villaajax Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Worry is they might just do enough to secure another 5 years of Tory rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Worry is they might just do enough to secure another 5 years of Tory rule. Honestly, I think as the election campaign hots up the Greens will end up losing a lot of support once their crazy policies come into the open. Edited January 31, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Labour are doing more than enough to help the Tories stay in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendelc Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Open door immigration policy , legalise membership of terrorist organisations , reduce the numbers of the armed forces . Just 3 of the most idiotic policies i have ever heard . Not a chance of these clowns getting my vote . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 31, 2015 Administrator Share Posted January 31, 2015 That's pretty much my problem with them. I mean, if nuclear fusion becomes a viable option, surely that would be much preferable to 654323456 windmills, or signing off hundreds of acres of land for solar panels? I'm more concerned that it means we can't build thorium based reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 one of my problems with the Green Party is something that is becoming more and more apparent locally they don't want nuclear fuel, in itself a fairly standard view they also don't want fracking, well, again that's quite a popular view we have to move away from coal and oil, ok, yep no shock news there but locally they've also opposed a local power station big enough to run the town, which would burn waste - nope, opposed to that there was a planning application for a power station burning wood chip waste from forestry - nope, opposed that there is a plan to build a barrage to harness wave and tidal power - nope, that will have an adverse affect on wading birds is the plan to be anti everything and mop up every nimby grouping without them noticing they will, by default, be using far more tallow candles in 10 years time? I know buttercups and wading birds are really nice to look at, but I'm just not sure we can run an economy on individual garden mounted wind turbines. Happy to be put right on the energy side of things by those that know, here to learn. Spot on. The candidate down here keeps on about having green energy, and how we need a green transport solution to replace our trains, yet when I askher what the solution is, she says 'not diesel', but has no alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Open door immigration policy , legalise membership of terrorist organisations , reduce the numbers of the armed forces . Just 3 of the most idiotic policies i have ever heard . Not a chance of these clowns getting my vote . Source document the Daily Heil, I suppose. Immigration: long policy here. In brief, most migration is caused by people fleeing either conflict or environmental degradation (I suppose everyone accepts this is a fact, no?) and so the point is to address the root cause of migration rather than have batallions of robocops at Dover to repel the foreign hordes. In the medium term ...We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls... Membership of organisations: the proposal is that people should be punished for what they do, not what they think. There was a time when I'd have thought that uncontroversial, and that pretty much everyone in a supposedly liberal society like the UK was against "thought crime". Armed forces: Reducing the number of people in the armed forces has been cross-party policy for generations. It has reduced every year since 1952, I believe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Every vote for Green is a vote wasted that could've been used on removing the Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 31, 2015 Author Moderator Share Posted January 31, 2015 Disappointing. I thought this thread was for a link to some free lentils. Finger on the pulse, as always, Rob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturdaygig Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 The greens go way beyond a few fuel policies. They have a whole communist manifesto Telegraph Article Large Schools with more than 700 pupils broken up and "localised" Inheritance tax to apply to all transfers of wealth between generations. £71 a week for everybody. Remove VAT and replaced with a tax calculated on environmental damage Aim for no economic growth and much more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 but that mentality only ever serves the status quo by playing a politics of fear over considering an alternative to labour or tory, when they're both shite, both in thrall to big money donations, privatisation and back door lobbying campaigns etc. The perpetuation of the but x is true evil and y are best placed to get them mentality, ensure no actual alternative generally gathers momentum when taken to it's broadest limit. easier for the money men to manage and control one opposition ( labour ) than deal with plenty of others so the anti-tory tactic vote also serves their interests too I'm beginning to feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yes, despite the occasional streak of daftness, they still get my vote because they are anti-austerity and not a lapdog for multinationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 31, 2015 Author Moderator Share Posted January 31, 2015 ...Membership of organisations: the proposal is that people should be punished for what they do, not what they think. There was a time when I'd have thought that uncontroversial, and that pretty much everyone in a supposedly liberal society like the UK was against "thought crime". For the purposes of discussion, the nature of an organisation might be worth considering. For example, an organisation whose stated aim might be (say) "to violently murder all children under the age of 5" just might be more problematic than one whose stated aim is to (say) "promote inter faith understanding" Membership of groups whose core purpose is violent, criminal or terrorist activity seems a legitimate "flag" for action to be taken against them, before they actually manage to implement that core activity? Now you could say "well nab them and prosecute them for planning to commit an act...or for buying or trying to buy poisons or whatever. - i.e. prevent, rather than react. But isn't criminalising membership of such groups in essence a step to prevent them even being drawn into planning and so on? Like I say, for discussion purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 That's pretty much my problem with them. I mean, if nuclear fusion becomes a viable option, surely that would be much preferable to 654323456 windmills, or signing off hundreds of acres of land for solar panels? I'm more concerned that it means we can't build thorium based reactors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 That's pretty much my problem with them. I mean, if nuclear fusion becomes a viable option, surely that would be much preferable to 654323456 windmills, or signing off hundreds of acres of land for solar panels? I'm more concerned that it means we can't build thorium based reactors. There's a debate within the party about forms of nuclear power For instance, the last conference had a motion supporting nuclear, which got about 20% of the vote, and one of the unsuccessful candidates for leader said in part of their election address For me the solution would not include nuclear in its present form. Eg, little work has been done to promote the safer Thorium reactors. It is not the fissile/fission process which we are against, it is the radioactive waste cycle, safety concerns, and weapons grade outputs. I think it's a safe bet that this debate will continue. There's quite an emphasis on evidence-based policy, so even with something like nuclear, which is possibly one of the most emotive policy areas because of the extremity of the safety issues involved, I can easily see policy developing in the light of new research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Open door immigration policy , legalise membership of terrorist organisations , reduce the numbers of the armed forces . Just 3 of the most idiotic policies i have ever heard . Not a chance of these clowns getting my vote . Source document the Daily Heil, I suppose. Immigration: long policy here. In brief, most migration is caused by people fleeing either conflict or environmental degradation (I suppose everyone accepts this is a fact, no?) and so the point is to address the root cause of migration rather than have batallions of robocops at Dover to repel the foreign hordes. In the medium term ...We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls... Membership of organisations: the proposal is that people should be punished for what they do, not what they think. There was a time when I'd have thought that uncontroversial, and that pretty much everyone in a supposedly liberal society like the UK was against "thought crime". Armed forces: Reducing the number of people in the armed forces has been cross-party policy for generations. It has reduced every year since 1952, I believe. no, source document was the infamous interview with Andrew Neil, followed in my case, by a dig in to the harder to find parts of their website that cite policies I know you can strongly criticise every party, that's a given. But these guys currently remind me of early 1980's Labour. Heart of gold, great intentions and very very easily made to look like fruitcakes. You can't just ban all forms of energy and hope we invent something nice. You can't disband the military and hope the rest of the world turns nice. You can't have open door immigration, no banned organisations, £72 for everyone anywhere, no border control, and hope the rest of the world decides to stay home and leave us alone. In an ideal world, the Green Party are the obvious and only choice. In a possibly slightly less than ideal world, they are the unreformed hippy dreamers of old that would absolutely destroy the living standards of our children. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Every vote for Green is a vote wasted that could've been used on removing the Tories. or a vote for the Greens is a worthwhile vote that could keep Ed out of number 10 I say let the tree huggers vote for who the wish , it will be easy enough to round them up afterwards and ship them off to a ringed off forest and let them live off nature whilst the rest of us get on with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Every vote for Green is a vote wasted that could've been used on removing the Tories. or a vote for the Greens is a worthwhile vote that could keep Ed out of number 10 I say let the tree huggers vote for who the wish , it will be easy enough to round them up afterwards and ship them off to a ringed off forest and let them live off nature whilst the rest of us get on with it Funny you should mention living in a forest. They had a spokesperson on some programme a couple of evenings ago, showing us all how we can reduce our footprint. He was growing his own veg, captured grey water, had a pv cell on his conservatory. All good stuff. He also had a large pile of logs his wife was happily chopping for the TV cameras, for their cooker / heater. Yeah, let's get 67 million people in the UK burning wood every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) It's not so much that the Greens want to reduce the armed forces which is the problem, it's the extent. I don't know if they've actually given numbers but it seems as if they want the bulk of armed forces personnel gone. Not to worry, I guess the tens of thousands of ex-servicemen and women will do just fine on their "citizen's income." And making it illegal to join terrorist organisations isn't thought crime - there's no legislation governing what you think but rather what you do. The problem is that legalising terrorist organisations would make it so much harder to prevent terrorist attacks. Edited January 31, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts