Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Green Party is shit

sim667 said:
Im not saying she does, but some people do suffer with problems with numbers.... its called dyscalculus.

Whilst im not saying she has it, the point is some people do, so your question whats so hard about it, is a bit of an arseholes response ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not saying 'what's so hard?' to someone who has dyscalculus you turnip.
 
...on a more serious note, though still indulging an off-topic irrelevance, this is clearly bullshit.

Europhile said:
If you want a true quality of life then emigrate, as Peter Hitchens said. If you're young then you should take advantage of all the opportunities you can. .
Click to expand...

Wtf is a "true quality of life"?
 
Ole said:
I'm not saying 'what's so hard?' to someone who has dyscalculus you turnip.
Click to expand...

Belushi said:
Her problem isn't dyscalculus, it's being terrible at interviews. Which is a problem if your the leader of a political party heading into a general election and some live television debates.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that she did have dyscalculus, I did say that people do have it, therefore the generalised "whats so hard about remembering numbers?" is a bit of an arseholes response.
 
The only time I felt any sympathy for Gordon Brown was when he was criticised for not being a highly polished media performer. And yet he still, in my opinion at the time, did quite well at arguing points in the leadership debates.

I don't get the same from Bennett. So I won't be characterising her as simply bad at interviews. Its more than that, I'm not convinced she has a grip on the substance and even if I give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she actually has some deeply held political convictions, I'm not convinced they have formed themselves into a cohesive stance on anything real.

Have the green fools managed to end up with a leader that is only good at preaching to the converted?

Damn it I can't even enjoy it like I should enjoy a green leader being scrutinised, because she goes wrong in ways that make me cringe too much to laugh properly. Maybe Monbiot can make me laugh by attempting to come to her defence.

Allegedly sustainable policies being promoted by someone who doesn't look sustainable in their role, and whose prior poor performance with Andrew Neil already made one of their headline policies implode.

The Tories Greenwashed themselves, and then it turned out the only thing green about them was the word green used in the sense of inexperienced, not ripe. If they mean green in that sense, they probably still can claim to be the greenest government ever. And now the Green party seem to want in on this action, bravely enter the arena of ineptitude, don't even just pretend effectively. Lightweight liars, unconvincing, give me a time machine so I can send them back to the peak era of heckling at public meetings.
 
She was elected by 3000 people - i would expect a new leadership contest post election and her competitors (they do competition don't they?) to justify their challenge on the grounds of a vastly increased membership.
 
I think she's possibly lacking confidence and struggling to find her own voice of a leader. Caroline Lucas was such a successful leader, they are big shoes to fill and I think maybe this is something she's struggling with.
 
I'm just looking at their Spokespeople page. http://greenparty.org.uk/people/green-party-spokespeople/

I reckon they maybe thought they had these Bennett weaknesses covered by virtue of them having Caroline Lucas listed as the one for Economy. And for Finance they Have Molly Scott Cato MEP, former professor of economics etc etc.

Perhaps that would have worked out fine in other general elections with other levels of support and momentum for the greens. Not this time though, there is scrutiny of policy, and they've certainly blown it early on. I suppose they might recover. Or the press might lose interest. After all I suspect that part of the reason their policies have been scrutinised by the press this time around is because the election season is a long one due to fixed term parliament, robbing the press of the early chapters where they would print a lot of stories speculating about the election date. And they probably wanted to fill that gap in part with scrutiny of UKIP policies, but UKIP have long been playing for time on that front and largely thwarting press attempts to have something really concrete to get their teeth into. I haven't been paying enough attention to know if I'm out of date and things have moved on from that in terms of UKIP policy detail.
 
8115 said:
I think she's possibly lacking confidence and struggling to find her own voice of a leader. Caroline Lucas was such a successful leader, they are big shoes to fill and I think maybe this is something she's struggling with.
Click to expand...

She's utterly incompetent. She has no business being in politics in any sort of public role. I have met a few politicians (blunkett, Rachael reeves, hiliary benn, shahid malik) and what strikes you is their abilty to think on their feet, articulate ideas, their attention to detail and to give - at the very least - an impression of competence - by and large these people are very smart and very skilled at communication. If you are coming from a radical/outsider position its even more important to be able to do this when you have the rare opportunity to state your case. Bennett has repeatedly and spectacularly failed to do this. Like it or not she is our most prominent proponent of the anti-austerity argument and she fucked it.

shes a fucking disgrace.
 
Last edited:
Kaka Tim said:
She's utterly incompetent. She has no business being in politics in any sort of public role. I have met a few politicians (blunkett, Rachael reeves, hiliary benn, shahid malik) and what strikes you is their abilty to think on their feet, articulate ideas, their attention to detail and to give - at the very least - an impression of competence - by and large these people are generally very smart and very skilled at communication. If you are coming from a radical/outsider position its even more important to be able to do this when you have the rare opportunity to state your case. Bennett has repeatedly and spectacularly failed to do this. Like it or not she is our most prominent pro-proponent of the anti-austerity argument and she fucked it.

shes a fucking disgrace.
Click to expand...
The Greens are essentially an unholy alliance of hippies and posh people. I don't expect much from them.
 
BigTom said:
Really easy to link this up to environmental concerns too - replacing all the victorian/edwardian housing stock that was built in the early 20thc with modern, environmentally friendly passiv houses is something we need to do for climate change reasons.
All the building work would stimulate our economy, we can create proper apprenticeships and pay a proper wage doing it.
It'd also serve to undercut the private rental market and housing market in general reducing rental/purchase costs.

Set out correctly, this is a proper winner of a policy, that addresses environmental, economic and social concerns. The tricky bit comes in paying for it and in justifying borrowing the money to invest, which is where I'd expect someone to attack this idea.
Click to expand...
Not tricky to argue money currently lining the pockets of Buy To Let landlords should be spent directly on building social houses. Don't Housing Associations use future rent to fund building?

My only question would be the first part of what you said. Is replacing old buildings with new ones really environmentally friendly? Construction is one of the most polluting industries going. Is it not better to renovate old building that people actually like living in?
 
Sparkle Motion said:
My only question would be the first part of what you said. Is replacing old buildings with new ones really environmentally friendly? Construction is one of the most polluting industries going. Is it not better to renovate old building that people actually like living in?
Click to expand...

Questions such as what buildings people actually like living in should certainly not be pushed to one side.

But looking at the other considerations, I think its more a question of when you build new houses, how long will they be fit for purpose for? For example there is a fairly broad range of predictions and expectations when it comes to how many more decades we'll have access to gas to heat our homes, and at a price the multitude can afford. We've seen some tightening of building regs in order to promote certain levels of insulation and suchlike. But I'm not exactly convinced that the houses constructed these days are of the design we should use if embarking on a large new era of public house construction.
 
Sparkle Motion said:
Not tricky to argue money currently lining the pockets of Buy To Let landlords should be spent directly on building social houses. Don't Housing Associations use future rent to fund building?

My only question would be the first part of what you said. Is replacing old buildings with new ones really environmentally friendly? Construction is one of the most polluting industries going. Is it not better to renovate old building that people actually like living in?
Click to expand...

The second part of your question is truly awful, the supposition being that people wouldn't like to live in a house that costs nothing (or close to nothing) to heat each winter. Wouldn't you like to live in a house with zero heating costs?

Your actual question, I am thinking of carbon / climate change more than general pollution concerns. My understanding is that it's very difficult to retro-fit a single skin house in such a way that would get it anywhere near being a passiv house. External insulation can get you close to a cavity wall house but even that's not great compared to what can be done, especially on terraced housing where the whole terrace would need to be done together - extremely difficult if there's not a single owner of that terrace - at least if you are rebuilding you can compulsory purchase order houses if needs be. There's a carbon/energy/pollution cost to retro-fitting the houses which you also need to factor in. That's a calculation to be made but over a long enough time frame (which may not be very long at all, I don't know if anyone has tried to calculate this or not) the new house will definitely use less energy and less carbon - just no idea how long it'd take for the relative extra carbon costs of rebuilding rather than renovating until you've made that back.
 
This is where parties like UKIP sticking to a very simple message they have not pretensions of being a ruling party so float of the over policy issues and bang on about two or three key themes. It's the trick the Greens should learn, it's not particularly honest but it works. Trying to be the LidDems isn't going to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Annals of the Green Party
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Funky_monks
F
Kid_Eternity
Collective - new left wing party?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
6K
redsquirrel
R
tim
Anyone worried about the UK becoming a one party state?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Kid_Eternity
Kid_Eternity
R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
248
Views
9K
ghost boy
ghost boy
_Russ_
This little shit.....
Replies
19
Views
913
stavros
S
Back
Top Bottom