Why the Green Party is shit

[belboid]

My choices will be Labour, Green, Rape Apologist, or Rape Apologists Party. I think I'll be voting Green - the ones who will be clearly the most left wing in the leaders debates.

 

[redsquirrel]

Then refuse to implement austerity and be sacked. Simple really.

Aye, don't implement attacks on the community, doing so while squawking mealy mouthed platitudes is no better than doing so while going on about benefits cheats or immigrants.

 

[killer b]

I didn't mean to defend their choice to take power, just pointing out that there aren't even "tough choices" in local govt these days, there are no choices. You either implement neo-liberalism at the front line level or you get out of the game. Whether you'd get any political gains out of setting an illegal budget and getting sacked is another question I think parts of the Brighton Green Party look like they're starting to think this way - http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1174...endanger_livelihoods_and_could_cost_lives___/.

if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre. What would they lose by setting an illegal budget and getting sacked? We've already established they have no power.

 

[DaveCinzano]

if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre.

In Bristol this has manifested itself in GP-coopting millionaire mayor George Ferguson's literal policy of artisan bread and circus skills workshops.

 

[DotCommunist]

My choices will be Labour, Green, Rape Apologist, or Rape Apologists Party. I think I'll be voting Green - the ones who will be clearly the most left wing in the leaders debates.

it's depressing that I have to ask as there are many (for they are legion etc) Respect or lib dem when you say rape apologists

 

[CNT36]

I'd put a farthing on SWP.

 

[co-op]

if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre. What would they lose by setting an illegal budget and getting sacked? We've already established they have no power.

Yep I think this is the obvious logic - maybe try and use it to make clear to people the extent to which 'their' council has zero power? I can't understand how parties like the Brighton GP end up trying to run a council, it seems utterly pointless on one level and damaging and stupid on another. At least if the unelected officers are running the place or Eric Pickles or whoever, they can't dodge the blame for what's going on.

 

[belboid]

it's depressing that I have to ask as there are many (for they are legion etc) Respect or lib dem when you say rape apologists

I'd put a farthing on SWP.

An SWP AND a Respect.

If I were Tom include those I'd never consider voting for, I think we could quite easily call both the Tories nd the kippers rape apologists as well.

 

[BigTom]

if they have no power, then the only purpose of running for a local council is political theatre. What would they lose by setting an illegal budget and getting sacked? We've already established they have no power.

I reckon if a Labour or Green council had set a deficit budget, the tories would have left it for a few months, then come riding in on their high horse bleating about irresponsible labour/lefties trying to spend their way out of a debt crisis, cut the council harder than it would have been, saying that if only labour/green/lefties had been responsible then they wouldn't have had to have cut so much etc. That's what I'd do in their position, and it would have been bad for those arguing against austerity.
Personally I wouldn't take control of a council as an anti-austerity party, probably not run enough candidates to do so, and abstain from any budget votes, or not run at all - but the parties are tied to the idea that you build through getting council seats, which then translate into parliamentary seats, so that won't happen.

 

[treelover]

I didn't mean to defend their choice to take power, just pointing out that there aren't even "tough choices" in local govt these days, there are no choices. You either implement neo-liberalism at the front line level or you get out of the game. Whether you'd get any political gains out of setting an illegal budget and getting sacked is another question I think parts of the Brighton Green Party look like they're starting to think this way - http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1174...endanger_livelihoods_and_could_cost_lives___/.

At a Brighton and Hove Green Party general meeting last weekend, 56 of the 57 members present voted in favour of a motion calling on the party not to support any 2015/16 budget which would make cuts to services.

56 out of 57 is an impressive number, have they had a change of heart as from what I have read the Greens in Brighton have been quite right wing, bin strikes, etc.

 

[Plumdaff]

Then refuse to implement austerity and be sacked. Simple really.

There was a significant part of the Greens at the time arguing precisely this. They were comprehensively ignored by the elected councillors, Brighton Green Party and the leadership of the party, not least Natalie Bennett. It's also when I left. Whether the wider party has learnt anything from Brighton I doubt, I'd be amazed if they didn't do exactly the same wherever they have local council success.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What purpose, in the absence of any real power, does running for council serve?

For councillors from the mainstream parties, the purpose seems to be getting yourself noticed, and positioning yourself for a climb up the party's greasy pole. It's certainly not majorly about public service anymore.

 

[co-op]

For councillors from the mainstream parties, the purpose seems to be getting yourself noticed, and positioning yourself for a climb up the party's greasy pole. It's certainly not majorly about public service anymore.

TBH from my experience the ambitious types who are using it as the first slimey shuffles up the greasy pole are completely out-numbered by the very modest and sincere types who genuinely believe they are doing their best to help their local communities and (if they are of the left) can't quite face the consequences of admitting that the whole thing has become a charade - it would often be to undermine a whole lifetime's pov that winning these elections matters and is the foundation of democracy etc.

 

[killer b]

I reckon if a Labour or Green council had set a deficit budget, the tories would have left it for a few months, then come riding in on their high horse bleating about irresponsible labour/lefties trying to spend their way out of a debt crisis, cut the council harder than it would have been, saying that if only labour/green/lefties had been responsible then they wouldn't have had to have cut so much etc. That's what I'd do in their position, and it would have been bad for those arguing against austerity.

I know that's what the tories would try to do - but I think this is an argument that needs to be had isn't it? Why so sure we'd lose it?

 

[BigTom]

I know that's what the tories would try to do - but I think this is an argument that needs to be had isn't it? Why so sure we'd lose it?

Because I don't think you'd be able to stop the tories from taking over the council and cutting services/budgets harder than was planned. I think it would be very easy for them to use that example in their narrative as if it's a real world example that has direct relevance to a national strategy of social democratic investment - the household budget analogy was really annoyingly effective, I think this would be even more so, though it's just as wrong.

 

[killer b]

Hm, I suppose that's a point - I was thinking on a local level such a confrontation would give a platform for anti-austerity arguments: but even if you carried it locally, it could still be used against us nationally without a mass movement prepared to counter their lies.

All fantasy anyway I suppose.

 

[newbie]

It makes sense in salving your concience maybe but assuming you mean voting Green or some other left it doesn't make any other sense

So long as votes for minor parties don't let the tories in, the justifications for them don't matter much. I tell myself there's a tiny virtue in using the electoral process to show the mainstream that there's opinion to the left of labour, and that, like most demonstrations or protests, there's a sort of symbolic solidarity with others, a visible expression that each of us is not quite alone in our eccentric views.

 

[treelover]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...r-vivienne-westwood-donate-300000-green-party

Vivienne Westwood to donate 300,000 to the Greens!

 

[treelover]

For better or worse Natalie Bennet just got demolished by Andrew 'Brillopad' Neil on the Sunday Politics. She was just out of her depth and couldn't justify in financial terms many of their flagship policies, which just seemed to be 'aspirations' for a time long in the future. She should have stuck to concrete ones like re-nationalising the railways.

 

[brogdale]

For better or worse Natalie Bennet just got demolished by Andrew 'Brillopad' Neil on the Sunday Politics. She was just out of her depth and couldn't justify in financial terms many of their flagship policies, which just seemed to be 'aspirations' for a time long in the future. She should have stuck to concrete ones like re-nationalising the railways.

e2a: jump to 4.18 for the interview only.

 

[elbows]

For better or worse Natalie Bennet just got demolished by Andrew 'Brillopad' Neil on the Sunday Politics. She was just out of her depth and couldn't justify in financial terms many of their flagship policies, which just seemed to be 'aspirations' for a time long in the future. She should have stuck to concrete ones like re-nationalising the railways.

She doesn't get to decide, their conference does.

 

[elbows]

Looking at their policies a little earlier in the thread was certainly timely. The Mirror have also got in on the act, picking quotes from a Times interview.

I can’t see that the Queen is ever going to be really poor, but I’m sure we can find a council house for her — we’re going to build lots more.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-could-moved-council-house-5034477#rlabs=2

 

[free spirit]

fuck me she was out of her depth there. Has she not seen that show before, did she not expect to be questioned on those policies and the costings of them?

 

[ska invita]

fuck me she was out of her depth there. Has she not seen that show before, did she not expect to be questioned on those policies and the costings of them?

if they haven't published their costings yet then its seem a bit unfair for her to know...
once they publish them im sure the situation wont get all that much better for her

 

[brogdale]

fuck me she was out of her depth there. Has she not seen that show before, did she not expect to be questioned on those policies and the costings of them?

FWIW I didn't see that as a 'car-crash' interview; more a case of choosing the wrong road for such a vehicle.

 

[free spirit]

if they haven't published their costings yet then its seem a bit unfair for her to know...
once they publish them im sure the situation wont get all that much better for her

they shouldn't come up with a policy and publish it without having at least a decent idea of what it will cost and roughly how they thin it will be paid for.

Not down to the last penny, but you have to be able to defend the policy from those sorts of attacks.

Id see this policy in terms of it being initially an economic stimulus package of far greater impact than quantitative easing, as extra money in the hands of the many has a far greater economic benefit to the wider economy than concentrating a few hundred billion more in the hands of the rich as per QE, which then means that government tax receipts would increase in line with increased jobs, corporation tax etc and most of it ends up back in government coffers via direct income tax, and VAT etc anyway.

Combined with a minimum wage rising to £10 an hour, these 2 policies have huge potential to really kick start the economy and head it back towards the sorts of pretty much full employments levels last seen in the 50s and 60s prior to this failed neoliberal experiment to concentrate ever more wealth in the hands of the rich.

 

[free spirit]

Also very concerned given this performance that she's apparently insisting she'll be doing both the tv debates rather than sharing it with Caroline Lucas, who I think would have given a much better performance than this.

 

[ska invita]

they shouldn't come up with a policy and publish it without having at least a decent idea of what it will cost and roughly how they thin it will be paid for.

Not down to the last penny, but you have to be able to defend the policy from those sorts of attacks.

I would expect that costing has been done it just hasn't been published yet. Whether it adds up is something else.
The finances of a country are not something many politician is able to carry around in their head - this kind of floundering is standard.

 

[elbows]

they shouldn't come up with a policy and publish it without having at least a decent idea of what it will cost and roughly how they thin it will be paid for.

Not down to the last penny, but you have to be able to defend the policy from those sorts of attacks.

Id see this policy in terms of it being initially an economic stimulus package of far greater impact than quantitative easing, as extra money in the hands of the many has a far greater economic benefit to the wider economy than concentrating a few hundred billion more in the hands of the rich as per QE, which then means that government tax receipts would increase in line with increased jobs, corporation tax etc and most of it ends up back in government coffers via direct income tax, and VAT etc anyway.

Combined with a minimum wage rising to £10 an hour, these 2 policies have huge potential to really kick start the economy and head it back towards the sorts of pretty much full employments levels last seen in the 50s and 60s prior to this failed neoliberal experiment to concentrate ever more wealth in the hands of the rich.

But the Green party doesn't want full employment. At least not in the sense of a traditional, full-time, paid job.

And without knowing how they plan to set the income tax bands & rates, apart from the fact they would scrap tax allowances, we can't judge the citizens income and minimum wage policies to be the sort of stimulus package you are suggesting.

 

[free spirit]

But the Green party doesn't want full employment. At least not in the sense of a traditional, full-time, paid job.

And without knowing how they plan to set the income tax bands & rates, apart from the fact they would scrap tax allowances, we can't judge the citizens income and minimum wage policies to be the sort of stimulus package you are suggesting.

Yeah well me and the GP policy would differ massively on the whole flat economy bollocks that I notices has crept in to there as a long term aspiration, and I can only see those types of policies being justified financially on the basis that they did act as a big economic stimulus.

I can't see how a minimum wage rise to £10 an hour (over the course of a parliament) could possibly do anything other than create a significant long term economic stimulus. I acknowledge this is debatable with the counter argument that it would result in employers shedding jobs, moving oversees etc but succinctly I think that's a load of bollocks and would be more than offset by the increased spending power of those on min wage and just above.

Though I guess it does depend also on how tax credits are reduced etc.

I wasn't giving a fully thought out explanation, more an illustration of the sort of alternative defence of those policies they could make rather than just trying to cost them out in simple terms as Neil was doing.