Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Green Party is shit

Thanks for that response - it's a shame that Urban's one (as far as I'm aware) Green candidate for elected office couldn't take the trouble to make a similar response.

It's the beginnings of a class analysis but it's not, IMO, sufficient or explicit enough. Maybe there's more explicit stuff underlying it (I wouldn't necessarily expect the policy statement to contain the underlying principles) but from everything I've seen/heard I don't think so.

And because it isn't sufficient/explicit, I share the doubts that you have about them trying and succeeding to impliment even the limited measures proposed (far less any involvement in going beyond them to really transform capitalism into anything truely socialist or truely sustainable), as the example of Brighton council seems to show.
I suppose this is as deep as you will be able to go: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/philosophical-basis.html

There's lots of stuff on co-operation in that. I am interpreting that as arising from a class analysis leading to a preference for co-operatives over exploitation, but I suppose that is only from my own interpretation.

Regarding Brighton, someone else, maybe you, up thread made the point about needing a popular mandate to run a needs budget and take the consequences. I don't think they had that as a minority council. If they had managed to get a needs budget through, Brighton probably would have been taken over by Eric Pickles. Would that have been better or worse than what they did? Hard to know really. Given the centralisation of local government in the UK, I think any party trying to do anything even slightly radical will be buggered unless they seek that explicit mandate.
 
also when small parties get into power they are often keen to prove that they can be 'responsible' with it. in practice, this means working within the standard, narrowly-defined limits of what the bigger parties have done. e.g. the Lib Dems had all their pre-election chat about doing politics differently but dropped that sharpish. however, had they done confidence and supply or similar they probably would have been criticised for not being 'mature' enough.
 
Reason why the green party is shit number 9,457,823:

go on the yougov profiler website and have a look at favourite dishes. Stuffed aubergine comes a close second to Vegetarian shepherds pie. LOL
 
I suppose this is as deep as you will be able to go: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/philosophical-basis.html

There's lots of stuff on co-operation in that. I am interpreting that as arising from a class analysis leading to a preference for co-operatives over exploitation, but I suppose that is only from my own interpretation.

Regarding Brighton, someone else, maybe you, up thread made the point about needing a popular mandate to run a needs budget and take the consequences. I don't think they had that as a minority council. If they had managed to get a needs budget through, Brighton probably would have been taken over by Eric Pickles. Would that have been better or worse than what they did? Hard to know really. Given the centralisation of local government in the UK, I think any party trying to do anything even slightly radical will be buggered unless they seek that explicit mandate.

I'll have a read of that.

Co-operation is a nice idea, but if your idea of co-operation simply relies on everyone being nice and doesn't explicitly recognise the class divisions which work against meaningful co-operation, you won't get very far (the Green Party, not you personally).

It wasn't me that made the point about the absence of a popular mandate to resist cuts, but it's one I agree with. From memory, at the council elections earlier this year TUSC did stand with an explicit "no-cuts"agenda - they were the only party to do so, in my ward at least. I'd like to see the Green Party follow that example, though I don't expect they will anytime soon.
 
finally, when you say 'are the Green Party shit?' you need to say in reference to what?

I would say they're better than almost all the other varieties of electoral shit currently on offer, but still requiring me to hold me nose in order to actually vote for them.
 
Co-operation is a nice idea, but if your idea of co-operation simply relies on everyone being nice and doesn't explicitly recognise the class divisions which work against meaningful co-operation, you won't get very far (the Green Party, not you personally).

Yes, they're somewhat chicken and egg in saying that there'll be no division because there will be common ownership and everyone co-operates, but without saying how they'll get to that stage.
It wasn't me that made the point about the absence of a popular mandate to resist cuts, but it's one I agree with. From memory, at the council elections earlier this year TUSC did stand with an explicit "no-cuts"agenda - they were the only party to do so, in my ward at least. I'd like to see the Green Party follow that example, though I don't expect they will anytime soon.

Interestingly, just after I wrote that I was reading about the General Strike and came across this line in Wikipedia:

The leaders of the Labour Party were terrified by the revolutionary elements within the union movement or at least worried about the damage association with them would do to their newly established reputation as a more moderate party of government and were unhappy about the proposed general strike.

From which it is obvious that trying to establish yourself as 'a party of government' means that you become co-opted. Greens currently have a policy of 'no cuts, to the extent that we are able' which puts local parties in an impossible position.

I would say they're better than almost all the other varieties of electoral shit currently on offer, but still requiring me to hold me nose in order to actually vote for them.

Do you think that a radical left could develop a broad base of support, win an election and implement radical changes? I am not sure.
 
Thanks for that tbtommyb, appreciate a green (member? supporter?) taking up the issue, but this leaps out at me:

Basically, there is an assumption behind a lot of Green policies, not always spelled out, that we should/need to move to a decentralised, mutual society. So a lot of the opposition to new nuclear is opposition to large, centralised power generation rather than nuclear per se.

This sounds a bit like wanting to go back to the 1700's and live in villages powered by water mills to me. Which is basically what's wrong with the Greens - they see class based politics and nostalgia for feudalism as basically the same thing.
 
I've only scanned it, and haven't had chance to really take it all in, but some of their economic policy proposals look pretty radical, and a lot more detailed than I was expecting. Some stuff pretty sensible, some like removing the ability of the banks to actually create electronic credit / effectively ending fractional reserve banking would have massive consequences if implemented. It definitely doesn't read like another neoliberalist economic policy though.

Their manifestos and other policy stuff always tend to be far more radical than the 'enviro-lib-dem' version of their image would suggest.

It can afford to be. Its not usually tested, and it doesn't tend to get woven into the broader public image of the party in a way that might scare off liberals. So it can safely exist to be swooned over by those it would naturally appeal to, and ignored by everyone else.

This does pose a problem when trying to promote the idea of voting green as the anti-austerity choice for 2015. If the mainstream narratives don't dwell on the greens as being anti-austerity, then any notable vote for them won't translate into the appropriate story. I wouldn't reach any firm conclusions on that front until its clear the extent to which the Greens will make that stuff central to their campaign in 2015.

Personally although I don't mean to be pessimistic, I suspect that in terms of national and international campaigns against austerity, we may be stuck waiting for further catalysing events. The depression has been managed to date in ways that seem to have stored up plenty of pain and implications for the future.
 
Brighton have done plenty of positive hings including introducing a living wage and equalising pay for women while labour voted with the Tories.

Go where you need to go and do what you gotta do, but perhaps try to contain the poisonous leakage that the concept of belonging to a party can induce on the rest of the mind. When the party does a bad thing there is no need to excuse it, for example. It it were me, I would not dare to bring up any achievements in Brighton without allowing myself to indulge at length in criticism of their despicable failures there at the same time.

This forum is a useful resource for learning about a range of problems some people have with the green party or green politics more generally. Right now we appear to be in a phase of focus on the greens as some kind of alternative for lib-dem voters, and have the concrete examples of Brighton to pick on, but there is much more to it than that.

I wasn't quite sure what to make of your earlier promise to engage with the thread once you'd been elected, since you don't appear to expect to be elected. Perhaps cute, too cute.
 
This sounds a bit like wanting to go back to the 1700's and live in villages powered by water mills to me. Which is basically what's wrong with the Greens - they see class based politics and nostalgia for feudalism as basically the same thing.
No problem.

Well, powered by solar panels and with a much more efficient use of resources. If our current lifestyle is flagrantly unsustainable then a shift to a more sustainable path might look like a step backwards in some ways. But then there is also sometimes a bit of a value judgement in it - 'without capitalism we won't have thing xyz that I have decided we don't really need'. Of course, then you get into what are true desires, what are artificial ones created by capitalism, is such a distinction valid, etc. etc.

elbows that is a good point, though has the assumption that political parties consider their actions post-election to be bound by the narrative pre-election, which I don't think is borne out by past form. So the Greens might or might not carry through on anti-austerity. Perhaps if another, external actor had a 'vote Green as the anti-austerity party' that might set up more of an expectation.

Going out on a limb, I think the left, to the extent that you can talk of 'the left', often has a very pessimistic view of its own performance and major actors, forever comparing things to a better, yet theoretical, alternative.

So people often talk of the left's failure in the economic sphere in the last few decades, but ignore the immense success of embedding social equality into the debate, such that Cameron is prepared to defy his party on gay marriage. I know most people on this board can't stand intersectionality and so on, but at the very least it has prompted renewed interest in and discussion of the left's ideas (just not the 'right' ideas for many).

Equally, the debate on Russell Brand. Maybe he's not the ideal figure but he's raising the issue of inequality in the minds of large sections of the population who simply aren't reached by the usual left figures.

Maybe the Greens will turn out be a disappointment, but I think it is promising that a party committed to anti-austerity, citizen's income and mutualisation is polling increasingly better and doing particularly well among the young. In an ideal world, would you have a more explicitly working class party? Fine, but there doesn't seem to be one so I think the Greens are worth a punt. The task is to keep them to the radical bits of their agenda.

I can see the reasoning that such things are just the establishment co-opting an ineffectual safety valve (my view on Tony Benn), but fuck, might as well give it a go.
 
i can't help thinking that people's economic experiences over the past six years might have added a certain interest for many to debates over equality and exclusion.
 
I know most people on this board can't stand intersectionality and so on, but at the very least it has prompted renewed interest in and discussion of the left's ideas (just not the 'right' ideas for many).
what? intersectionality is discussion being funnelled in a particular direction, not a discussion starter in itself. Has it fuck renewed interest and discussion in the left's ideas, it's put countless people off even engaging.
 
elbows that is a good point, though has the assumption that political parties consider their actions post-election to be bound by the narrative pre-election, which I don't think is borne out by past form. So the Greens might or might not carry through on anti-austerity. Perhaps if another, external actor had a 'vote Green as the anti-austerity party' that might set up more of an expectation.

I wasn't even meaning to sound like I had any expectations on then actually doing anything anti-austerity after the election. I suppose I was making my point within the confines of how a fair chunk of the electorate voting for an anti-austerity party might at least lead to a tweak of the official narrative, some subtle changes to the tone of the propaganda we are offered.

Personally I would like to use my vote to contribute towards something that could at least be a fly in the ointment for the 'there is no alternative' message. I doubt that I can convince myself that the green party quite offers that, especially as the local base they've managed to establish here in recent elections stems from specific NIMBY-green 'don't build new houses on those fields by my house' in a couple of tory areas of town.
 
Back
Top Bottom