|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What stops you from joining the Green Party?
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Cheeseburger wrote:
quote:
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.
In some parts of Canada, they are even more of an ideological dog's breakfast. In my home province, they were for a while headed by Joe Anglin, a former US marine who made his name campaigning against transmission lines on farmers' property.
When his leadership was eventually contested, the party fell apart, to be replaced by a copycat called the Evergreen Party. Anglin himself joined the Wildrose Party, a far-right coalition of free-market libertarians and bible thumpers, probably the closest Canada has to a US-style Republican party. They lost the subsequent election, but Anglin managed to get elected to the provincial legislature.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
StarlightUK
Shipmate
# 4592
|
Posted
I live in Brighton where we currently endure the UK's only Green controlled council. The Greens became the largest single party at the last local elections to great fanfare and much goodwill. Many people in the city though who voted for them and who may agree in principle with many of their ideas now feel utterly disillusioned by the experience of having Green control in Brighton.
Issues such as the abysmal way in which they have dealt with a recent refuse collection strike. The constant infighting and dysfunction within the local party with no visible control/discipline amongst their councillors. The imposition of a 20mph policy (which in itself I don't especially disagree with) pretty much right across the city, with no real consultation and using up virtually the entire transport budget.
They have in in opinion been nothing more than a complete disaster for Brighton.
Posts: 76 | From: Brighton | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
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.
Realistic solution? Surely a country more than the size of Western Europe, and probably as wealthy, can surely find a solution that is more humane to process asylum-seekers' claims in virtual off-shore concentration camps in PNG or Nauru?
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
Because I would rather be in a party of government than one of protest.
Because I am not sure I agree with the green economic policy.
Because I believe reconciliation and bringing people together community organizations eg Citizens UK - including those with whom I have major differences - is a better way of doing politics than an obsession with doctrinal orthodoxy and splitting into increasingly small groups.
Because I find learned helplessness tends to entrench unjust power structures rather than undo them. In Taizé*, Frère Maxime had an analogy - he said that in societies, some people tended to naturally take on the rôle of wolves, being oppressive and bullying etc - but others took on the rôle of sheep - they were so accustomed to being victimized that they grew to loudly protest victimization, but never with a view to successfully challenging it or doing anything about it. The victimization becomes so large that it swallows their entire identity and were it not there they would lose their raison d'être. This is how the Green party seems to me.
*As they say, "You've been to Taizé too often if your "Eselsbrücken" usually starts by ... in Taize there is." And on the Ship they often do, it seems.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
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.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to sceptical of Red Trousers, and elected mayors as a whole - he seems to try to attract support through grand but essentially meaningless gestures rather than actual policies, and seems to see everything through a decidedly middle-class lens.
However, I do think it was very wrong for Labour to reject the offer to join George Ferguson's cabinet.
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Miss Madrigal
Shipmate
# 15528
|
Posted
In my role as a trade union activist I have attended conferences of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties over the past few years representing my union (we weren't welcome at the Tory conference, or I would gladly have gone). I haven't been a member of a political party since I resigned from the Labour party in 1994 when Tony Blair was elected leader and got Clause IV dropped (if you start to suspect that I was an old-school leftie then in 1994 I would have been guilty as charged). As I was considering getting more politically engaged once more I looked at all three parties through the eyes of a potential member.
The Labour party was falling apart and about to enter its period in the wilderness. While I recognised much from my previous membership, they seemed to have become a more cycnical and less socialist party and I no longer felt at home, which being the reason I had left 20 years before was no great surprise but still a disappointment. They certainly didn't feel like a party I could join with a happy heart.
The Lib Dems were losing their innocence quite painfully in the first throes of the coalition and while I could sense the commitment and purpose in many of the members they seemed to be gathering the veneer of career politics and world-weariness that coated the Labour politicians I had seen the previous year. Another party rejected.
The Green party felt a lot different, still flushed with the success of their first MP, and MP who I met, liked and respected. This party still believed in what it stood for and seemed prepared to stand by its beliefs, even if that put them against the rest of the world and still espoused socialist principles without the excesses of the other avowedly socialist parties, a large amount felt very much in accord with my sensibility but - ah, there was a but. When I discussed energy policy with members of the Greens it was made clear to me that failure to agree entirely with the party policy would not be acceptable, so if I were in favour of nuclear for base load (which I am) then I might find myself unwelcome. This rather unyielding, fundamentalist approach is why I haven't joined the Greens despite finding them otherwise very attractive. While I don't think that it is necessarily a party characteristic, there were enough individuals within the party like that to put me off.
Posts: 79 | From: The Bit In The Middle | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Why won't I join the Greens? Because Elizabeth May, their leader, is a Tory in Disguise and their party is really Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party of the 1980's, that's why. It's where all the Tories who can't stand going over to the Liberals seem to hang out.
I'm also a New Democratic Party member, so I get to believe everything Greens do and more besides, and my caucus has 103 MP's instead of Ms. May in the back row on the Opposition side of the Commons next to the Sergeant-at-Arms near the door.
Oh, and since the Green Party is not officially recognized in the House of Commons, Ms. May is addressed as the "Honourable Member for Gulf-Saanich Islands" to which she responds "And the Green Party votes...." Pathetic.
I really which she'd fall into a black hole and disappear, and take her party with her.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I don't think I would join the Green Party, but they are at least an alternative to the Con-Lib-Lab Party, which is in effect the single party ruler of the UK. There is not a fag paper of difference between the three 'parties' which increasingly remind me of arrangements in certain countries where the power was formerly divided between the Communists and the United Peasants Party (read Communists with another name)to give the illusion of 'democracy'.
Frankly I'm not surprised that so few of us vote, more amazed that so many still bother.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Ditto. The Greens have nothing that I can't get somewhere else, whether the NDP or the Liberals. The Greens' greatest "accomplishment" in Canada? Helping the Tories win elections and boost the oil and gas industry.
ETA: Ditto to SPK (xpost)
[ 11. August 2013, 18:29: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.
UK Labour tended to treat asylum seekers and non-EU migrants pretty shittily too, when it was in power ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
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.
Good to see someone's following closely ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I will have a word with the other three councillors on "opposing the Mayor" - think it's a bit inflexible myself when we have to work with him to get the best for the city. Of course, we have opposed him and will continue to oppose him when he breaks his promises, as he did over BRT2.
My next week is taken up with writing a position paper for our stance on the boundary review. We want to see the same level of representation maintained, and the inner city better represented.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Mother Julian
Ship's librarian
# 11978
|
Posted
I did join the Green Party, after the last election. The big issue is environmental protection, just about everything else is negotiable. I believed , perhaps still believe, that the Green Party is the best vehicle for changing environmental issues for the better in the UK. I'm not a very active member, at least here in Liverpool we've a couple of rather good councillors and an active party that is doing good work.
However, the strong anti-religious policies of the party I find increasing difficult to to accept. A recent survey, reported in the party magazine, recorded 60% of members as having no religion, so the anti-religious policies aren't goin to change any time soon.
And I hope that Orb could clarify what's happening in Bristol affecting my beloved Bristol Rovers Football Club. Following much discussion, BRFC are to build a new stadium and the old ground will become the site of a Sainsbury's supermarket. It's (development of the old ground) been through the full planning process, with lots of consultation and environmental improvements from the original proposals. At the last minute, a tenants and residents association is considering launching a Judicial Review of the way the planning process was handled by the City council. It appears from Twitter entries by a Green activist in Bristol that this is being supported by Bristol Greens. There is no serious cause for review of the planning decision, the FUD caused by this will only add to delays in building our new stadium, but won't prevent it. Bristol Greens are looking very petty being involved in this. I am so angry about this unnecesary delay to our plans that at the moment I can't see how I can remain a member of a party that behaves like this. In the small things, big things can be learnt.
--------------------
The corn was orient and immortal wheat which never should be reaped, nor was ever sown.
Posts: 359 | From: the banks of the mighty River Mersey | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mother Julian:
However, the strong anti-religious policies of the party I find increasing difficult to to accept. A recent survey, reported in the party magazine, recorded 60% of members as having no religion, so the anti-religious policies aren't goin to change any time soon.
I don't see these as anti-religious policies at all. If you want to lessen the 60% of the party who are non-religious, I would suggest asking your green-minded religious friends to join!
Education:
ED173 We will seek to cater for these rights and needs through ensuring that children and young people can practise their faith in schools, for example by providing prayer space for those who need or wish to practise their religion regularly.
ED174 At the same time we will abolish the requirement for a compulsory daily act of worship. Schools which choose to continue to hold acts of worship will provide an alternative activity for learners who choose not to take part. Pupils who do not participate in worship will not suffer any form of discrimination.
ED175 Religious instruction, as distinct from religious education in understanding different religions may only take place outside of school curriculum time.
ED176 No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief.
ED177 Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system. This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.
ED178 Opt-outs from equality and diversity legislation will not be allowed for faith schools and they will not be permitted to promote homophobia or transphobia on the grounds of religion.
Equal marriage:
RR507 The Green Party also supports an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship whilst recognising it is up to religious bodies to make this decision and not for the state to dictate to them prohibitions on civil partnerships.
Taken from here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/
quote:
At the last minute, a tenants and residents association is considering launching a Judicial Review of the way the planning process was handled by the City council.
We're positively in favour of having a new Rovers ground, but not at the price of more supermarkets, particularly one so close to Gloucester Road, one of the last great high streets left in the UK.
quote:
It appears from Twitter entries by a Green activist in Bristol that this is being supported by Bristol Greens.
I'd be interested to know who this is - it's more likely an activist from another party than one of our own. Personally, I think the deal is done and they should leave well alone, but if they feel that the process lacked transparency and legitimacy, they're within their rights to launch a judicial review - even if that means the stadium is slightly delayed.
quote:
Bristol Greens are looking very petty being involved in this.
We are pretty petty, yeah. You have to be in politics - accuracy and attention to detail are crucial if you want to get anything done. But I haven't seen any evidence any paid up GP members are involved in this.
quote:
I am so angry about this unnecesary delay to our plans that at the moment I can't see how I can remain a member of a party that behaves like this.
As I say - you have to be pretty petty in politics! (I like football, but it's just football - not the death of the high street.)
--------------------
“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
quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
[/qb]
Realistic solution? Surely a country more than the size of Western Europe, and probably as wealthy, can surely find a solution that is more humane to process asylum-seekers' claims in virtual off-shore concentration camps in PNG or Nauru? [/QB][/QUOTE]
A realistic solution is to accept them, place them as necessary into quarantine for health checks (many diseases eradicated here can very easily be brought back to a remote island), place them into the community while their refugee applications are processed quickly, rather than the 18 months plus it presently takes, and then get them into their new lives.
I was waiting for the size of the country bit. Just remember that the realistic population this country can support is about 5 million less than the present population. There's a good reason it's an empty continent with very few people living away from some coastal fringes.
From The Giant Cheseburger:
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.
Anti-semitism of the left is just as nasty as that of the right. This particular council and its mayor not only went onto an anti-Israeli campaign, by accompanied it with rhetoric about Jewish bankers controlling US policy and so forth. The same sort of rubbish Ross May and his associates have been spewing for years.
Your later comments about the lack of responsibility are only too true. Like their friends in the press, the Greens here like to argue points, knowing that they will never have to develop plans to implement the policies they espouse, nor carry the flak when they fail.
From Orfeo:
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.
Madame and I first voted in the 1969 Federal election (we were not together at that time). She simply voted Labour. I gave my first preference to a group headed by Gordon Barton of Ipec fame and set up specifically to oppose the Vietnam war, with my second preference to Labour. Of course, in the lower house, the Liberal sitting member* here was returned with the usual 30% plus margin, but my Senate vote counted.
* Tangent alert - Harry Turner and his 2 immediate successors were all very good members, thoughtful and courteous, prepared to listen and debate rationally. They were also good local members. Alas, the present member is none of these. An import from elsewhere in Sydney and used work for a telco!!!!
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Why won't I join the Greens? Because Elizabeth May, their leader, is a Tory in Disguise and their party is really Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party of the 1980's, that's why. It's where all the Tories who can't stand going over to the Liberals seem to hang out.
I'm also a New Democratic Party member, so I get to believe everything Greens do and more besides, and my caucus has 103 MP's instead of Ms. May in the back row on the Opposition side of the Commons next to the Sergeant-at-Arms near the door.
Oh, and since the Green Party is not officially recognized in the House of Commons, Ms. May is addressed as the "Honourable Member for Gulf-Saanich Islands" to which she responds "And the Green Party votes...." Pathetic.
As we are on the subject of "Green Party Of Canada = pathetic", I was amused by their recent attempt to get the Queen involved in the robocalls scandal. I imagine they knew that Buckingham Palace would decline any involvement, but hoped that they'd say something in their reply along the lines of "However the Queen does share your alarm at Mr. Harper's abuse of the democratic process". Thus sending shockwaves through the Canadian political system!!
I knew that May herself had been a flunky of old Mulroney, but I don't think I knew that the Greens had become the last-chance-saloon of so many old Tories, as you describe. From the comparative reading on this thread, I'd say the Canadian Greens might be somewhat notable among the global movement, in attracting a hefty number of adherents from the right of the spectrum. See my earlier post about Joe Anglin for another example.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mother Julian
Ship's librarian
# 11978
|
Posted
Orb posted, in reply to my report of a twitter comment:
"I would be interested to know who this is"
It appears to be a fellow Green Party councillor in Bristol, Daniella Radice:
quote:
Daniella Radice @GreenDaniella
On t
Reply
Retweet
Favourite
11:00 AM - 2 Aug 13
Jools Pirog @JoolsPirog 5h
@GreenDaniella how shameful you cannot be open about your attempt to block the redevelopment of the memorial ground. Poor show & cowardly
fair do's, this is far from conclusive, but in the local Green Party Bishoptown enews for July, the party wrote:
quote:
TRASH
Trash is continuing to pursue the option of a Judicial Review, and has taken the case through a solicitor to Counsel. If we get the green light for this then we will need to raise money.
TRASH is the local traders and residents association. But I note the use of "we" - internally within Bristol Greens TRASH are working together with Bristol Greens. Externally, Bristol Greens have a front organisation to give something close to "plausible deniability".
And, pace Orb "I like football, but it's just football" NO IT'S NOT, in the immortal words of the saintly Bill Shankly, sometime manager of Liverpool Football Club:
quote:
Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that
.
Sorry to all the rest of the SoF that my first posting for a couple of years should be on a matter of such limited local interest
--------------------
The corn was orient and immortal wheat which never should be reaped, nor was ever sown.
Posts: 359 | From: the banks of the mighty River Mersey | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Sorry to all the rest of the SoF that my first posting for a couple of years should be on a matter of such limited local interest
Not at all. In fact, one of the things I like about the Ship, as opposed to other more geographically-specific boards, is that it gives me the opportunity to read about things happening in remote(for me) places that I wouldn't know about otherwise.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I get to cast my vote in two countries' general elections: NZ and the UK.
I don't vote Green in NZ a) because, environment aside, I'm not keen on their policies b) I'm not sure they're sufficiently clued up to govern, regardless of their policies and c) they strike me as the sort of left-wingers who are so sure they're liberal, they don't notice that they actually aren't.
I haven't voted Green in the UK because it would be a wasted vote, and I suspect I wouldn't like their policies there either. Having said that, I find switching from LD to Green odd as the philosophical underpinnings of the two parties strike me as very different.
FWIW this is my voting record (asterisked where I voted for the winning candidate or party)
NZ:
05: Maori
08: National*
11: Labour
UK
97*, 01*, 05*, 10*: Lib Dem and likely to continue as I dislike the alternatives more and I like the constituency MP.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I am registered as Green. In the US they are certainly not a single-issue party, and in fact are the only meaningful leftist (as opposed to liberal--it's not the same thing) party. I don't vote for every Green candidate, in part because they do have a history of letting kooks get nominated alongside eminently sensible people. In the US system, voting for the person can override voting for the party.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mother Julian:
And, pace Orb "I like football, but it's just football" NO IT'S NOT, in the immortal words of the saintly Bill Shankly, sometime manager of Liverpool Football Club:
quote:
Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that
.
Are you serious?
I'm fairly relaxed about Daniella being a member of TRASH. I'm not opposed to a judicial review, just think it won't achieve anything. I'm not bothered if it delays a football club a few months, because it's just a football club and there are wider issues at play here that you don't seem to be thinking about (i.e. the impact of a large supermarket on the future of Gloucester Road).
--------------------
“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 Timothy the Obscure:
In the US system, voting for the person can override voting for the party.
As in any first past the post/winner takes all system. You have my admiration for being registered as Green in the US.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
but not at the price of more supermarkets, particularly one so close to Gloucester Road, one of the last great high streets left in the UK.
If it's such a great high street that everybody loves then it'll be able to survive even with a supermarket round the corner. If, on the other hand, the people there would actually quite like to have access to cheaper and more convenient goods then why shouldn't they have that option?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it results in cheaper goods for the shoppers and therefore is better for them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
To answer the OP question, I remember campaigning on behalf of my stepmother who was standing as a councillor for the Ecology Party as it then was in the 80s and then checking our the Green Party at university. It seemed to have a quite anti-Christian and pro-New Age and neo-pagan (Wicca etc) bias back then with at least one party conference being opened with some kind of weird New Age ritual. That really put me off joining at the time and, if Mother Julian's comments are accurate (as they seem to be borne out by Orb's post above), not a vast amount has changed now. That's a shame because I did and still do agree with a lot of their environmental policies and I too would like to see a choice other than our rather monolithic metro-liberal Con-Lib-Lab Establishment, but until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it results in cheaper goods for the shoppers and therefore is better for them.
If you're a shopper without a car it's not better at all. Buses, where they exist, run to town centres which are fine if you want bulding societies, banks, estate agents, charity shops and Poundland. Things may be better in big cities but in most towns all the real shops are out of town these days, surrounded by giant car parks.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.
I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it results in cheaper goods for the shoppers and therefore is better for them.
Incorrect in my local area: http://notesco.wordpress.com/pricecomparison/
(I know it's not an unbiased website...but they'd be pretty low to make up the prices...)
Also...small and medium enterprises (SMEs) provide 60% of the jobs in the UK. SMEs deliver one job for every £108,000 of turnover, whereas larger enterprises only deliver one per £160,000 of turnover. If large enterprises were as effective at delivering jobs as SMEs they would create an additional 4.8 million private sector jobs. Sole traders are the most effective job creators needing just £55,000 of turnover to create one job. (source: Department of Business Innovation and Skills.)
--------------------
“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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.
That's a canard. Nader received 2% of the popular vote in 2000, and got no electoral votes. Not to mention that the other third party candidates in Florida (usually pointed to as the tipping point for the "spoiler effect") got more votes combined than the 537-vote difference between Gore & Bush.
And of course, the "Nader spoiled it" theory assumes that all those votes would have gone to Gore. I don't know how anyone would know that. But by all means, let's stir up hysteria every four years about third-party candidates "stealing" votes from Pepsi or Coke, because the two-party system works so well for us.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.
I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?
Not if eg: the ED177 quoted by you above still stands.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Fr Weber: And of course, the "Nader spoiled it" theory assumes that all those votes would have gone to Gore.
Nader got 97,488 votes. If only 538 of those had gone to Gore, then even a shaky court decision couldn't have given the win to Bush.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.
I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?
I know three people who are Green activists/ council candidates, two of whom are Anglican priests and one a trainee Reader.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.
I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?
Not if eg: the ED177 quoted by you above still stands.
"Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system."
How is bringing faith schools under local authority control anti-religion?!
quote:
This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.
Faith schools should be subject to employment law...no? If not, why not?
Either way, saying that religious schools can't discriminate against non-religious people isn't anti-religion. It's joined up thinking.
--------------------
“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
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
The thing that would most put me off the UK Green party is the wildly over optimistic tone in which the policies are expressed. All political parties do this to a certain extent but that is the most exaggerated example I have seen. Everyone will have good housing, a well paid job, and there will be brilliant public services which will all be free, as if doing it were as easy as thinking of it.
I can't imagine voting for any party which didn't admit to the difficulty of government. It's no wonder they support free eye tests for all, as it seems to me they must be wearing about 6 pairs of rose tinted spectacles each.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Matt Black wrote:
quote:
It seemed to have a quite anti-Christian and pro-New Age and neo-pagan (Wicca etc) bias back then with at least one party conference being opened with some kind of weird New Age ritual. That really put me off joining at the time and, if Mother Julian's comments are accurate (as they seem to be borne out by Orb's post above), not a vast amount has changed now.
That sorta thing is not just confined to the Greens. It permeates the environmental movement these days, even those sections of it that are identified with the old-line political left.
I don't know if I would neccessarily call it anti-Christian, though it does give a prominence to certain types of spirituality that would certainly never be given to Christianity in the same venues. I'd be curious to know what positive impact, if any, it has had in making enviromentalism popular outside of its already established niche.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Matt Black wrote:
quote:
It seemed to have a quite anti-Christian and pro-New Age and neo-pagan (Wicca etc) bias back then with at least one party conference being opened with some kind of weird New Age ritual. That really put me off joining at the time and, if Mother Julian's comments are accurate (as they seem to be borne out by Orb's post above), not a vast amount has changed now.
That sorta thing is not just confined to the Greens. It permeates the environmental movement these days, even those sections of it that are identified with the old-line political left.
I don't know if I would neccessarily call it anti-Christian, though it does give a prominence to certain types of spirituality that would certainly never be given to Christianity in the same venues. I'd be curious to know what positive impact, if any, it has had in making enviromentalism popular outside of its already established niche.
I've been involved in environmental politics, and I have a lot of friends who are neo-pagans. I've not seen a lot of overlap.
The most active Green activists I've seen (both in a general political sense and the party itself) were a Methodist minister and a lay Catholic with close Jesuit ties.
Maybe 20-30 years ago the Green movement owed more to sentiment than anything else but now the biggest issues are grounded in hard science.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Orb have you read this report and understood what it says and the implications of them?
Having looked at this, I was struggling to think where I'd heard this sort of talk before. Now I remember. In one of the final episodes of The World At War, the various talking heads are reminiscing about the period and Michael Foot pops up to say that the Britain of 1939-45 was the closest we came to building a true socialist state in this country. Like the Greens, he saw this as a good thing.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Certainly Attlee's 1945 government was the first and only socialist government we have ever had. And it laid the foundations for a very civilised society which survived until Thatcher-era individualism started to chip away at it.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I don't think this is the place to rehearse what was wrong with Attlee's government. I'm just a little surprised that anyone would look back on a period of wartime deprivation and hardship (some of it necessary, yes, but tough nonetheless) and think 'let's use this as a model'. The fact that the Greens, apparently, do suggests to me that they should be kept away from power.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Everyone will have good housing, a well paid job, and there will be brilliant public services which will all be free, as if doing it were as easy as thinking of it.
I can't imagine voting for any party which didn't admit to the difficulty of government.
That's because it's fairly plain to see how difficult governing is. Why patronise people?
Equally, why NOT say the things you ACTUALLY want? Who else does that in politics?
--------------------
“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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet wrote:
quote:
I've been involved in environmental politics, and I have a lot of friends who are neo-pagans. I've not seen a lot of overlap.
The most active Green activists I've seen (both in a general political sense and the party itself) were a Methodist minister and a lay Catholic with close Jesuit ties.
Maybe 20-30 years ago the Green movement owed more to sentiment than anything else but now the biggest issues are grounded in hard science.
Fair enough. We probably travel in different circles, as far as environmentalism goes. The stuff I'm talking about has been a fairly prevalent feature of certain notable left-wing groups in Canada.
Though I will say that over here, at least in left-leaning circles, it tends to focus more on an appropriation of First Nations spirituality than on Wiccanism or New Age. Though there is a bit of conceptual overlap between all three, I suppose.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the smaller shops can't compete with a supermarket that takes 90 days credit as part of their deals with suppliers. That means the supermarket has at least 60 days interest on their takings before having to pay the suppliers. Makes the profit margins look very different.
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it results in cheaper goods for the shoppers and therefore is better for them.
If you're a shopper without a car it's not better at all. Buses, where they exist, run to town centres which are fine if you want bulding societies, banks, estate agents, charity shops and Poundland. Things may be better in big cities but in most towns all the real shops are out of town these days, surrounded by giant car parks.
That's a case for redrawing bus routes, not for restricting competition and choice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Is it restricting competition and choice?
Isn't part of the problem with the big supermarkets that the big four are effectively acting as a monopoly and competition from smaller shops is being driven out by their behaviour?
And surely the knock on effects of treating suppliers unfairly - so badly that legislation is in place to provide
quote:
the power to fine supermarkets if they abuse their suppliers by forcing down wholesale prices to below-cost levels [which came] after supermarkets have been accused of behaving unreasonably when setting prices – and changing the terms of agreements once they have been struck.
- complicates the pricing picture? Consumers are also employees of the suppliers - so with one hand the supermarkets drive down costs and the wages the supplier can pay, and with the other they drive down costs. There are other knock on environmental problems caused by this - smaller farmers going out of business, the effects of larger industrial farming on the countryside.
Other recent changes in the law have been to remove the ability of supermarkets to enforce restrictions on land use, preventing another supermarket or grocery business from building in the area.
Where I live we already have two supermarkets, in a small market town. The District Council favoured suggestion for redeveloping the middle of the town, the old primary school site, was to build a third supermarket. That plan has died a death, fortunately, because the County Council has removed the site from their considerations. The District Council spent too long not agreeing a plan on out-of-date surveying and research. When their plans went to public consultation the vast majority were against all supermarket options.
tl:dr Supermarket building effects are complicated. They may create short term price reductions for the consumer but there are big questions over how competitive they are, their trading practices and the effects they have on suppliers.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...until the Greens change their spots a little at least on the religion issue, that will remain a massive hindrance to the likes of me having anything serious to do with them.
I've never encountered anyone in the Green Party being anti-religion, so this puzzles me. Maybe it's...<shudder>...changed?
Not if eg: the ED177 quoted by you above still stands.
"Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system."
How is bringing faith schools under local authority control anti-religion?!
Because I would be concerned that they would be subjected to the LA's secular humanist agenda. I wouldn't want my kids' Catholic school subject to the diktat of the LA for that reason; it would over time destroy its unique Catholic ethos. Why do you want it subject to LA control?
quote:
quote:
This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.
Faith schools should be subject to employment law...no? If not, why not?
It was the admissions policy aspect that disturbed me the most: whilst we do take non-Catholics, our local Catholic school exists primarily for the benefit of the local Catholic community. Same I would guess with most if not all Muslim faith schools.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because I would be concerned that they would be subjected to the LA's secular humanist agenda. I wouldn't want my kids' Catholic school subject to the diktat of the LA for that reason; it would over time destroy its unique Catholic ethos. Why do you want it subject to LA control?
I don't think LAs should have ANY agenda, beyond putting the needs of children first. I want private schools (faith or otherwise) under LA control because I want our school system to be less tiered and more equitable. Provision and practice can be shared much easier if all schools are governed under one overarching body.
quote:
It was the admissions policy aspect that disturbed me the most: whilst we do take non-Catholics, our local Catholic school exists primarily for the benefit of the local Catholic community. Same I would guess with most if not all Muslim faith schools.
I still do not see how this is "anti-religion". It's "anti-religious separatism", which I happen to be too. We need to move beyond this sectionalism which educates children according to tribes, classes and/or income levels.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I am sure Matt and his children's school also have the single agend of putting children's needs first. Why then, not just leave it to them?
Also, what is the difference between anti religious seperatism and anti-religion?
[ 13. August 2013, 09:16: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
I don't think LAs should have ANY agenda, beyond putting the needs of children first. I want private schools (faith or otherwise) under LA control because I want our school system to be less tiered and more equitable.
Isn't the desire for an 'equitable' school system an, erm, agenda?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks, Orb, you've just confirmed why I couldn't vote Green let alone join.
I want the best for my kids and I think their school does too. As a Christian, I'd like their faith to be developed at school in a way that is some respects mirrors rather than conflicts with what they are taught at home. That for me is the USP of the school they go to. Your party threatens that and until they drop that threat they won't get my vote.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orb's last post brings to mind the press announcement by a newly appointed head of a governmental authority here. She wanted the organisation to be known as an efficient regulator. Of course, she did not question the need for the particular sector to be regulated at all. It was in fact one which had been going its own little way for quite a few hundred years without the need for any regulation.
--------------------
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 Cod:
I am sure Matt and his children's school also have the single agend of putting children's needs first. Why then, not just leave it to them?
For the reason I gave - I think that we need to connect schools with one another to share what they're doing.
quote:
Also, what is the difference between anti religious seperatism and anti-religion?
Anti-religion is "I don't think faith schools should exist because there is no God". Anti-religious separatism is "faith schools exist, so there should be a way of connecting them to the general principles and governance structures of other schools."
--------------------
“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 Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
I don't think LAs should have ANY agenda, beyond putting the needs of children first. I want private schools (faith or otherwise) under LA control because I want our school system to be less tiered and more equitable.
Isn't the desire for an 'equitable' school system an, erm, agenda?
Yes. I didn't say I didn't have an agenda, I said LAs shouldn't have one.
quote:
Your party threatens that and until they drop that threat they won't get my vote.
It doesn't, but you don't seem willing to look at the nuance of this (for the obvious and understandable reason that your school is doing a fine job), so I'll shut up.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It was in fact one which had been going its own little way for quite a few hundred years without the need for any regulation.
So it must have been doing something right then? So it might want to share that best practice with other schools, to help them improve?
Some here sound like they are in favour of a school being an island unto itself.
--------------------
“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
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
[QB] []For the reason I gave - I think that we need to connect schools with one another to share what they're doing.
What do they need to share that is not cover by adherence to a nationally set curriculum?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
