Green Party's 'unapologetic, socialist broadcast'

[newbie]

Eh? The Green Party was launched by rich ex-Tories

could you expand on this please, it's not a suggestion I'm familiar with and doesn't really chime with my recollections

 

[free spirit]

You're spot on.

fair play, most on here seem to prefer to bluster their way through using wikipedia and a few crap articles on the subject as their source material.

It really is far too complex a subject for that to work.

As a quick overview / assessment, I'd say that it's neither inevitable, nor impossible for a population of 9-10 billion to be a problem. It very much depends on our collective actions, particularly with regard to sustainability, waste reduction in all sectors and the equitability of the distribution of wealth, energy, food and water.

I'd think that 9 billion people under the current system would be highly problematic, with most of those additional people ending up adding to the numbers in abject poverty. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way though, the current system is extremely wasteful of resources, inequitable in their distribution, and destructive of the environment in a way that reduces it's long term carrying capacity... doesn't need to be that way though, we can change this if we collectively decide to.

 

[Favelado]

fair play, most on here seem to prefer to bluster their way through using wikipedia and a few crap articles on the subject as their source material.

It really is far too complex a subject for that to work.

As a quick overview / assessment, I'd say that it's neither inevitable, nor impossible for a population of 9-10 billion to be a problem. It very much depends on our collective actions, particularly with regard to sustainability, waste reduction in all sectors and the equitability of the distribution of wealth, energy, food and water.

I'd think that 9 billion people under the current system would be highly problematic, with most of those additional people ending up adding to the numbers in abject poverty. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way though, the current system is extremely wasteful of resources, inequitable in their distribution, and destructive of the environment in a way that reduces it's long term carrying capacity... doesn't need to be that way though, we can change this if we collectively decide to.

I hope the Green movement succeeds but it's up against the current system, which you admit can't handle 3 billion more people, not to mention inertia and procrastination on a grand scale. Developing countries don't give a shit either. China's not even arsed that it's choking half of its urban citizens on a daily basis. It will be panic that belatedly makes governments sit up and notice.

Collective action is the worst thing we could be depending on because we've seen what a total failure that's been when world leaders have got together.

Anyway, there's still nothing wrong with voting Green in The UK as they have a great manifesto on many issues. I agree with their environmental stance but I can't get excited about it. If that's a personal failing, well I've plenty of those.

 

[coley]

fair play, most on here seem to prefer to bluster their way through using wikipedia and a few crap articles on the subject as their source material.

It really is far too complex a subject for that to work.

As a quick overview / assessment, I'd say that it's neither inevitable, nor impossible for a population of 9-10 billion to be a problem. It very much depends on our collective actions, particularly with regard to sustainability, waste reduction in all sectors and the equitability of the distribution of wealth, energy, food and water.

I'd think that 9 billion people under the current system would be highly problematic, with most of those additional people ending up adding to the numbers in abject poverty. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way though, the current system is extremely wasteful of resources, inequitable in their distribution, and destructive of the environment in a way that reduces it's long term carrying capacity... doesn't need to be that way though, we can change this if we collectively decide to.

What's going to cause overshoot is Ghandis statement, "there is enough for people's needs, but not for their greed"; people are never satisfied, couple that with a political system that is so short sighted that it resembles MrMcGoo, then you have the perfect recipe for disaster, the only real question is when.

 

[free spirit]

What's going to cause overshoot is Ghandis statement, "there is enough for people's needs, but not for their greed"; people are never satisfied, couple that with a political system that is so short sighted that it resembles MrMcGoo, then you have the perfect recipe for disaster, the only real question is when.

well, that's essentially what we need to fight against in order to get to a situation where the world can support 9-10 billion people to a reasonable standard of living.

the neoliberal world view has only been to the forefront for maybe 30 years, prior to that much of the world was much more social democratic in outlook, and prior within living memory we've even had rationing in order to maintain a relatively equitable distribution of limited resources.

Just because the current system favors greed over need doesn't mean that's the way it always must be.

 

[coley]

well, that's essentially what we need to fight against in order to get to a situation where the world can support 9-10 billion people to a reasonable standard of living.

the neoliberal world view has only been to the forefront for maybe 30 years, prior to that much of the world was much more social democratic in outlook, and prior within living memory we've even had rationing in order to maintain a relatively equitable distribution of limited resources.

Just because the current system favors greed over need doesn't mean that's the way it always must be.

Aye I appreciate that, but if things start to rapidly turn to Shyte in the next few years what option will you choose, hunker down and protect you and yours? protest and agitate? Rise up and use violence to change the status quo?

Bugger, should have posted this as a poll

 

[free spirit]

Aye I appreciate that, but if things start to rapidly turn to Shyte in the next few years what option will you choose, hunker down and protect you and yours? protest and agitate? Rise up and use violence to change the status quo?

Bugger, should have posted this as a poll

get on with solving the problem as best I can while pointing out that the problem is solvable if we all stop pissing about, ignoring it or whining about it. The best way to get through this as with any 'tragedy of the commons' type situation is collectively, taking any other route is a recipe for disaster for all involved.

From experience leading by example and demonstrating the alternatives actually work is by far the best was of changing the situation.

As an example, 3 years ago the UK government started a scheme to promote solar PV, with the aim of encouraging 2GWp to be installed by 2020, and reducing the price by around half by that stage. We hit that 2GWp target last month, and prices have already dropped to significantly below half their 2010 price, and the subsidy is now at below 75% of it's initial level.

While the government carry on arguing about the need for a big new push for gas or nuclear generation, the renewables industry is getting on and changing the facts on the ground to the point where it's becoming increasingly obvious how stupid those arguments actually are. By 2020 we'll probably have 20GWp of solar PV, and maybe 30GW of wind installed, at which point nuclear becomes a hinderance rather than a help, and renewables will likely be cheaper per kWh than the gas that's backing it up, so far from renewables increasing the costs of electricity they'll actually keep the price rises in check.

I used to be involved in a group who's slogan was 'future's bright, future's green' and that essentially sums up my position on the subject. Sustainable development principles will increasingly become the logical economic and social choice, once it's clear that yields and profits are higher long term from sustainable farming practices, renewable energy, energy efficiency etc etc then they'll just become the natural choice and the unsustainable current methods will end up just being outdated anachronisms... or something like that. Obviously corporate power will fight some of this to protect their business models, but they'll lose that fight eventually,or adapt to the new reality.

 

[coley]

get on with solving the problem as best I can while pointing out that the problem is solvable if we all stop pissing about, ignoring it or whining about it. The best way to get through this as with any 'tragedy of the commons' type situation is collectively, taking any other route is a recipe for disaster for all involved.

From experience leading by example and demonstrating the alternatives actually work is by far the best was of changing the situation.

As an example, 3 years ago the UK government started a scheme to promote solar PV, with the aim of encouraging 2GWp to be installed by 2020, and reducing the price by around half by that stage. We hit that 2GWp target last month, and prices have already dropped to significantly below half their 2010 price, and the subsidy is now at below 75% of it's initial level.

While the government carry on arguing about the need for a big new push for gas or nuclear generation, the renewables industry is getting on and changing the facts on the ground to the point where it's becoming increasingly obvious how stupid those arguments actually are. By 2020 we'll probably have 20GWp of solar PV, and maybe 30GW of wind installed, at which point nuclear becomes a hinderance rather than a help, and renewables will likely be cheaper per kWh than the gas that's backing it up, so far from renewables increasing the costs of electricity they'll actually keep the price rises in check.

I used to be involved in a group who's slogan was 'future's bright, future's green' and that essentially sums up my position on the subject. Sustainable development principles will increasingly become the logical economic and social choice, once it's clear that yields and profits are higher long term from sustainable farming practices, renewable energy, energy efficiency etc etc then they'll just become the natural choice and the unsustainable current methods will end up just being outdated anachronisms... or something like that. Obviously corporate power will fight some of this to protect their business models, but they'll lose that fight eventually,or adapt to the new reality.

I enjoy your posts, and agree with most of what you say, but where are all the big hitters leading the charge for renewables?
We have Hutton leading the charge for nuclear, various others extolling the virtues of wind ( largely purveyors of snake oil, in reality) but precious few leading the charge for PV or tidal etc,
And you still evaded the central question

 

[free spirit]

I enjoy your posts, and agree with most of what you say, but where are all the big hitters leading the charge for renewables?

We have Hutton leading the charge for nuclear, various others extolling the virtues of wind ( largely purveyors of snake oil, in reality) but precious few leading the charge for PV or tidal etc,

now the policy framework is in place, essentially there's not a vast amount of need for big hitters, and renewables have proved remarkably resilient to drastic cuts in the subsidy levels (though they did hurt a lot).

The point with most renewables is that they mainly don't actually require government to actually do a lot other than providing the framework and stimulus needed to kick things off, which is mostly in place (something like the severn barrage, or hydro would be an exception to that). Not saying that I wouldn't prefer it if we'd directly invested as a country in building all the offshore wind arrays, instead of allowing all that long term profit to go overseas... as I obviously would prefer it to be in UK ownership, but one way or another it's happening.

In terms of big hitters - Ed Milliband was the politician who instigated the Feed In Tariff scheme that kicked off the solar PV revolution, so hopefully once he gets in power he'll carry that support on. It'd certainly make things easier to have someone in power.

And you still evaded the central question

my protesting days ended in about 2 weeks solid facing down 12,000 coppers trying to make a point to world leaders who barely noticed.

Some time around then I realised (as a vaguely anarchist / DIY ethos type) the pointlessness of spending so much effort protesting to politicians who don't give a shit, essentially begging them to solve the problems for us. Instead we need to get on and actually solve the problems with or without them - IME once presented with incontrovertible facts on the ground the political situation will shift anyway.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Acceptable lefty politics for the middle classes.

GPEW is not an especially left wing party, it could just seem that way by default of all the larger parties and UKIP being addled devotees of the failed neo liberal cult.

But how dare "middle class" people have any left leanings? It's mere detail that most who are thought of as "middle class" need to sell their labour.

True socialists know that all middle class people should be compelled to observe the diktats of formal bourgeois morality as exemplified by Mr K. Marx, son of a successful lawyer and Mr F Engels, son of a wealthy industrialist.

More radical anarchists reject entirely the teachings of any in such classes as include sons of diplomat / landowners such as Bakunin, or straight out royalty like Kropotkin.

For freedom of thought dictates that what we think should be dictated by our birth and / or occupation.

Conservatives and reactionaries sense this too, which is why they hate "middle class lefties" with a passion as well.

On the other hand, proletarians are obliged to either hold their noses and vote for right wing war criminals, or select from a bunch of parties who use long words and clever rhetoric, not least in an attempt to outline the irrelevance of all the other parties who use similar rhetoric. Some months ago I was doing an autonomous thing with a few friends about bedroom tax. It was so inspiring to have a member of one of the communist parties chew my ear for 20 minutes about how all the other communists and leftists had got it wrong, not that he had bothered doing any campaigning on the issue himself of course. God forbid. Why campaign when you can slag off other lefties? It's more fun and pressing.

Onwards and upwards comrades! Let's all slag one another off in unison! And Yah, boo & sucks to GPEW for saying that energy and rail should be nationalised. Why can't they play their prescribed bourgeois role and slag off the poor and immigrants? Why not write to Lucas and Bennett forthwith and demand they shift to the right for the sake of socialists everywhere?

 

[Meltingpot]

could you expand on this please, it's not a suggestion I'm familiar with and doesn't really chime with my recollections

They might have been ex-Tories, to be fair - the founders of what was then the PEOPLE party were two solicitors, an estate agent and his assistant - although Tony Whittaker (one of the solicitors) is the only one I've found any reference to having had any contacts with the Tory party.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(UK)

The question is though, how useful is it to define people by what their politics used to be?

 

[butchersapron]

GPEW is not an especially left wing party, it could just seem that way by default of all the larger parties and UKIP being addled devotees of the failed neo liberal cult.

But how dare "middle class" people have any left leanings? It's mere detail that most who are thought of as "middle class" need to sell their labour.

True socialists know that all middle class people should be compelled to observe the diktats of formal bourgeois morality as exemplified by Mr K. Marx, son of a successful lawyer and Mr F Engels, son of a wealthy industrialist.

Etc et bloody cetera

Great satire, have you ever thought of doing a shit website?

 

[frogwoman]

Being lectured about this stuff by a conspiraloon, great.

 

[butchersapron]

GPEW is not an especially left wing party, it could just seem that way by default of all the larger parties and UKIP being addled devotees of the failed neo liberal cult.

But how dare "middle class" people have any left leanings? It's mere detail that most who are thought of as "middle class" need to sell their labour.

True socialists know that all middle class people should be compelled to observe the diktats of formal bourgeois morality as exemplified by Mr K. Marx, son of a successful lawyer and Mr F Engels, son of a wealthy industrialist.
<snip>?

And the even funnier part is that the sort of behaviour he's bashing simply didn't happen on this thread. To roll out a pre-prepared rant like is more than a little arrogant/paranoid/stupid. And all without declaring his own green party membership.

 

[newbie]

They might have been ex-Tories, to be fair - the founders of what was then the PEOPLE party were two solicitors, an estate agent and his assistant - although Tony Whittaker (one of the solicitors) is the only one I've found any reference to having had any contacts with the Tory party.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(UK)

The question is though, how useful is it to define people by what their politics used to be?

Is it being unduly pedantic to say that the statement I questioned concerned the foundation of the Green Party, not some predecessor-before-one which clearly didn't itself gain any traction.

 

[danny la rouge]

!

I don't really understand your thread title. It says: "Green Party's 'unapologetic, socialist broadcast'".

The comma suggests that whoever the quote is from thinks the broadcast is unapologetic and socialist. Without the comma, whoever the quote is from thinks the broadcast is unapologetically socialist. It is actually neither 'unapologetic and socialist', nor 'unapologetically socialist'. It may be unapologetic, but that's not really a consideration. (Certainly, not without know what it is they're unapologetic about).

I suppose, strictly speaking, I'd like the Greens to be apologetic about not being socialist. Once the apologies are over, they should just get on with becoming socialist. Specifically, they need to inject some class analysis into the way they see the environmental agenda.

Who was it that thought the broadcast was in any way socialist?

 

[frogwoman]

They might have been ex-Tories, to be fair - the founders of what was then the PEOPLE party were two solicitors, an estate agent and his assistant - although Tony Whittaker (one of the solicitors) is the only one I've found any reference to having had any contacts with the Tory party.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(UK)

The question is though, how useful is it to define people by what their politics used to be?

not useful to define them, but can be useful in terms of understanding where they're coming from, what their political journey has been, what conclusions they had to take to change their politics

wouldn't you be interested if somebody turned from a tory to a marxist (or whatever?) in understanding how they came to their present views?

 

[nino_savatte]

They might have been ex-Tories, to be fair - the founders of what was then the PEOPLE party were two solicitors, an estate agent and his assistant - although Tony Whittaker (one of the solicitors) is the only one I've found any reference to having had any contacts with the Tory party.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(UK)

The question is though, how useful is it to define people by what their politics used to be?

Teddy Goldsmith was involved in PEOPLE and, if I'm not mistaken, he was a leading member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Goldsmith#The_People_Party

 

[newbie]

Teddy Goldsmith was involved in PEOPLE and, if I'm not mistaken, he was a leading member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Goldsmith#The_People_Party

aye, but the GP took a good few years to gestate and part of that was rejecting the Goldsmith view of the world. It's also the case that there's no indication in that brief biog that he was ever a tory, nor that he took any personal part in the founding of the Green Party, so he seems to be entirely a red herring.

 

[newbie]

not useful to define them, but can be useful in terms of understanding where they're coming from, what their political journey has been, what conclusions they had to take to change their politics

wouldn't you be interested if somebody turned from a tory to a marxist (or whatever?) in understanding how they came to their present views?

the key word being somebody. I've never previously heard of this Tony Whittaker, what role did he play i n the formation of the GP?

 

[nino_savatte]

aye, but the GP took a good few years to gestate and part of that was rejecting the Goldsmith view of the world. It's also the case that there's no indication in that brief biog that he was ever a tory, nor that he took any personal part in the founding of the Green Party, so he seems to be entirely a red herring.

But in that time, they were led by Jonathan Porritt and Sarah Parkin, who were hardly on the Left.

 

[newbie]

This isn't pure pedantry- in the late 70s/early 80s I spent a lot of time with people who were heavily involved in attempting to shape what became the Green Party. People who subsequently sat on national council, those who were amongst their ealiest elected councillors and so on. I also went to a number of the Green Gatherings held then, mini-festivals including anti nuclear NVDAers, Ecology Party activists, elements of the convoy, women from Greenham and all sorts. So I gained some understanding of where they were at during the years of High Thatcherism leading to the formation of the GP in the mid 80s. They were my friends and allies, I'd strongly suggest not a one was a tory and none had any time for Thatcher or tory policies.

I think the claim that "The Green Party was launched by rich ex-Tories" does those who actually founded it a great injustice.

that's not to say they formed a left party though. They didn't, which is one of the reasons I didn't join and drifted away.

 

[newbie]

But in that time, they were led by Jonathan Porritt and Sarah Parkin, who were hardly on the Left.

ex tories?

 

[nino_savatte]

ex tories?

Porritt was bessie mates with Prince Charles.

 

[William of Walworth]

I don't really understand your thread title. It says: "Green Party's 'unapologetic, socialist broadcast'".

The comma suggests that whoever the quote is from thinks the broadcast is unapologetic and socialist. Without the comma, whoever the quote is from thinks the broadcast is unapologetically socialist. It is actually neither 'unapologetic and socialist', nor 'unapologetically socialist'. It may be unapologetic, but that's not really a consideration. (Certainly, not without know what it is they're unapologetic about).

I suppose, strictly speaking, I'd like the Greens to be apologetic about not being socialist. Once the apologies are over, they should just get on with becoming socialist. Specifically, they need to inject some class analysis into the way they see the environmental agenda.

Who was it that thought the broadcast was in any way socialist?

I'm with this post I think, mainly. Greens aren't socialist. They might be radical in some respects, in fact I might like parts of their radicalism. But there's no socialism there, so the title of this thread is a bit of a mystery.

 

[ViolentPanda]

When you have a name like left unity you just know it is going to be full of the various varieties of trots, and other assorted authoritarian 'socialists'.

That kind of depends whether "the left" has learned the lessons of The Socialist Alliance, i.e. don't let the Swappies or any of their satellites anywhere fucking near your "united front", as to whether you've got loads of Trots/pseudo-Trots running round.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm with this post I think, mainly. Greens aren't socialist. They might be radical in some respects, in fact I might like parts of their radicalism. But there's no socialism there, so the title of this thread is a bit of a mystery.

Indeed. There are things I agree with in that video. Getting rid of Trident, for a start. But you don't need to be a socialist to oppose Trident. (Nor, indeed, the reverse).

 

[butchersapron]

Indeed. There are things I agree with in that video. Getting rid of Trident, for a start. But you don't need to be a socialist to oppose Trident. (Nor, indeed, the reverse).

A trident to oppose socialists?

 

[danny la rouge]

A trident to oppose socialists?

That, too.

But also, oppose Trident to be a socialist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

GPEW is not an especially left wing party, it could just seem that way by default of all the larger parties and UKIP being addled devotees of the failed neo liberal cult.

But how dare "middle class" people have any left leanings? It's mere detail that most who are thought of as "middle class" need to sell their labour.

True socialists know that all middle class people should be compelled to observe the diktats of formal bourgeois morality as exemplified by Mr K. Marx, son of a successful lawyer and Mr F Engels, son of a wealthy industrialist.

More radical anarchists reject entirely the teachings of any in such classes as include sons of diplomat / landowners such as Bakunin, or straight out royalty like Kropotkin.

Know your history. Kropotkin was a ducal prince, that is, an aristo, not royalty.

But you've touched on something there, albeit unwittingly, which is that these "cuckoos in the nest" didn't attempt to impose their morality on us, they offered us their philosophy, and left us to choose whether we thought it had any merit.
Can the same be said of many middle-class left pundits or theorists? Monbiot for example; Laurie Penny; Owen "don't celebrate Thatcher's death" Jones?