Why the Green Party is shit

[newbie]

I'm not selling anything, I'm responding to your sales pitch.

'built in obselesence' is a tired concept that doesn't have much current application, because most modern equipment is made of components and materials with mtbf measured in the hundreds of thousands or millions of hours. Since most consumer electronics no longer has moving parts it seldom wears out and requires replacement. For most gadgets, there ain't much that goes wrong. They're mostly a bit fragile, so they get broken, but that's a slightly different matter.

Explicitly building for a 20 years lifetime is pretty meaningless for most consumer electronics, simply because it'll be obsolete long before it wears out anyway.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Our new Green councillor has made an impact in and around the ward, mostly by giving the local Labour party a hard time about their shit response to issues of austerity. E.g. bedroom tax, chasing poll tax arrears, closure of services and all that sort of stuff.

It's obviously easier to be a critic in such cases than to have to set an austerity budget, but I suspect a focus on mitigating the pain felt from the sharp end of austerity goes down on the doorstep rather better than stuff about consumerism would.

 

[newbie]

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.

washing machines have a lot of moving parts, they fall to bits. If you build them with more and higher quality materials, they'll cost more and last longer.

But it's not a static technology. I have no great expertise but from memory, 10 years or so ago there was no ABC energy rating on washing machines, they heated the water to higher temperatures and used more water than modern machines.

FWIW, in the last 10-15 years the house next door has had 4 new kitchens, complete, as new people have moved in. In each case they've ripped out the previous one and thrown it all away. I can't possibly justify that, I think it's completely mad, but it reinforces my view that there's little point making stuff to last 20 years. That's not what people vote with their feet for.

 

[free spirit]

I'm not selling anything, I'm responding to your sales pitch.

'built in obselesence' is a tired concept that doesn't have much current application, because most modern equipment is made of components and materials with mtbf measured in the hundreds of thousands or millions of hours. Since most consumer electronics no longer has moving parts it seldom wears out and requires replacement. For most gadgets, there ain't much that goes wrong. They're mostly a bit fragile, so they get broken, but that's a slightly different matter.

Explicitly building for a 20 years lifetime is pretty meaningless for most consumer electronics, simply because it'll be obsolete long before it wears out anyway.

To counter that, lifespan is one of the key factors people look for when buying washing machines (and presumably most similar goods), and lifespan is the key factor that has been eroded in the last decade.

if you really don't think this is an issue that resonates with a large number of people, you might need to get out more. There's a huge section of the population who've lived in the same house for years, have the same kit for years, don't consider upgrades unless it breaks, and they're also far more likely to actually vote than the tech savvy latest fad generation who move house regularly that you're describing.

It should be up to the owner of the equipment to decide if their kit was now obsolete and in need of replacement, not for the manufacturer to decide that they were going to make cheap tat under the same old badge, that they know will mostly last half as long, and therefore result in twice as many sales per decade from the same customers. At least if the manufacturs do make that decision then the customer should have a way of being informed about it so they can make an informed choice on the matter when spending their hard earned money on a new dishwasher, washing machine etc.

 

[free spirit]

washing machines have a lot of moving parts, they fall to bits. If you build them with more and higher quality materials, they'll cost more and last longer.

But it's not a static technology. I have no great expertise but from memory, 10 years or so ago there was no ABC energy rating on washing machines, they heated the water to higher temperatures and used more water than modern machines.

Based on this assessment, until there is a significant step-change in the energy performance of washing machines available to the market, WRAP recommends that machines are designed for easy repair and to ensure that repaired or refurbished machines continue to operate for a long time.

WRAP

FWIW, in the last 10-15 years the house next door has had 4 new kitchens, complete, as new people have moved in. In each case they've ripped out the previous one and thrown it all away. I can't possibly justify that, I think it's completely mad, but it reinforces my view that there's little point making stuff to last 20 years. That's not what people vote with their feet for.

There is a market for cheap tat, but people should be entitled to know and be able to compare lifespans when making their purchase decision, as there are also millions upon millions of households who stay in the same house for decade after decade.

The majority of people over the age of 40 or so don't move house once until they possibly end up in a retirement home or similar, and where the average time between moving house is around 20 years, vs 3 years for those in their early 20s.

 

[newbie]

what is this 'cheap tat' you've introduced into the conversation?

Obviously there are substandard products, but in this day and age that seldom means shorter lifespan.... is a cheap TV or stereo more likely to fall apart and die than a more expensive one, really? Stuff tends to be cheap because it's designed to a lower spec, but it'll work as designed for as long as higher spec kit.

The key factor is moving parts, equipment built without moving parts tends to carry on working. Except for its battery, which will wear out. The next most likely point of failure is connectors- laptops, phones etc suffer from worn connectors, and sure there's some element of price sensitivity in that- but only up to a point. Expensive kit may take use and abuse better than cheap, but building everything to a highly robust spec just makes it expensive and you have to ask whether there's any point.

It should be up to the owner of the equipment to decide if their kit was now obsolete and in need of replacement, not for the manufacturer to decide that they were going to make cheap tat under the same old badge, that they know will mostly last half as long, and therefore result in twice as many sales per decade from the same customers.

I don't recognise that, I really don't. Kit becomes obsolete before it wears out and that's all it needs to do- there is no point in over-engineering a product so it lasts for 20 years when the customer will replace it after a couple because they want cool new features.

What products have their number of sales per decade' determined by manufacturers designing them to fall to bits prematurely? It'd be really interesting to know what proportion of the stuff in the huge recycling skip at the tip has failed or worn out, and what still works just as well as it ever did but is no longer wanted because it's been replaced with something more modern.

Expectation of 'lifetime' differs for different types of technology, landline telephones are expected to last maybe 3,4,5 or more times as long as mobiles, and that's not because mobiles get abused more, it's because even a 3 year old mobile seems pretty prehistoric to a very large swathe of the population. 3 years is long in the tooth for a PC but not for a TV or radio.

You've mentioned WRAP. Their findings are interesting, and not to be dismissed. But let's be clear, washing machines are a somewhat different beast to phones, TVs, PCs and most other gadgets. They use a great deal of materials and energy in their manufacture, they're big and heavy and energy intensive to transport, so there's a significant advantage to keeping them operational. And (belieing what I said earlier) it appears lower temperature washes and so on haven't reduced energy usage by much. So modern machines don't have great advantages over older ones.

And, of course, they're almost entirely moving parts, so they go wrong. And they're relatively easy to take apart and fix. So you can't really extrapolate from washing machines to many other gadgets.

 

[free spirit]

tbh I don't think you know very much about the subject.

As an example, the same chinese factories turn out 3 different grades of LED lights. The LED's are the same, they look the same, have the same brightness, but the lower cost ones have cheap shit drivers, and poor quality heat sinks, so they overheat and die far faster than the more expensive versions with the better drivers and better heat sinks. The difference in lifespan is dramatic.

The washing machine manufacturers themselves are clear that the average lifespan has reduced from 10 years to 7 years over the last decade due to the use of cheaper materials, and the bottom end machines will last a lot less than the average as they compete at the bottom end on price.

What products have their number of sales per decade' determined by manufacturers designing them to fall to bits prematurely? It'd be really interesting to know what proportion of the stuff in the huge recycling skip at the tip has failed or worn out, and what still works just as well as it ever did but is no longer wanted because it's been replaced with something more modern.

This isn't something I've just made up on the spot. The lifespan of these machines has been dramatically reduced by many of the manufacturers partly in order to compete on price, and to reflect demand from sectors that do want to replace it every 3-5 years or just don't care (new build housing developers, kitchen firms etc) but partly because they know this will increase their overall sales across the industry as 3 times as many washing machines will be needed in the same time period.

Approximately 30% of waste electrical goods at council waste sites are in working condition according to WRAP, a bit less for large white good, more for smaller consumer electronics.

Of the broken items only 12% said they wouldn't repair it because they don't want it any more, so effectively 88% of those with broken items would have happily kept their broken item if it wasn't broken.

And, of course, they're almost entirely moving parts, so they go wrong. And they're relatively easy to take apart and fix. So you can't really extrapolate from washing machines to many other gadgets.

Dishwashers, hoovers, dumble dryers, fridges, freezers, cookers, microwaves.

And yes TVs. Some people will want to upgrade etc. but for most they'll happily have the same TV for a long time.

I agree that replacing very old kit with new high efficiency kit is often beneficial environmentally and economically, but much less so if that new kit is going to fail within a few years of operation, as the embeded energy from the manufacturing and transport is so high, and the potentially for further dramatic energy reductions are lower. Once you're using an inverter driven well insulated fridge, there's only going to be incremental energy savings in future, same with an LED TV, and the embeded energy cost of manufacture is often a lot higher for more complex equipment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Which smacks of naivety. What makes the GP think that reform of the WTO is possible, or that the price of leaving the WTO is a price that the people of the UK can afford?

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.

You rightly mention "environmental regulation, social protection, and human rights", but wrongly claim that they don't "fit neatly with the neoliberalist tag". What fits with the neoliberalist tag is whatever facilitates the aims of capitalism best in that particular geopolitical environment - it's why neoliberalism is as prepared to accept minimal worker and populace rights in "western" democracies as it is to deny those rights to people in the "global south".

 

[elbows]

if you really don't think this is an issue that resonates with a large number of people, you might need to get out more. There's a huge section of the population who've lived in the same house for years, have the same kit for years, don't consider upgrades unless it breaks, and they're also far more likely to actually vote than the tech savvy latest fad generation who move house regularly that you're describing.

I don't like the way thats worded, making it sound like the later generations move house a lot for the same fickle consumerist reasons that they may upgrade their kit a lot.

The young are bound to move more because they haven't settled down and there are more legit reasons to move house, such as size of family increasing, workplace location changing, and the horrible school admission postcode lottery.

 

[elbows]

Which smacks of naivety. What makes the GP think that reform of the WTO is possible, or that the price of leaving the WTO is a price that the people of the UK can afford?

Especially given the shocking state of our balance of trade.

I find t very hard to talk about consumer frenzies and built in obsolescence in isolation due to the way these things are tied so strongly to questions of income, credit, 'what jobs the masses can be occupied with' etc.

Its certain an appropriate topic for this thread, since its perfect territory to explore the gap between green idealism and the standards of living and employment prospects of the masses.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Especially given the shocking state of our balance of trade.

I find t very hard to talk about consumer frenzies and built in obsolescence in isolation due to the way these things are tied so strongly to questions of income, credit, 'what jobs the masses can be occupied with' etc.

What interests me when people start banging on about consumer culture is that they generally proceed as if it is, at oldest, a post-war phenomenon, yet the likes of Veblen and Adorno were talking about it decades before then, and yes, you can't divorce the artefacts and the demand for artefacts produced within and to serve that culture from the broader tropes of capitalism within which we all exist.

Its certain an appropriate topic for this thread, since its perfect territory to explore the gap between green idealism and the standards of living and employment prospects of the masses.

And boy is it a gap - one made more visible by the fact that the GP haven't effectively taken the neoliberal shilling yet, and so still radiate a somewhat socialistic aura from some directions, so the space between ideal and reality isn't as disguised.

 

[DownwardDog]

Vote Green for Windows XP and Nokia 3110s.

 

[BigTom]

Vote Green for Windows XP and Nokia 3110s.

I had an XP machine downstairs for internet/music/films, but I've replaced it with a chromebox because of the ending of XP support and the security issues that rises, was still working fine and no real need for replacement. I don't read FS as saying that I wouldn't be allowed to upgrade it if I wanted, but that I shouldn't be forced to by planned obscelence. I think Newbie is right in many ways about making consumer electronics for recycling not durability because the tech changes quickly, but actually I'd be happy with an XP machine for the functions my old one had, and I think my dad still has a 3110, or a similar model anyway... if all you want to do is text & phone, that end of nokia is (or was anyway, been a long time personally), really good and could keep being used forever, why not? It has the capability that the user needs.

So.. vote green if you don't want to be forced to "upgrade" your Windows XP machine or Nokia 3110 with all the energy use and waste that is involved in doing so ... I think would be more accurate.

 

[elbows]

Your failure to save the planet by installing linux on the xp box has been noted

 

[SpineyNorman]

Xp was loads better than any of the operating systems that have come out since for the stuff iuse my computer for (mostly internet, watching videos and CAD) - doesn't drain the memory anything like Vista, 7 and 8.

The greens are still well shit though. Worse than ukip.

 

[free spirit]

I don't like the way thats worded, making it sound like the later generations move house a lot for the same fickle consumerist reasons that they may upgrade their kit a lot.

The young are bound to move more because they haven't settled down and there are more legit reasons to move house, such as size of family increasing, workplace location changing, and the horrible school admission postcode lottery.

I'm not saying they're moving house for fickle reasons, but a lot of the same generation who do move house regularly are also into the whole consumerist upgrading to the latest generation iphone for entirely fickle reasons.

My point being that there are also huge sections of the population who this doesn't apply to.

 

[free spirit]

Which smacks of naivety. What makes the GP think that reform of the WTO is possible, or that the price of leaving the WTO is a price that the people of the UK can afford?

oh piss off, I'm not naive about it, I've been campaigning against the WTO since it's formation, so I know all about how locked in to it we are, I'm just pointing out that anyone who bangs on about pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons without also wanting to pull out of the WTO hasn't got a clue what they're on about.

But I'd argue that it would be less damaging to pull out of the WTO than it would to pull out of the EU, and also that the only way of either pulling out of the WTO with minimal consequences, or reforming it would be via the EU. And I can see the possibility that the EU might seek to reform the WTO more in it's own image, with the introduction of environmental, social and human rights protection to the WTO, which in my view would / could make it a much more acceptable institution that could enforce the roll out of human rights, social and environmental protection around the world rather than the current situation where it largely seeks to reverse this process.

So for those reasons I think anyone arguing for pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons has got it arse about tit.

You rightly mention "environmental regulation, social protection, and human rights", but wrongly claim that they don't "fit neatly with the neoliberalist tag". What fits with the neoliberalist tag is whatever facilitates the aims of capitalism best in that particular geopolitical environment - it's why neoliberalism is as prepared to accept minimal worker and populace rights in "western" democracies as it is to deny those rights to people in the "global south".

depends on your definition of neoliberalism, which really is a pretty wooly term that encompasses a few streams, some that can accept those levels of social and environmental protection, others that seek to remove state regulation wherever it exists.

While neoliberalism can maybe accommodate such social, environmental and human rights protections, there's no way that they could be described as actually being core neoliberalist principles or policies. They came about (and were protected from the neoliberalist) due to the strong social democratic forces that also exist within the EU, as well as to some degree the growing green representation within the EU over the last 3 decades - much more so than have existed in the UK in that period.

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh piss off, I'm not naive about it...

I haven't said that you're naive, twat, I've said that the Green Party are.

I've been campaigning against the WTO since it's formation...

Yeah, so have lots of us, in fact I got active on such issues back with the M.A.I. remember that? Seems like the Pols forgot, given that TTIP is pretty much a rehash.

...so I know all about how locked in to it we are, I'm just pointing out that anyone who bangs on about pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons without also wanting to pull out of the WTO hasn't got a clue what they're on about.

Or perhaps they're acknowledging the differential in difficulty of leaving the one from the other.

But I'd argue that it would be less damaging to pull out of the WTO than it would to pull out of the EU, and also that the only way of either pulling out of the WTO with minimal consequences, or reforming it would be via the EU. And I can see the possibility that the EU might seek to reform the WTO more in it's own image, with the introduction of environmental, social and human rights protection to the WTO, which in my view would / could make it a much more acceptable institution that could enforce the roll out of human rights, social and environmental protection around the world rather than the current situation where it largely seeks to reverse this process.

So for those reasons I think anyone arguing for pulling out of the EU for neoliberalist reasons has got it arse about tit.

While it probably would be less damaging to withdraw from the WTO, it would also likely be far more difficult, given how thoroughly the WTO's principles have infiltrated business (whereas at least a part of the EU's principles are based around subsidiarity rather than the diktat of a supra-national committee.

depends on your definition of neoliberalism, which really is a pretty wooly term that encompasses a few streams, some that can accept those levels of social and environmental protection, others that seek to remove state regulation wherever it exists.

While neoliberalism can maybe accommodate such social, environmental and human rights protections, there's no way that they could be described as actually being core neoliberalist principles or policies. They came about (and were protected from the neoliberalist) due to the strong social democratic forces that also exist within the EU, as well as to some degree the growing green representation within the EU over the last 3 decades - much more so than have existed in the UK in that period.

Neoliberalism is a single philosophy that acts as a chameleon. It pretty much does what it can get away with in various geopolitical locations.

 

[free spirit]

I haven't said that you're naive, twat, I've said that the Green Party are.

fair enough, I read that a different way.

Yeah, so have lots of us, in fact I got active on such issues back with the M.A.I. remember that? Seems like the Pols forgot, given that TTIP is pretty much a rehash.

Indeed, and green campaigners were a major part of the successful movement to oppose that in coalition with trade unions, anarchists, socialists etc. I even remembered what MAI stood for without having to look it up.

What really gets me about all this is how this coalition has been split into it's component parts all fighting each other at least as much as we fight the real enemy, when it's obvious that we'll never defeat these neoliberalist policies and institutions while we remain at each other's throats.

IMO the neoliberalists played the infiltrate, divide and conquer process to a T here, but we all allowed them to, being more than happy to rip each other to shreds rather than actually work together to continue to defeat the next incarnation of the MAI, and push home our temporary victory back then.

Or perhaps they're acknowledging the differential in difficulty of leaving the one from the other.

maybe, but I regularly see the same sort of people railing against the EU with no mention of the WTO - there's an entire party named after pulling out of the EU, which contains not a single mention of the WTO on it's about us page, for example.

While it probably would be less damaging to withdraw from the WTO, it would also likely be far more difficult, given how thoroughly the WTO's principles have infiltrated business (whereas at least a part of the EU's principles are based around subsidiarity rather than the diktat of a supra-national committee.

There'd be no point in seeking to change the rules without also seeking to change the business ethos at the same time, and it's precisely because the WTO ethos has infiltrated the top levels of business (and vice versa) that it's the WTO ethos that needs to be changed in order for anything else significant to change.

We'll never get away from this profit at all costs situation while it's essentially enshrined within the WTO, to the exclusion of global efforts to improve environmental or social protection.

Neoliberalism is a single philosophy that acts as a chameleon. It pretty much does what it can get away with in various geopolitical locations.

That's as maybe, but it remains the case that protection of human rights, social rights, and environment via statutory legislation can never be described themselves as being neoliberalist policies. They do not exist in the EU as a result of neoliberalism, neoliberalism by itself created the WTO, which specifically excludes those areas from it's remit, had the neoliberalists alone created and formed the EU in their image those transnational social and environmental protections would never have existed.

 

[free spirit]

I think Newbie is right in many ways about making consumer electronics for recycling not durability

I'm in no way disagreeing with that idea, but it'd not be a priority to discuss it in terms of a policy position being as it's an argument that the greens (and other supporting MEPs) have theoretically already had and won in the EU, and is already being implemented via the EU wide WEEE regulations that make the suppliers and manufacturers of pretty much all electronics goods responsible for the end of life recycling costs of their products. If it proves that these regulations are ineffective, then it'll need revisiting, but with targets of 65-85% recycling or reuse rates for all waste electrical goods produced it'd seem to be a pretty good starting point.

That said, I have just checked GP policy on this, and it does seem to be conspicuous by it's absence, from being specifically mentioned, which does seem like an odd omission / oversight, as it is a pretty core principle, and is something that needs to be monitored to ensure the WEEE regulations are having the desired effect (which there is some evidence isn't entirely the case in terms of how and where the stuff is being sent for recycling).

NR311 To induce industry to invest in resource saving technology by:

• minimising waste during manufacturing pro processes; cesses;
• the manufacture of long life products which can be repaired or reused;
• greater conservation of energy in industry;
• the development of anti-pollution devices.

 

[DrRingDing]

10% off rail fares.

10%

Cunts.

 

[DownwardDog]

So.. vote green if you don't want to be forced to "upgrade" your Windows XP machine or Nokia 3110 with all the energy use and waste that is involved in doing so ... I think would be more accurate.

Nobody forced you to upgrade from XP, you chose to do so because there was another product that suited you better. How would a Green government deal with this? Make Microsoft support XP forever?

 

[BigTom]

Nobody forced you to upgrade from XP, you chose to do so because there was another product that suited you better. How would a Green government deal with this? Make Microsoft support XP forever?

That's extremely disingenuous, I didn't make a free choice, and xp suited me better than chromeOS does.

A green govt couldn't make ms keep support (although iirc uk govt is paying millions to ms for continued xp support), I was responding to you saying vote green for xp and 3110s, not like you were talking serious policy either, just what the idea/spirit of the party is on this topic.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

10% off rail fares.

10%

Cunts.

This thread is about why the Green Party are shit, not why you are a mentalist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

fair enough, I read that a different way.


Indeed, and green campaigners were a major part of the successful movement to oppose that in coalition with trade unions, anarchists, socialists etc. I even remembered what MAI stood for without having to look it up.

What really gets me about all this is how this coalition has been split into it's component parts all fighting each other at least as much as we fight the real enemy, when it's obvious that we'll never defeat these neoliberalist policies and institutions while we remain at each other's throats.

it doesn't help Green Party politics that, differing from the other parties taking the electoral route, their base is still primarily in "activist" mode. This is a good thing in and of itself, but creates tensions between Green Party ideals and what's actually politically possible under our current "democratic" system. That tension is eminently exploitable.

IMO the neoliberalists played the infiltrate, divide and conquer process to a T here, but we all allowed them to, being more than happy to rip each other to shreds rather than actually work together to continue to defeat the next incarnation of the MAI, and push home our temporary victory back then.

Unfortunately, post-Blair, neoliberalism is a default benchmark for what constitutes "electoral politics" in wards and constituencies. It's easy to divide and rule if everyone has to conform to your rules, and as B & H has shown, if you have to play to someone else's set of rules, it's very hard to exercise your ideals - you end up exercising theirs.
As for TTIP, I'd go as far as to say that the mainstream media are waltzing around it, rather than actually engaging the subject. I haven't seen very many mainstream critiques, and the less mass media debate, the fewer people outside of the activist community become au fait with the plans, and the fewer people protest. Part of the success against M.A.I. was that the activist base wasn't just "the usual suspects", it was everyone from proper blue shires Tories to socialists to pensioners to students, all realising "if this happens, our futures aren't safe".
And what have we had for the last 15 years or so? The gradual ceding of the public sector to the private, so that now TTIP seems a mere formality, something that merely codifies what already happens.

maybe, but I regularly see the same sort of people railing against the EU with no mention of the WTO - there's an entire party named after pulling out of the EU, which contains not a single mention of the WTO on it's about us page, for example.

That party you mention, though, is extremely (and I mean "extremely as in they make Blair & co look like dilettantes") Atlanticist as well as being neoliberal. If Sked were still in charge, I've no doubt, as a libertarian, he'd have a lot to say about the WTO - he certainly used to - but Farage is a creature of neoliberalism, so sees no contradiction in playing John Bull on one hand, while accommodating neoliberal economics on the other.

There'd be no point in seeking to change the rules without also seeking to change the business ethos at the same time, and it's precisely because the WTO ethos has infiltrated the top levels of business (and vice versa) that it's the WTO ethos that needs to be changed in order for anything else significant to change.

Unfortunately, as the G77 found out, you have to exert an asymmetric amount of pressure to force any change within the WTO. It's still a creature of the west in general, and of the US in particular, with all the ideological and historical baggage (and arrogance) that goes with it.

We'll never get away from this profit at all costs situation while it's essentially enshrined within the WTO, to the exclusion of global efforts to improve environmental or social protection.

The problem being that while the WTO enshrines a lot of the avoidance and failures of social and environmental protection, those failures pre-date it, and are an issue as old as industrial society. They're so inculcated that we still have people - individuals, voters - who don't see that dumping raw sewage or chemical waste in a river is a hiding to nothing. We still have the old saws about eco-systems effectively "self-cleansing" being trotted out, and similar arrant bullshit beliefs.
To address those attitudes, to actually get people worldwide annoyed or scared enough to be able to exert political influence, we'd need a Fukushima or a Bhopal every couple of weeks, because otherwise people will carry on saying "well, it's not that bad, is it?" even while their groundwater is being infiltrated by fuck knows what, and their kids are suffering from respiratory problems.

 

[butchersapron]

From a brilliant 6 part piece on Bradford's Eco-Peterloo

The local Green party had been contacted about the eco destruction taken part in the area but they never even bothered to reply. Worse, they then commented on local Leeds radio (April 2014) that it was kind of necessary to cut down a splendid tree lined street in Victorian Saltaire; a performance so pusillanimous that even the radio commentator was exasperated..........

 

[andysays]

it doesn't help Green Party politics that, differing from the other parties taking the electoral route, their base is still primarily in "activist" mode. This is a good thing in and of itself, but creates tensions between Green Party ideals and what's actually politically possible under our current "democratic" system. That tension is eminently exploitable...

Out of interest, exploitable by who, and to what ends? I guess there are a number of possible answers, but what did you have in mind?

...That party you mention, though, is extremely (and I mean "extremely as in they make Blair & co look like dilettantes") Atlanticist as well as being neoliberal. If Sked were still in charge, I've no doubt, as a libertarian, he'd have a lot to say about the WTO - he certainly used to - but Farage is a creature of neoliberalism, so sees no contradiction in playing John Bull on one hand, while accommodating neoliberal economics on the other...

I may be wrong, but I assumed free spirit was talking about No2EU, who are (as far as I know) the only party arguing that we should leave the EU because of its neo-liberal nature.

UKIP's reasons for leaving have absolutely nothing to do with opposition to neo-liberalism, they just want proper British neo-liberalism rather than the Euro version, as if it's a distinction worth making...

 

[free spirit]

I may be wrong, but I assumed free spirit was talking about No2EU,

correct

 

[free spirit]

Green party membership has now overtaken UKIP and the Lib Dems after gaining 2k in the last 24 hours.

The figures do combine the E&W, scottish and Northern Ireland Green parties, but even so that's a massive increase in membership, pretty much tripling in the last year to 44,713.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/15/green-party-membership-surge-leaders-debates

Question is, can they integrate this volume of new members and use them effectively for the election campaign... I suspect they'll struggle with this.

 

[ska invita]

Vote Green for Windows XP and Nokia 3110s.

ive got xp and a non smart nokia...



fancy a fight?