Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Green Party is shit

I'm a long time environmentalist, and can't help but agree with the general synopsis of this thread - ie that the green party are generally pretty shit, with a couple of notable exceptions.

They're so shit even about their only decent asset couldn't be arsed to lead them any more, preferring to focus on being a decent MP instead of having to actually try to get some semblance of coherence from the rest of the dippy hippy infused rabble that makes up much of the party around the country.

I'd love nothing more than to have a decent left wing environmentalist party in government, but let's face it, the green party aren't ever going to get to that point - even on the environment their policies simply aren't credible, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, reducing carbon by 10% a year every year is the stuff of ignorant fairy tales, it simply couldn't be done without rolling blackouts or similar, so why pledge something that any expert will tell you is impossible (and I am pretty much an expert in that field).

Just to give the thread some balance like;)

But if it is true that we're facing the prospect of a six degree increase in global mean temperature if we don't do it, with all that entails, will 10% a year seem like that big a sacrifice? Or will we not do it and wish we had?

Believe me, I'd love to think it wasn't necessary and we could go on with business as usual for as long as we need to, but from what I've read so far I just can't believe it. I also think the era of cheap energy is drawing to a close and we're about to hit peak oil, if we haven't already (I've read James Kunstler's "The Long Emergency"), but that's a topic for a different thread.
 
But if it is true that we're facing the prospect of a six degree increase in global mean temperature if we don't do it, with all that entails, will 10% a year seem like that big a sacrifice? Or will we not do it and wish we had?
it's just pie in the sky bullshit, it will never / could never happen no matter what a government decreed.

I prefer challenging but actually vaguely possible targets over aspirational but impossible targets from clueless idiots who want us to elect them to power.

Believe me, I'd love to think it wasn't necessary and we could go on with business as usual for as long as we need to, but from I've read so far I just can't believe it. I also think the era of cheap energy is drawing to a close and we're about to hit peak oil (I've read Kunstler's The Long Emergency), but that's a topic for a different thread.
fuck me, an expert then?

Personally I've only worked / studied / volunteered in the field for most of 2 decades, so I'm glad to be on the receiving end of a lecture from someone who's read a half arsed book on the subject.


I'm in no way denying the importance of tackling climate change, far from it, I'm just asking that the greens actually put some realism into their policies instead of just coming up with random evidence free aspirational targets that make for a good sound bite. Getting someone involved in drawing up these policies who actually has half a clue about the subject would be a decent starting point, rather than just assuming that a government can just announce a target and make it happen through sheer force of willing it to be so.
 
Anyway, as for the Green's most decent asset ever; I agree that Caroline's great, but what's wrong with Sian Berry?

(Second thoughts, don't answer that; I don't want my illusions shattered :))
 
Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit."

No, it's a thread entitled "Why the Green Party are shit".
If you can't even get the basics right...

And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.

You're projecting. I haven't said anything to imply that free speech should be untrammelled. I've made clear that I believe you to be a hypocrite.

What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context.

No, all you're after is a reflection of your own views. Not balance, but a thread that reflects your own beliefs. It's what you're always after - some form of validation of your political opinions and choices.
What part


I don't think so, but will let that pass.

No, please don't let it pass.

True, but my point is that it should be, along with all the negative stuff. A beat-up thread doing nothing but dishing the dirt on the Greens isn't good enough for me and IMO it shouldn't be good enough for Urban. You're free to disagree, just as I'm free to protest if I don't like what I see here.

It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that for some people, political parties are an overwhelmingly negative experience, and that a "beat-up thread" is all any of them deserve.

And if I was trying to restrict free speech on here, I'd be contacting the mods and asking them to bin the thread, not just complaining about it.

What else are you doing, with your efforts to direct what the thread might or might not speak of? Chopping liver?


Sure, but so what? Just to take an admittedly unlikely example, what if you went up to IDS in the street and told him he wasn't a very nice person, and he turned around and said, "I don't pretend to be." Would that settle the matter?

If I were able to get close enough to him to speak, I wouldn't be speaking. My teeth would be in his throat.

I like to think I'd say something like, "My friend, you bloody well should be. You're responsible for the welfare of a lot of vulnerable people, etc." (Assuming I could even get near the bloke). The same with Urban; we should be aspiring to something better than this.

You keep making these pronouncements about Urban, and yet they all seem to be based on what you want, not on any wishes the majority of posters have expressed.


Up until I raised the subject, no one was saying that though. It was all implied implicitly, if at all, by people who presumably knew each other well enough to know where the fault lines are drawn in discussions between them, but that would not be obvious to those who didn't.

And the dozens of other threads where people have expressed such opinions about environmental catastrophe? Don't they count, or are you conveniently eliding them?

Furthermore, I'm sorry but I haven't got the time or inclination to read through any significant fraction of 11 million + posts here to find out where everyone stands on what. It's easy to forget how huge this place is, or how anonymous many if not most of us are to each other.

That's a very convenient disclaimer for you, allowing you to project your views onto others, with no comeback when you get it wrong.


Sure, but on balance I believe the Greens have always been amongst the nicer of the parties, one reason being that there simply isn't anything like as much to be gained personally from being in the Greens as there is from, say, being a Tory and making business contacts through the Conservative party. Our first parliamentary candidate after I joined was a vicar.

"Nicer" is meaningless in terms of electoral politics. Study the system some time, see what the constraints of parliamentary democracy do to "niceness", and how meaningless they make it.

Fair enough, but again it's about balance. On the first page, there was a link to a thread called "Greens and eco-fascism." When I pointed out to Spiney that David Icke had written a book about Green politics, he said that he wasn't interested unless it was about lizards and power-hungry Jooz. Even if he was joking (and he might well have been), that doesn't exactly make for good discussion.

Perhaps some of us, who've seen the work of elements of the Green movement in other states, and who know the history of ecological/environmental politics, are aware of how such politics have historically provided a convenient route into domestic politics for (variously) corporate interests, racists, ultra-nationalists and dietary cranks, and we actually care that that is the case, when Green politics provide such a good shelter from criticism.
 
Nowt against her personally, I was probably overstating the case when calling lucas their only decent asset - there a probably are a few, I gave up following the green party internal stuff closely a long time ago tbh.
 
rihv6w.jpg
 
No, it's a thread entitled "Why the Green Party are shit".

If you can't even get the basics right...

Point taken, except that it's actually "Why the Green Party is shit." I hope you can allow me that one.

You're projecting. I haven't said anything to imply that free speech should be untrammelled. I've made clear that I believe you to be a hypocrite.

OK, that's a serious charge. If you answer nothing else I'm saying here, why?

No, all you're after is a reflection of your own views. Not balance, but a thread that reflects your own beliefs. It's what you're always after - some form of validation of your political opinions and choices.

That does hit a nerve somewhere, agreed, but I'm the one who posts on boards where I'm in the minority - in fact I do it all the time - whereas a lot of people only post amongst others who essentially agree with them. So why do I get all the stick for it?

No, please don't let it pass.

OK.

It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that for some people, political parties are an overwhelmingly negative experience, and that a "beat-up thread" is all any of them deserve.

Fair enough, and I'd have less of a problem with a thread that general than I would with one singling out the Greens for censure - because it could go on to a discussion about the way we actually do politics, which we maybe need to have.

What else are you doing, with your efforts to direct what the thread might or might not speak of? Chopping liver?

No, I'm aiming for balance; what should also be said here in addition to the negative.

If I were able to get close enough to him to speak, I wouldn't be speaking. My teeth would be in his throat.

OK, sorry I raised that particular example and I'm sure you speak for a lot of people.

You keep making these pronouncements about Urban, and yet they all seem to be based on what you want, not on any wishes the majority of posters have expressed.

Fair point, but it's easy to say that when the majority of posters accord with your wishes; you just let them get on with it. When you appear to be in a permanent minority and the matter sufficiently bothers you, if you don't do that you either suffer in silence or leave. There aren't any other options.

And the dozens of other threads where people have expressed such opinions about environmental catastrophe? Don't they count, or are you conveniently eliding them?

I haven't seen any recently, but OK I'll take your word for it.

That's a very convenient disclaimer for you, allowing you to project your views onto others, with no comeback when you get it wrong.

Ok again, but a / it's true, and b / It cuts both ways. I constantly get assumptions made about where I post, and who I hang out with there, and again I have no comeback because I can't prove anything about what I say.
.
"Nicer" is meaningless in terms of electoral politics. Study the system some time, see what the constraints of parliamentary democracy do to "niceness", and how meaningless they make it.

Have to say I agree. The one genuinely nice person I've ever seen as a PM was - believe it or not - John Major, and he was not a great success. Michael Foot was also a very nice man IMO, but he didn't make a success of his job (leading the Labour party) either. As you say nice people are a rarity at the top.

Perhaps some of us, who've seen the work of elements of the Green movement in other states, and who know the history of ecological/environmental politics, are aware of how such politics have historically provided a convenient route into domestic politics for (variously) corporate interests, racists, ultra-nationalists[ and dietary cranks, and we actually care that that is the case, when Green politics provide such a good shelter from criticism.

Sure, and I do think that point needs to be made. But balance again - most Greens are horrified when that happens (I don't know about the dietary cranks tbh), and that should be made clear too.
 
Fair enough, and I'd have less of a problem with a thread that general than I would with one singling out the Greens for censure- because it could go on to a discussion about the way we actually do politics, which we maybe need to have.

What?! We've had the same threads for the Dems and Labour, we've had multitude of critical threads over the SWP and assorted parties on the left (and right). Not sure why the Green Party (and that's 'Party') are somehow exempt from criticism?

Oh, and Major whilst PM presided over the CJB and all manner of bollocks with road building programmes happened during his government (M11, Twyford, Newbury bypass), so he can fuck off too.
 
Anne Marie Waters has this to say about Caroline Lucas and the Greens. (She's the one Andy Noman and Tony Collins are witchunting over at Stalinist Socialist Unity:
Caroline Lucas’ hypocrisy on women and gay rights

When she’s not busy betraying her own party, and kicking it while it is down, it seems that Green MP Caroline Lucas is busy displaying spectacular ill-judgment elsewhere as well. It hasn’t occurred to Lucas that attacking her own party at their lowest ebb not only displays a casual betrayal and lack of integrity, but in publicly agreeing that the Greens are not worth supporting, Lucas forgets that she herself is a Green; I don’t think she has thought this through, but then I don’t think she has thought many other things through either.
This week, I read a very interesting tweet from the journalist Julie Bindel. She wrote (among other things): “Caroline Lucas panders to extreme Islamists”. As someone who campaigns against Islamic extremism and the accompanying misogyny and brutal human rights abuses, this tweet very much caught my attention. Bindel did not expand on this, so I went looking for examples of Lucas pandering to Islamic extremism and I did not struggle to find them. Indeed, I found an article by Bindel herself, explaining why she believes Lucas to be so “overrated”. Some examples from the Bindel article:
On Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood which recently refused to support a campaign opposing violence against women), Lucas is alleged to have stated: “Al-Qaradawi has been the victim of an Islamophobic smear campaign in some sections of the media, and has been associated with a fundamentalist position on a number of topics, including the treatment of homosexuals and women. Most of the criticisms levelled at him have been ill-informed.” I’m afraid not Caroline, Al-Qaradawi is known as an anti-Semitic, homophobic misogynist because that is what he is. The man who describes suicide bombings as “martyrdom operations” has also said “throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers”.
Yusuf Al-Qaradawi also supports female genital mutilation: “whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world”. He is also somewhat vague about condemning domestic violence, which he describes as being not “obligatory nor desirable”. He thinks homosexuals should be punished with “the same punishment as any sexual pervert”. Yet he finds himself defended by Green MP Caroline Lucas, who once said that gay rights were the top of her agenda. Is that gay rights everywhere Caroline, or are you ok with the murder of gays by your beloved Islamists all over the world?
Given all of this, it is not surprising that Lucas is also a supporter, according to Bindel, of boycotts on Israel. Not only does this put Israeli workers on the dole (but to be fair, the Greens have never been much cop for the working classes), it also completely and totally ignores the horrific crimes of Hamas who are slowly but surely turning Gaza in to a nightmare to rival Saudi Arabia and Iran. Hamas recently banned women from taking part in a marathon, and some Palestinian women’s rights campaigners have said that women in Gaza no longer bother to go to the police if they are beaten by their husbands because domestic violence is a “right” according to Hamas, who are applying strict sharia law and turning life in to a living hell. The Hamas constitution describes homosexuality as “an abomination” and supports the death penalty. But you won’t hear about this from Lucas or her fellow travellers who no doubt find it far too uncomfortable to acknowledge that the world is not quite as simple as “Israel=bad, Palestine=good”.
Throughout my years of campaigning against religious misogyny, including Islamic, I have found the likes of Lucas depressingly common. They’re full of feminist credentials yet stand with those who enslave women. They’re full of concern for gay rights unless those gays happen to be an Islamic state – these gay people should accept their torture and murder: “it’s their culshure innit?”
In summary, I’ll quote Bindel: “Fundamentally, the problem with Lucas is her blatant hypocrisy. While purporting to hold the concepts of human rights and equality for all, she flirts with extremists and fundamentalists who, if they had their way, would destroy the bedrock of all Green policies and ensure that the likes of Lucas never saw the light of day.”

Sounds fine to me.
 
What?! We've had the same threads for the Dems and Labour, we've had multitude of critical threads over the SWP and assorted parties on the left (and right). Not sure why the Green Party (and that's 'Party') are somehow exempt from criticism?

They're not, and nor have I ever claimed they were. I've seen "the lib dems are shit" thread, which I should perhaps have acknowledged, but not the others.

Oh, and Major whilst PM presided over the CJB and all manner of bollocks with road building programmes happened during his government (M11, Twyford, Newbury bypass), so he can fuck off too.

Yeah I know about the road works too. I never said he was perfect.

Look, I'm tired, sod this for a game of soldiers. Sorry Steph you're probably a decent person but this REALLY isn't what I want to be doing with my spare time.

I need a long break from here at the very least.
 
Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit." And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.

What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context.



I don't think so, but will let that pass.



True, but my point is that it should be, along with all the negative stuff. A beat-up thread doing nothing but dishing the dirt on the Greens isn't good enough for me and IMO it shouldn't be good enough for Urban. You're free to disagree, just as I'm free to protest if I don't like what I see here.

And if I was trying to restrict free speech on here, I'd be contacting the mods and asking them to bin the thread, not just complaining about it.



Sure, but so what? Just to take an admittedly unlikely example, what if you went up to IDS in the street and told him he wasn't a very nice person, and he turned around and said, "I don't pretend to be." Would that settle the matter?

I like to think I'd say something like, "My friend, you bloody well should be. You're responsible for the welfare of a lot of vulnerable people, etc." (Assuming I could even get near the bloke). The same with Urban; we should be aspiring to something better than this.



Up until I raised the subject, no one was saying that though. It was all implied implicitly, if at all, by people who presumably knew each other well enough to know where the fault lines are drawn in discussions between them, but that would not be obvious to those who didn't.

Furthermore, I'm sorry but I haven't got the time or inclination to read through any significant fraction of 11 million + posts here to find out where everyone stands on what. It's easy to forget how huge this place is, or how anonymous many if not most of us are to each other.



Sure, but on balance I believe the Greens have always been amongst the nicer of the parties, one reason being that there simply isn't anything like as much to be gained personally from being in the Greens as there is from, say, being a Tory and making business contacts through the Conservative party. Our first parliamentary candidate after I joined was a vicar.

Apart, that is, from a self-righteous ego boost. That's why poshos join the Greens - always and without exception - to feel superior to the CO2 emitting proles.



Fair enough, but again it's about balance. On the first page, there was a link to a thread called "Greens and eco-fascism." When I pointed out to Spiney that David Icke had written a book about Green politics, he said that he wasn't interested unless it was about lizards and power-hungry Jooz. Even if he was joking (and he might well have been), that doesn't exactly make for good discussion.

Of course I was fucking joking - and jokes aren't meant to facilitate discussion, they're just supposed to make you laugh. It's sort of the whole point of jokes.

Do you also demand that threads about the Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems and the BNP offer 'balance'? (Actually, forget I mentioned the BNP - you probably do want balance when we talk about them given past form).

If someone criticises Labour (without also saying some nice stuff about them) does that mean they think the working class doesn't deserve representation and that they hate the Labour movement? After all, they claim to be the party of the working class, just as the greens claim to be the party of the environment. If someone criticises the Lib Dems (without also saying something nice about them) does that mean they hate civil liberties? After all, they claim to be the party of civil liberties, just as the greens claim to be the party of the environment.

Only I didn't see you throwing a 4 year-old like strop on the 'Why the Lib Dems are shit' or 'why New Labour are scum' threads.

This isn't really about balance is it? You're not bothered about balance on those two threads. You just don't like people criticising a party you clearly have an irrational emotional attachment to.The free speech stuff is just a sanctimonious ego trip really isn't it? You want free speech for your Nazi mates - that's fine cos they don't talk about the Greens being shit, they just want to kill everyone on these boards. But the second anyone points out the shitness that goes right to the core of the Green party you can't handle it and want to censor people. You're a Strasserite Green aren't you?

This thread is about why the Greens are shit. If you want balance start a 'why the Greens are great' thread, as you are perfectly free to do. Then the cosmic harmony of Urban75 will be restored.
 
Only the skivers post on those threads. The strivers are all on Stormfront empathising with people who believe there is an existential threat confronting the white race and a final solution is necessary.

Yeah.
Meltingpot you really need to have a word with yourself, you want us to tolerate people on here that would want to see half of the boards get killed, but throw a strop whenever someone criticises the green party (as opposed to the green movement) and say there's no balance, i mean really have a word, seriously.
 
Oh, and Major whilst PM presided over the CJB and all manner of bollocks with road building programmes happened during his government (M11, Twyford, Newbury bypass), so he can fuck off too.

Under Major just as British mines were being closed down, British engineering firms were exporting old high-polluting power stations to India. Also privatised the water network, which lead to a massive rise in leaks and less stringent water quality control under OFWAT as compared with the nationalised system. Tried to block just about everything in Rio 92.
 
Hint of criticism, my arse. This is a thread called "why the Greens are shit." And since you raise the subject, even on free speech boards (at least the one I know) you can't say anything you like, just anywhere; there are rules to promote good debate, and sections where you're allowed to lark about and others where you're expected to be serious.

What we have here in this thread, and what I'm objecting to, is a veritable slew of negativity about the Green party without any attempt at or even pretence of balance. All I'm asking for is balance, positive comments as well as the negative ones and some attempt at context.



I don't think so, but will let that pass.



True, but my point is that it should be, along with all the negative stuff. A beat-up thread doing nothing but dishing the dirt on the Greens isn't good enough for me and IMO it shouldn't be good enough for Urban. You're free to disagree, just as I'm free to protest if I don't like what I see here.

And if I was trying to restrict free speech on here, I'd be contacting the mods and asking them to bin the thread, not just complaining about it.



Sure, but so what? Just to take an admittedly unlikely example, what if you went up to IDS in the street and told him he wasn't a very nice person, and he turned around and said, "I don't pretend to be." Would that settle the matter?

I like to think I'd say something like, "My friend, you bloody well should be. You're responsible for the welfare of a lot of vulnerable people, etc." (Assuming I could even get near the bloke). The same with Urban; we should be aspiring to something better than this.



Up until I raised the subject, no one was saying that though. It was all implied implicitly, if at all, by people who presumably knew each other well enough to know where the fault lines are drawn in discussions between them, but that would not be obvious to those who didn't.

Furthermore, I'm sorry but I haven't got the time or inclination to read through any significant fraction of 11 million + posts here to find out where everyone stands on what. It's easy to forget how huge this place is, or how anonymous many if not most of us are to each other.



Sure, but on balance I believe the Greens have always been amongst the nicer of the parties, one reason being that there simply isn't anything like as much to be gained personally from being in the Greens as there is from, say, being a Tory and making business contacts through the Conservative party. Our first parliamentary candidate after I joined was a vicar.



Fair enough, but again it's about balance. On the first page, there was a link to a thread called "Greens and eco-fascism." When I pointed out to Spiney that David Icke had written a book about Green politics, he said that he wasn't interested unless it was about lizards and power-hungry Jooz. Even if he was joking (and he might well have been), that doesn't exactly make for good discussion.

1) Spiney was joking. LAUGH YOU DICK.

2) The "nicest" party? Oh fuck off.

3) The thread is a resource, not a debate. Its a compilation of all the reasons the greens are shit, because its handy having it all in one place. And sometimes we might need it, cos when push comes to shove the Green Party (maybe not every member, but the Green Party as an organisation) is the sandal wearing, Rupert-spawning, basket weaving, population controlling scab fucking enemy. If you don't like that don't read it.
 
Back
Top Bottom