Why the Green Party is shit

[andysays]

Might be easier to talk about specific analyses and policies rather than 'left', although it makes things rather more long winded in order to avoid circular arguments about what 'left' is supposed to mean.

For example, if I want an electorally significant party to vote for who stand clearly for re-nationalisation of public services then the Greens are my only option.

If I also want a clear stand against capital controlling the means of production, which I regard as key to both economic justice and ecological sustainability, I have no electorally significant options at all.

More awkwardly, if I want a clear promise to leave the neoliberal institution of the EU, I have no electorally significant option that I'm willing to vote for even as a protest.

Agree with all of that - I was simply talking in terms of "left of Labour" rather than "genuinely and meaningfully left".

But in terms of specific policies on offer, there is currently only one electorally significant party offering re-nationalisation of public services, and no electorally significant party offering either a clear stand against capital controlling the means of production or a clear promise to leave the EU on the basis that it's a neoliberal institution.

In terms of policies offered by parties which are electorally significant, the latter two are non-starters ATM

ETA: I think I must have pressed post midway through typing - hopefully it's complete now...

 

[newbie]

Might be easier to talk about specific analyses and policies rather than 'left', although it makes things rather more long winded in order to avoid circular arguments about what 'left' is supposed to mean.

For example, if I want an electorally significant party to vote for who stand clearly for re-nationalisation of public services then the Greens are my only option.

If I also want a clear stand against capital controlling the means of production, which I regard as key to both economic justice and ecological sustainability, I have no electorally significant options at all.

More awkwardly, if I want a clear promise to leave the neoliberal institution of the EU, I have no electorally significant option that I'm willing to vote for even as a protest.

so just like everybody else you have to compromise when you decide whether to vote and if so which party to vote for. I don't suppose there's anyone in the country for whom there is a party which reflects every one of their views, and the further you get from the mainstream the less likely it becomes. Especially for those of us on the left who object to neoliberalism and the malignancy of capital. There's a reasonable degree of agreement about fundamentals amongst many on this board yet I'm prepared to bet that there's zero possibility of collectively agreeing a single manifesto. Or even two, or three... there's too many faultlines. The Greens have argued endlessly about their positions for a few decades now, they are where they are because that's where they've got to without falling to bits.

Mind, I think actually supporting a party for electoral purposes is a concept too alien to actually contemplate. All I've ever been able to muster enthusiasm for is to vote to keep the tories out.

 

[tbtommyb]

so just like everybody else you have to compromise when you decide whether to vote and if so which party to vote for. I don't suppose there's anyone in the country for whom there is a party which reflects every one of their views, and the further you get from the mainstream the less likely it becomes.

it's almost as if our parliamentary system is structured to keep out all but a narrow set of views.

 

[newbie]

maybe, if by structured you mean voting system, whips, access to election broadcasts and so on. Or maybe the reason non-mainstream parties stay on the fringe is that they simply can't gain traction amongst the population because they don't offer what people want. The GPs position on consumerism inevitably alienates a huge portion of the population, for whom shopping and the acquisition of stuff are prime pleasures. The tories offering tax cuts- more of your money in your pocket to spend on what you want- is mainstream, while seeking to reduce consumption and choice is inevitably seen (by both left and right) as an elitist fringe trying to impose on everybody else.

 

[tbtommyb]

But consumerism is an artificial construction itself.

 

[butchersapron]

So? How are you going to sell that on the doorstep?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

so just like everybody else you have to compromise when you decide whether to vote and if so which party to vote for. I don't suppose there's anyone in the country for whom there is a party which reflects every one of their views, and the further you get from the mainstream the less likely it becomes. Especially for those of us on the left who object to neoliberalism and the malignancy of capital. There's a reasonable degree of agreement about fundamentals amongst many on this board yet I'm prepared to bet that there's zero possibility of collectively agreeing a single manifesto. Or even two, or three... there's too many faultlines. The Greens have argued endlessly about their positions for a few decades now, they are where they are because that's where they've got to without falling to bits.

Mind, I think actually supporting a party for electoral purposes is a concept too alien to actually contemplate. All I've ever been able to muster enthusiasm for is to vote to keep the tories out.

Well, I'll probably vote for them as the least worst electorally significant option.

My MP is 'Mad' Frankie Field, so they're the obvious way to register a vote to the left of him in May, but his massive majority means they usually don't bother standing here.

However, there's a lot of stuff that I'd like to see the green movement and to the extent it has anything to do with that movement, the GPEW, do rather differently hence my earlier posts on the subject.

Edited to add: looks like they are putting a candidate up against Mad Frankie this May.

 

[free spirit]

So? How are you going to sell that on the doorstep?

depends how you frame it.

Ask people if they like the fact that many washing machines, cookers, microwaves, tvs, stereos, computers etc are designed to only last a few years, meaning you might only get 5 years life out of your brand new kit whereas it could be designed and built so that most of it lasts 10-20 years, and I reckon most people would click, and start banging on about how long stuff used to last.

Or how much energy some devices work whereas others can use 10% of the energy to do the same thing, saving them hundreds of pounds on energy costs.

That sort of message will work well with most people, best to steer clear of criticising shoes, fashion etc.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

depends how you frame it.

Ask people if they like the fact that many washing machines, cookers, microwaves, tvs, stereos, computers etc are designed to only last a few years, meaning you might only get 5 years life out of your brand new kit whereas it could be designed and built so that most of it lasts 10-20 years, and I reckon most people would click, and start banging on about how long stuff used to last.

Or how much energy some devices work whereas others can use 10% of the energy to do the same thing, saving them hundreds of pounds on energy costs.

That sort of message will work well with most people, best to steer clear of criticising shoes, fashion etc.

Generally on the doorstep people want to talk (if at all) about local services, tax and prices, jobs, crime etc. Plus not for very long. While your point is a valid argument, I don't believe people would have enough time to go into it there and then.

 

[free spirit]

Generally on the doorstep people want to talk (if at all) about local services, tax and prices, jobs, crime etc. Plus not for very long. While your point is a valid argument, I don't believe people would have enough time to go into it there and then.

well, maybe not, but if someone asked then that'd be the line I'd take. Fuck knows if that's GP line or not, but I've got 20 years experience discussing environmental issues with people outside of GP, so that'd be how I'd approach it.

I doubt that's a core campaigning point for the GP either, just there manifesto seems to be so detailed that there will be loads of those sorts of points within it

 

[free spirit]

But in terms of specific policies on offer, there is currently only one electorally significant party offering re-nationalisation of public services, and no electorally significant party offering either a clear stand against capital controlling the means of production or a clear promise to leave the EU on the basis that it's a neoliberal institution.

no point leaving the EU on that basis if we stayed in the WTO, and GP do seem to be clearly indicating that they would intend to leave the WTO, or at least reform it.

On the EU, for me it's too simplistic to view it as purely being a neoliberal institution. It's also been world leading in many fields of environmental regulation, social protection, and human rights, which doesn't fit neatly with the neoliberalist tag.

The way things have been in the UK, it's not as if the EU has been ahead of us in neoliberalist terms, we're probably the furthest down the neoliberal road of any major country in the EU, or the world really. We seem to view it as a badge of pride to have opened up pretty much all public sector services to the multinationals to mae profit from, allowed any and all of our industrial companies to be sold the foreign buyers, including the ports which even the USA baulked at.

So I tend to view the EU as actually having been more of a brake on the UK's neoliberalist governments, with most other EU governments being less neoliberalist than ours on pretty much all issues other than currency union.

 

[newbie]

Well, I'll probably vote for them as the least worst electorally significant option.

My MP is 'Mad' Frankie Field, so they're the obvious way to register a vote to the left of him in May, but his massive majority means they usually don't bother standing here.

However, there's a lot of stuff that I'd like to see the green movement and to the extent it has anything to do with that movement, the GPEW, do rather differently hence my earlier posts on the subject.

Edited to add: looks like they are putting a candidate up against Mad Frankie this May.

There's plenty of their policy that doesn't inspire. I was in the right place at the right time to participate, albeit from the sidelines, in the gestation of the Green Party as it evolved from the Ecology party but I drifted away because there was insufficient red with the green. 30 years on I have to give credit where it's due, they have held their party together despite a wide range of different hues of green along with a kaleidoscope of red, blue, yellow and black, all in there jockeying to reposition party policies. If any one faction- eg the clear stand against capital requested above- had become dominant the party would have fractured and fallen to bits. It's an ideal protest vote, but gok what would happen if they ever actually gained more than transient local power.

 

[newbie]

Ask people if they like the fact that many washing machines, cookers, microwaves, tvs, stereos, computers etc are designed to only last a few years, meaning you might only get 5 years life out of your brand new kit whereas it could be designed and built so that most of it lasts 10-20 years, and I reckon most people would click, and start banging on about how long stuff used to last.

Probably the wrong thread but that argument strikes me as approaching 50 years out of date, wrongheaded and electorally a complete non-starter. Very few people want to be expected to use a 1995, or even 2005, computer, TV, stereo or phone. Not only is the functionality poor by modern standards, but also the energy consumption is far too great.

Given the general rate of change of technology (see Moores Law), in 2015 building devices for longevity or repairability is senseless, they need to be designed for minimal input energy and materials and maximum recyclability. In any case the mean time between failure of most equipment (things without moving parts) is so great that stuff is thrown away as obsolete long before it's actually worn out.

Or how much energy some devices work whereas others can use 10% of the energy to do the same thing, saving them hundreds of pounds on energy costs.

quite so

 

[free spirit]

Probably the wrong thread but that argument strikes me as approaching 50 years out of date, wrongheaded and electorally a complete non-starter. Very few people want to be expected to use a 1995, or even 2005, computer, TV, stereo or phone. Not only is the functionality poor by modern standards, but also the energy consumption is far too great.

Given the general rate of change of technology (see Moores Law), in 2015 building devices for longevity or repairability is senseless, they need to be designed for minimal input energy and materials and maximum recyclability. In any case the mean time between failure of most equipment (things without moving parts) is so great that stuff is thrown away as obsolete long before it's actually worn out.



quite so

have the conversation, you'll find your assumption to be wrong among a lot of the population, particularly older generations.

There are arguments about energy efficiency improvements, but as an example, with the solar PV systems we install we get the majority of our work on the basis of quality and lifespan of components we use vs saving a few hundred quid up front to buy cheap tat that won't last 10 years.

Yes some people want to always have the latest tech, but most don't give a toss about that, they just want kit they buy to work and stay working for a reasonable amount of time.

 

[newbie]

a chunk of infrastructure, like PV, is somewhat different from consumer gadgets.

Yes some people want to always have the latest tech, but most don't give a toss about that, they just want kit they buy to work and stay working for a reasonable amount of time.

sure, that's certainly true, for differing values of 'reasonable'- few people call a cooker obsolete after 3 years but phones are a different matter.

In any event, you were talking about building a political platform around this, arguing the point on doorsteps, as though it's self evidently true for all technologies. Which it clearly isn't.

 

[free spirit]

a chunk of infrastructure, like PV, is somewhat different from consumer gadgets.

depends on our outlook on it, but say a stereo - my dad bought good quality speakers in the 70s that still sound shit hot now, there's an amp from the early 80s, cd player from the early 90s, tape player from the 80s....

most equipment for most people is absolutely fine until it breaks, they have no desire to spend hundreds of pounds every 3-5 years replacing something that should have lasted 20 years plus if it hadn't had deliberately shoddy build quality.

In any event, you were talking about building a political platform around this, arguing the point on doorsteps, as though it's self evidently true for all technologies. Which it clearly isn't.

bollocks. Why do people insist on doing this on here? read my posts and you'll clearly see that I said no such thing, actually said the complete opposite.

 

[free spirit]

well, maybe not, but if someone asked then that'd be the line I'd take. <snip>

I doubt that's a core campaigning point for the GP either<snip>

 

[newbie]

don't be daft, everybody can read #968, your response to butchers asking about selling it on the doorstep.

 

[newbie]

depends on our outlook on it, but say a stereo - my dad bought good quality speakers in the 70s that still sound shit hot now, there's an amp from the early 80s, cd player from the early 90s, tape player from the 80s....

most equipment for most people is absolutely fine until it breaks, they have no desire to spend hundreds of pounds every 3-5 years replacing something that should have lasted 20 years plus if it hadn't had deliberately shoddy build quality.

and you base a political campaign on your dad? sure, speaker technology hasn't changed much, but what is this antediluvian stuff about 'tape players' and 'cd'? That may appeal to some people but are you really advocating that we should all use a bunch of boxes piled on top of each other, none of which have sensible interfaces for USB, Bluetooth, NAS or Youtube? I'm afraid I think your view of 'most people' is a bit off.

and none of that deals with my point anyway- consumer gadgets shouldn't be 'built to last' as such, except in that mtbf is high, it should be built for recycling.

 

[free spirit]

don't be daft, everybody can read #968, your response to butchers asking about selling it on the doorstep.

yes,

So? How are you going to sell that on the doorstep?

and I gave an overview of how it could be discussed on the doorstep in an accessible way if someone were to ask about it.

I didn't state that I thought a political platform should be built around it, nor that it's self evidently true for all technologies.

You just imagined that bit and attempted to attach your imagined interpretation of what I'd said to my words.

I think it's a valid aspect of things to have a policy on, and worthy of discussion, but it'd not be in the top 10 of their policies I'd expect the GP to raise themselves on the doorstep, maybe in the top 20 at a push.

 

[free spirit]

and you base a political campaign on your dad?

I'm not building a political campaign on anything I'm having a fucking discussion on an internet forum ffs.

 

[newbie]

and your policy is that we should use 20 year old PCs (running Windows 95) and tape players?

 

[free spirit]

and your policy is that we should use 20 year old PCs (running Windows 95) and tape players?

No.

 

[free spirit]

But then I also don't see that windows needed to stop support for XP when it was still functional for a lot of people and businesses, and resulted in fuckloads of perfectly functional PCs and networks being scrapped for no other reason than XP was support was ending, and they weren't capable of running the latest windows systems, most of which are worse than XP for many things.

People should have the choice of upgrading everything to the latest generation tech if they want, but not be forced to do it every 3-5 years because their previous kit simply won't work any more because it was designed for built in obsolescence - eg using cheap shit capacitors where the majority will die in that timescale, rather than better capacitors that would mostly last 10 years. As an example.

Not everyone wants to be forced to upgrade to the latest tech all the time, especially if that was MP3, which is a terrible level of sound quality compared to cd, vinyl etc.

 

[Wilson]

and you base a political campaign on your dad? sure, speaker technology hasn't changed much, but what is this antediluvian stuff about 'tape players' and 'cd'? That may appeal to some people but are you really advocating that we should all use a bunch of boxes piled on top of each other, none of which have sensible interfaces for USB, Bluetooth, NAS or Youtube? I'm afraid I think your view of 'most people' is a bit off.

and none of that deals with my point anyway- consumer gadgets shouldn't be 'built to last' as such, except in that mtbf is high, it should be built for recycling.

My amp and speakers have stickers on the back which say that they were last serviced in 1986, my computer's audio lead plugs straight in.

 

[free spirit]

My amp and speakers have stickers on the back which say that they were last serviced in 1986, my computer's audio lead plugs straight in.

innit - and why is that?

because the industry agreed an industry standard audio input plug format that has remained the same for decades because it works.

vs now where every manufacturer seems to have their own special versions of microusb leads, power leads etc. all directly designed to try to lock people in to their brand when buying peripherals.

 

[newbie]

My amp and speakers have stickers on the back which say that they were last serviced in 1986, my computer's audio lead plugs straight in.

So your amp may well be using a linear power supply rather than a switch mode one, with energy usage somewhat higher than more modern equipment. Is that a good thing? Might be, might not, without some serious sums to work it all out it's hard to know whether keeping it in service is an environmentally better idea than sending it into the WEEE and buying something more efficient.

 

[newbie]

innit - and why is that?

because the industry agreed an industry standard audio input plug format that has remained the same for decades because it works.

most modern equipment uses minijacks, not phonos. why? because materials and manufacturing costs are lower, as is the footprint, and there's no difference in performance. However phonos are still reasonably commonplace, though their role is diminishing, partly because there are so few requirements for analogue audio interconnection except for mics or low impedance outputs designed for headphones.

Other analogue interconnections are also disappearing- Scart, DIN (the previous audio format in use for decades), VGA and so on. There is a reduction is power consumption as a result.

vs now where every manufacturer seems to have their own special versions of microusb leads, power leads etc. all directly designed to try to lock people in to their brand when buying peripherals.

you don't like the modern world. ok. But it's going to keep on keeping on, and you'll just have to get used to it While some manufacturers still try to lock their customers in with proprietary cabling they're much more likely to respond to genuine improvements through better technology. You seem to want to attempt to construct some sort of politics around a generation of tech that you felt comfortable with.

 

[free spirit]

So your amp may well be using a linear power supply rather than a switch mode one, with energy usage somewhat higher than more modern equipment. Is that a good thing? Might be, might not, without some serious sums to work it all out it's hard to know whether keeping it in service is an environmentally better idea than sending it into the WEEE and buying something more efficient.

to be clear, do you actually think that built in obselesence is a positive thing?

I'd love to see you selling that on the doorstep.

 

[free spirit]

According to research by WRAP, the average consumer expects a washing machine to last six years before it needs replacing.

It has also found that a product’s lifetime is one of the highest buying considerations, just behind reliability and quality, but more important than price. It’s something that the Which?

and yet over the last decade the average lifespan of a new washing machine has fallen from 10 years to 7, with many of the cheaper models being more like 3-4 years, so someone could end up having to buy 3 washing machines in a decade instead of 1. Even if that 1 had cost 50% more it's still have been half the cost over all.

Personally I think at least the manufacturers should have to give the average expected lifespan or cycle number of their machines clearly on the label so people can make an informed choice. I also think minimum warranties of a year on white goods is a bad joke.

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think this actually is something political that could genuinely make a significant difference to people's lives.