of its planned programme of legislation. The Greens initially cosied up and agreed to support them for confidence and supply issues in return for backing some of the Greens' pet projects. Those of us who voted for the Greens threw up our hands in horror, since it was very obvious that the government had no intention of following through.
Thanks Winterbottom.
Just for the record, if this government is really libertarian as you describe them, then it's probably not accurate to call them social-conservative, as you did earlier. Though the two groups will often support one another out of shared antipathy to the left, they are usually considered two distinct, often opposing, tendencies within conservativism.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
Just curious.
Be brutally honest.
What stops me from joining the Green Party is that it exists.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Green Party Philosophy
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In the United States our political system does not really encourage third parties. However when a third party does start to get legs, it seems the main parties (which some claim are just two wings of the Federalist party) will adapt.
An example: back in the 70's George Wallace from Alabama lead a very conservative Southern Democrat reactionary faction--they did not like how the National Democratic party was becoming more ethnically diverse. The Republicans saw an opportunity and developed their "southern strategy" which appealed to these people.
Likewise, the Democratic party has taken on some green issues in the past two elections: encouraging sustainable practices and conservation issues.
The Republican party is also adapting libertarian issues in the hopes of appealing to a younger group, but in reality I am thinking the Republican party is fast becoming a permanent minority party. It can still lock up the House of Representatives, but in the 2016 election cycle you will see some formally strong Red (republican) states becoming blue states because of large Hispanic populations and the decreasing white populations.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Sojourner
Apprentice
# 17776
|
Posted
The Scottish Green Party stops me from considering them at all due to their pro-independence stance. As a left-winger I may sympathise with some of their other policies, but ultimately their view on the central issue of Scottish politics prevents me from even investigating them as a potential choice.
I say this as a fully-paid member of the Labour Party who likes some of the aspects of the Green Party but ultimately would rather vote Tory* as while they (in my opinion) would hurt my country (as they have been doing in power), the Scottish Greens in power would work to destroy my country the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
'Tis be the realities of Scottish Politics at the moment. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
*If given only the choice between Tory and Scottish Green.
[ 10. August 2013, 19:14: Message edited by: A Sojourner ]
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Surely the solution is to vote Green then vote no in any referendum on independence? That's how plenty of SNP voters handle it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-ŕ-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
I vote Green whenever I get the opportunity, ie. whenever they're on the ballot. I can't remember if this has happened twice or only once. Certainly it was MEP elections.
I wouldn't join the party because I haven't the time or money to participate in an entire calendar of political activity and have a life as well. Or rather, let's say that I don't think I would be of much help to them, beyond the membership fee.
[ 10. August 2013, 19:53: Message edited by: Plique-ŕ-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Sojourner
Apprentice
# 17776
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely the solution is to vote Green then vote no in any referendum on independence? That's how plenty of SNP voters handle it.
Why would I vote for a Party that I disagree with one of their most fundemental policies? I agree many non-indy supports vote SNP but I don't want to vote like that. The problem is that the Greens policies have to be seen through the lens of independence... I like their localism, but not if it means Independent Scotland, as that does not mean anything close to localism for anyone who lives north of the Forth(as an example)...
In other words, I am pretty loyal Labour but with some Green and Liberal tendencies... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We don't vote Green because our brain cells are still functioning pretty effectively. We are solidly of the left, and vote for the Labour party.
The Greens here have 2 main strands. The first is the very public, soft and fluffy image of tree huggers, with fundraisers dressed as koalas. While that was the faction of the previous leader, it is the smaller within the party of the 2, but the one which attracts the majority of the vote.
The larger organisational strand is an odd collection of remnants of the various Communist parties which existed here in the 70s and early 80s, along with a Trotskyite element. This strand is dominant in the Green parliamentarians in this State. The views of this group receive very little publicity.
A real peculiarity of the Green Party is that while it proclaims the virtues of open government and open political dealing, it is the only party to hold its meetings behind closed doors and concealing internal debate. The line used to support this is that to do otherwise would be to give ammunition to opponents, a line we have great difficulty following.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A Sojourner:
Why would I vote for a Party that I disagree with one of their most fundemental policies?
It's not fundamental that Greens support independence. Some see the Union as a good thing. But as a small party, you take a side.
What is fundamental is commitment to think of people and planet first when making any decision. This simply doesn't happen in the other parties - political expediency rules.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We are solidly of the left, and vote for the Labour party.
Thanks for your insights. From my reading of the Australian Greens (i.e. their Twitter feed), it seems they are currently focussing on social issues rather than economy/environment. This is always a disaster waiting to happen, in my view.
The quote above - this is hilarious to me if applied to British politics. Why would anyone of the left vote Labour? I just don't get it.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-ŕ-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
Perhaps because they're poor and the real outcome of an election will have an perceptible effect on their lives?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-ŕ-jour:
Perhaps because they're poor and the real outcome of an election will have an perceptible effect on their lives?
Yeah, good point. I guess I was being a bit tribal there.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The UK Labor party is rather different to the Federal ALP here. I can't imagine voting to support a Blair/Brown led party, and don't know for whom we would have voted.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The UK Labor party is rather different to the Federal ALP here. I can't imagine voting to support a Blair/Brown led party, and don't know for whom we would have voted.
I'd vote for UK Labour any day over the racism of Australian Labour and its immigration policies.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The refugee policies of both major parties are un-Christian, racist and appalling. Their policies concerning normal migration are quite OK.
[ 11. August 2013, 03:45: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
I was discussing this yesterday Gee D with one DIL and a friend. Our sitting Labor member is a member of cabinet, Albanese. We have a Liberal candidate of whom I know absolutely nothing. Never heard of him. The Greens guy seems to be standing on social issues such as indigenous justice. The last is standing for Clive Palmer's party.
As GeeD has said, the Labor and Liberal policies to refugees are appalling. Theoretically I vote for a party but don't want to vote for a party which has either Abbott or Rudd as a leader. Palmer's guy is not in the race, and that leaves a tree hugger. Just no choice at all.
I'm getting to inner city Sydney where the Greens have a following. It was trendy to vote Green. However, after having had several elected last time, they seem to be on the downhill slide here. Possibly since Bob Brown left.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
I won't vote for the Greens (Australia) in anything other than a Senate race* because I don't mind hearing their voice as a typical single-issue pressure group, but their policies are so crude and poorly developed they would not possibly be fit to govern.
The Greens in Australia seem to be a very disorganised rabble without a coherent national strategy on any one issue, they seem to be a loose grouping of champagne socialists nominally united under a common banner for the purposes of being more electable than they would be as independents.
A couple of years ago in NSW (where local government is open to party politics, something I'm glad not to have in SA) there was a Greens-dominated council that decided to pass a resolution condemning and boycotting Israel when they should have been focusing on picking up rubbish and filling potholes. What makes that even more extraordinary was that the national Greens leadership condemned their own party members for the resolution!
* At each election, each state elects 6 Senators (half their full representation of 12, half the Senate is elected each time for alternating double-length terms) using the Hare-Clark form of preferential voting for multiple-member electorates. The system often works out with each state sending 2 Labor, 2 Liberal and one/both of the 5th/6th spots being filled by minor parties or independents.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Why I don't vote Green, as a rule?*
In Canada, that would be like voting for the Conservative party without actually voting for the Conservative Party. It's a weasel-out option.
*That being said, I once voted for Greens, provincially, because the NDP candidate was a total flake, and the thought of voting for him made me sick. Voting for a Liberal or a Tory (both centre-right parties) would make me vomit copiously. Even now, I still feel queasy about that Green vote, but the candidate was a sane, well-known man locally.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The refugee policies of both major parties are un-Christian, racist and appalling. Their policies concerning normal migration are quite OK.
Do you mean asylum seekers?
If you do then I agree.
To be pedantic, a refugee is an asylum seeker who has been given leave to remain in the country and the government's response to them is exactly the ame as it isd with the indigenous population: they have access to all benefits and all opportunities for work.
Asylum seekers on the other hand are treated less well than animals.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, sorry, I did mean asylum seekers.
What's never publicised is that the overwhelming majority of those seeking asylum are successful in being given refugee status by departmental officials. Very few of those who fail at the departmental level and then appeal through an appeal process via a tribunal and the courts are ultimately successful. In other words, almost all of those who arrive by boat are found to be genuine in their claims of oppression in their original country. They are people to whom we have, by entering into the treaty, undertaken obligations of care and protection. Instead, they are demonised by the present opposition and elements of the press.
It's very encouraging that in his initial statement, the newly elected Anglican Archbishop of Sydney drew particular attention to the plight of asylum seekers.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
The Greens (both in the UK and Oz) display a cuddly *save the badgers* image; on indvidual international affairs and domestic public policy areas they have decent ideals I can agree with.
However, at a fundamental level the Greens have deeply authoritarian approach aimed at forcing changes in human behaviour which is most repellent to someone like me who enjoy having wishy-washy liberal/libertarian proclivities.
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The Greens here were in a coalition, which probably didn't help them greatly, but they still held the greater margin of power. In that time they had an opportunity to tackle a whole host of environmental issues, but they failed miserably.
1. The issue of Fracking first came on the radar in their time. Didn't even feature on their agenda.
2. Flown in food - supermarkets here, particularly British firms, fly in their food from elsewhere despite that we overproduce food here and do so cheaply. They promised to look at it. They never did.
3. Water was poisoned in County Galway and Clare due to over-farming and unchecked, unregulated septic tanks. This happened in their time. It took the next government to tackle it.
4. They single handedly made it more expensive and more difficult to ride/drive better fuel economy vehicles. That is one I will never understand - although they did expand cycle lanes and the bike hire system.
5. Organic was seen as a 100% good - never even contemplated looking at the issues of food waste and stock loss.
6. They sat back and allowed the bogs get dug up for cash at a huge environmental cost. Like every other party they were scared to anger the rural vote.
I could go on, but it's all too depressing. They promised an awful lot and delivered on absolutely nothing they promised, then to cap it all they became embroiled in a corruption saga.
Same old, same old.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
In other words, almost all of those who arrive by boat are found to be genuine in their claims of oppression in their original country. They are people to whom we have, by entering into the treaty, undertaken obligations of care and protection. Instead, they are demonised by the present opposition and elements of the press.
Given that Australia has been largely populated by *boat-people* since the 1700s, such a attitude towards a few refugee vessels seems a tad, well, hypocritical and ungenerous to say the least. The Greens are right about this, but then, so are most decent people.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's very encouraging that in his initial statement, the newly elected Anglican Archbishop of Sydney drew particular attention to the plight of asylum seekers.
Probably the most sane and sensible thing an Archbishop of Sydney has said for very many years!!
[ 11. August 2013, 09:56: Message edited by: Yam-pk ]
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The only change I'd suggest to your post is to alter "largely" to something more like "very heavily". Almost no new immigrants arrived by plane until well into the 1970s.
Not so sure about your second comment, though. ++Harry Goodhew was a traditional low church Anglican, of the Church of Ireland type, but he was content with a range of Anglican expression. He is still extremely popular when he attends a church outside his normal parish, particularly one of the stole churches.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I use my "list" vote to vote Green in elections to the Scottish Parliament, although my main vote goes elsewhere. I wouldn't join the party mostly because I can't see myself joining any political party.
Patrick Harvie strikes me as rather pleased with himself, although as criticisms of politicians go, I realise that is mild. Nevertheless, I don't find him an appealing politician.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I have been tempted to vote Green - I did once for the European elections but it meant that one of the Labour candidates failed to get a seat.
In this city, I'd be tempted to vote Green if they opposed the elected mayor - who acts like an elected dictator who takes no notice of the people, who treats elected councillors with extreme condescension and is seeking to cut down the number of councillors.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
*tangent alert*
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The only change I'd suggest to your post is to alter "largely" to something more like "very heavily". Almost no new immigrants arrived by plane until well into the 1970s.
I take your point. Populate or perish wasn't it ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not so sure about your second comment, though. ++Harry Goodhew was a traditional low church Anglican, of the Church of Ireland type, but he was content with a range of Anglican expression. He is still extremely popular when he attends a church outside his normal parish, particularly one of the stole churches.
Yes, it's very sad that a few very graceless (in ALL senses of the word) so-called Anglicans should tar everyone from Sydney with the same brush...
*tangent alert*
[ 11. August 2013, 11:16: Message edited by: Yam-pk ]
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I do vote Green where it will count in any sort of proportional election: local councillor, London mayor, MEP etc. In the general election there seems (at the moment) no point in voting for the Greens when their presence (and share of the vote) is so low where we live: SE London. Had no idea who the local candidate was, no literature through the door, etc... If I lived in Brighton, I would vote Green.
What stops me joining the Green Party? The same reason that stops me from joining any political party - I agree with some but not all of their policies; I support them enough to vote for them, but not to become a card-carrying member; I think politics essential, but party politics a distraction.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
Given that Australia has been largely populated by *boat-people* since the 1700s, such a attitude towards a few refugee vessels seems a tad, well, hypocritical and ungenerous to say the least. The Greens are right about this, but then, so are most decent people.
Given that they'll never be called to account for their policies by putting them into action in the real world, of course they can afford to be idealistic instead of making a genuine contribution to the work of finding a realistic solution.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The refugee policies of both major parties are un-Christian, racist and appalling.
Which is one reason I am currently intending to vote Green at the forthcoming election.
The beauty of a preferential system is that I don't consider this a 'wasted' vote at all. If I do vote Green then I won't, in the House of Reps, have any real expectation that my first preference will get in. But by golly, if the first preference Green vote jumps - as it may well do given issues such as asylum seekers and same sex marriage - you can bet the backroom boys in the Labor Party will notice.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
