bolitics Free range Lentil, anyone? - The green party

[peterms]

....if, say, Nelson Mandela had managed to escape to this country instead of being locked up on Robben Island, would you have thought he should be prosecuted for being part of an organisation which should have been deemed illegal?  I doubt you would, but I do think this is where your argument takes you.

Were the ANC a proscribed terrorist group by the UK Gov't?Would Thatcher have let him in? What with him not being a Chilean torturer, I expect he'd not have been let in. I remember she called him a terrorist, using her impeccable judgement, as ever (the old bat).In reality, a foreign national, not a UK resident (or visitor), being a member of a group that another Gov't than ours has on it's list, isn't remotely the same as our Gov't saying Joe Bloggs from Edinburgh joining ISIS would be illegal under UK law.I take your implied point about one man's freedom fighter...etc. nevertheless

I think it's clear that people who in previous years were granted refuge in this country - Marx, Joe Slovo, loads of others - would be denied under more recent and more illiberal interpretations. Recently, we have facilitated the CIA shipping people abroad to torture cells in places like the dodgiest north African dictatorships, and the most oppressive regurgitations of the defunct Soviet regime. Our view of human rights is retreating, becoming smaller.

Your point about the town of origin of the suspect is unclear, at least to me - do you mean that the promotion of ideas should be treated differently according to the nation of origin of the person promoting them?

Yes, Thatcher welcomed murderers from the right wing, no surprise there. (How easily the morals of thrift in small town Lincolnshire translate into active support for rape and torture of civil rights protestors in a faraway country of which we know little).

But to get back to the point of departure - why would it make sense to make illegal belief in and intellectual support for a set of ideas, however barking, rather than actions which harm or threaten to harm others?

[tonyh29]

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

most people , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

If you seriously doubt that there is a climate of aggression towards Muslims, then speak to some. We had a meeting this week where we heard from someone representing the Muslim Council of Scotland, and he was very clear that Muslims feel there is a climate of hostility which wasn't there a few years ago.

The figures bear out this anecdotal view. You can find reports eg on the Tell Mama UK website giving stats. As always, there are problems with the stats, eg underreporting, police forces keeping stats in different ways which impede analysis and so on, but the general picture is that within an overall reduction in hate crime, attacks on Muslims have increased.

I know lots of Muslims thanks , indeed I was having coffee with some earlier today as our children were on a play date together ...Maybe we southerners are just friendlier toward muslims and people than you folk up North

being a resourceful chap I found tell mama ( you didn't supply a link but I managed it using Google , who'd have thunk it )

Their manipulation of facts and figured leave a bit to be desired ...But don't take my word for it ...

What Tell Mama and Mughal did not tell us at the time however, was that 57 per cent of its 212 "incidents" took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook. They did not say that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. They forgot to mention that not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100266808/tell-mama-did-exaggerate-anti-muslim-attacks-pcc-rejects-all-fiyaz-mughals-complaints-against-us/

First Ansar and his fabrications and now Tell Mama ... You really should do your homework on who you use as your sources

Lastly ( as its really going well away form the Green Party now ) I presume you've seen the anti Islam/ Muslim rallies in Germany with 10's of thousands in attendance ... I must have missed the ones we held in the UK that were similarly attended ...

[peterms]

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

most people , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

If you seriously doubt that there is a climate of aggression towards Muslims, then speak to some. We had a meeting this week where we heard from someone representing the Muslim Council of Scotland, and he was very clear that Muslims feel there is a climate of hostility which wasn't there a few years ago.

The figures bear out this anecdotal view. You can find reports eg on the Tell Mama UK website giving stats. As always, there are problems with the stats, eg underreporting, police forces keeping stats in different ways which impede analysis and so on, but the general picture is that within an overall reduction in hate crime, attacks on Muslims have increased.

I know lots of Muslims thanks , indeed I was having coffee with some earlier today as our children were on a play date together ...Maybe we southerners are just friendlier toward muslims and people than you folk up North

being a resourceful chap I found tell mama ( you didn't supply a link but I managed it using Google , who'd have thunk it )

Their manipulation of facts and figured leave a bit to be desired ...But don't take my word for it ...

What Tell Mama and Mughal did not tell us at the time however, was that 57 per cent of its 212 "incidents" took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook. They did not say that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. They forgot to mention that not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100266808/tell-mama-did-exaggerate-anti-muslim-attacks-pcc-rejects-all-fiyaz-mughals-complaints-against-us/

First Ansar and his fabrications and now Tell Mama ... You really should do your homework on who you use as your sources

Lastly ( as its really going well away form the Green Party now ) I presume you've seen the anti Islam/ Muslim rallies in Germany with 10's of thousands in attendance ... I must have missed the ones we held in the UK that were similarly attended ...

**** sake Tony, you need a lie down, mate.

What do your Muslim friends tell you about the level of hostility in the street? I assume e they don't "tone" it down to avoid offending your sensibilities, and that they actually use the streets?

You found the Tell Mama UK website from my cryptic clue that it was called "Tell Mama UK"? Well done! I'm really pleased for you!

Next, if you're going to quote anti-Muslim stories, I suggest you would do better than quoting Andrew Gilligan in the Torygraph. Both he and it are seen as having a clear and biased agenda on this, not without foundation.

And if you've missed the anti-Muslim rallies in the UK, I can only applaud your taste in not recognising them, but I can't believe the actions of the racist scumbag suites of the EDL and BNP have entirely passed you by. Or if they have, get out more, would be my advice. With caution.

[tonyh29]

Were the ANC a proscribed terrorist group by the UK Gov't?

Would Thatcher have let him in? What with him not being a Chilean torturer, I expect he'd not have been let in. I remember she called him a terrorist, using her impeccable judgement, as ever (the old bat).

In reality, a foreign national, not a UK resident (or visitor), being a member of a group that another Gov't than ours has on it's list, isn't remotely the same as our Gov't saying Joe Bloggs from Edinburgh joining ISIS would be illegal under UK law.

I take your implied point about one man's freedom fighter...etc. nevertheless

Any stick to beat Thatcher with hey Peter

I'm curious how you remember her calling him a terrorist when she never did , that line is up there with "the batsmans holding the bowlers willy "

I thought the release of the various papers had put paid to left wing revisionism ?

After her death, in an otherwise fair-minded assessment, Ed Miliband attacked her for her softness towards apartheid. Others said she had called Mandela a terrorist. Neither is true. From 1984, when she first met Botha, Mrs Thatcher put pressure on him to release Mandela. She wanted an orderly transition to majority rule. She knew that this was impossible without the man who, though not technically the leader of the ANC, was its giant.

In 1985, Mandela was offered his freedom, but on the unacceptable terms that the ANC stayed banned. He refused. Mrs Thatcher kept up the pressure, in public, in private and sometimes in secret. Indeed, the release of Mandela was the strongest and most specific of all her demands. His release, she believed, would allow talks to start, without preconditions.

In 1989, Botha was replaced by F W de Klerk. A year later, he ordered Mandela’s release. Because Mrs Thatcher, almost alone of world leaders, had maintained close contacts with the government, her voice had proved the most persuasive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10500732/Mandela-Nelson-by-name-defender-of-British-values-by-nature.html

In the end she did more to end apartheid and free Mandela than the Special Aka did

Edited January 31, 2015 by tonyh29

[tonyh29]

The climate of aggression towards Jews in pre-war Germany, and Muslims here today, shows that relentless campaigns of hostility

no offence but that has to be one of the most invalid comparisons I've ever seen

most people , other than Boris Johnson in the Uk aren't even remotely aggressive or show hostility to Muslims ... you get outrage (and rightly so ) when someone kills in the name of Islam , like with Lee Rigby , but that hardly manifests into aggression towards Muslims ... maybe some Muslim VT'ers have a better perspective on this though ?

If you seriously doubt that there is a climate of aggression towards Muslims, then speak to some. We had a meeting this week where we heard from someone representing the Muslim Council of Scotland, and he was very clear that Muslims feel there is a climate of hostility which wasn't there a few years ago.

The figures bear out this anecdotal view. You can find reports eg on the Tell Mama UK website giving stats. As always, there are problems with the stats, eg underreporting, police forces keeping stats in different ways which impede analysis and so on, but the general picture is that within an overall reduction in hate crime, attacks on Muslims have increased.

I know lots of Muslims thanks , indeed I was having coffee with some earlier today as our children were on a play date together ...Maybe we southerners are just friendlier toward muslims and people than you folk up North

being a resourceful chap I found tell mama ( you didn't supply a link but I managed it using Google , who'd have thunk it )

Their manipulation of facts and figured leave a bit to be desired ...But don't take my word for it ...

What Tell Mama and Mughal did not tell us at the time however, was that 57 per cent of its 212 "incidents" took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook. They did not say that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. They forgot to mention that not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100266808/tell-mama-did-exaggerate-anti-muslim-attacks-pcc-rejects-all-fiyaz-mughals-complaints-against-us/

First Ansar and his fabrications and now Tell Mama ... You really should do your homework on who you use as your sources

Lastly ( as its really going well away form the Green Party now ) I presume you've seen the anti Islam/ Muslim rallies in Germany with 10's of thousands in attendance ... I must have missed the ones we held in the UK that were similarly attended ...

**** sake Tony, you need a lie down, mate.

What do your Muslim friends tell you about the level of hostility in the street? I assume e they don't "tone" it down to avoid offending your sensibilities, and that they actually use the streets?

You found the Tell Mama UK website from my cryptic clue that it was called "Tell Mama UK"? Well done! I'm really pleased for you!

Next, if you're going to quote anti-Muslim stories, I suggest you would do better than quoting Andrew Gilligan in the Torygraph. Both he and it are seen as having a clear and biased agenda on this, not without foundation.

And if you've missed the anti-Muslim rallies in the UK, I can only applaud your taste in not recognising them, but I can't believe the actions of the racist scumbag suites of the EDL and BNP have entirely passed you by. Or if they have, get out more, would be my advice. With caution.

EDL rallies of 400 people v the Germans and 17,000 ... What's Your next flawed argument going to be ?

the irony of attacking Gilligan as biased and with agenda whilst quoting Ansar as your source probably isn't lost on anyone

I'll pass on your thought to my friends next time we have coffee and ask them not to spare my sensibilities, perhaps once we all start being honest with each other I can then also tell them I don't actually like custard creams and prefer bourbons .. I should probably thank you in the long run

[blandy]

Were the ANC a proscribed terrorist group by the UK Gov't?

Would Thatcher have let him in? ...

Any stick to beat Thatcher with hey Peter

I'm curious how you remember her calling him a terrorist when she never did , that line is up there with "the batsmans holding the bowlers willy "

I thought the release of the various papers had put paid to left wing revisionism ?

my mistake it was the ANC not just him as an individual "when the ANC says that they will target British companies. This shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is."

There are loads more quotes of the Tories and their spectacular wrongness on it all

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/from-terrorist-to-tea-with-the-queen-1327902.html

[blandy]

Your point about the town of origin of the suspect is unclear, at least to me - do you mean that the promotion of ideas should be treated differently according to the nation of origin of the person promoting them?

my point is that uk law governs the uk and uk residents and visitors to the uk. Someone abroad is not covered by it. In the example of a south African in South africa. Well he is not subject to uk law, thus whether we have the greens or the labour or Tory policy on membership of ISIS and the like , it doesn't affect foreign nationals outside the uk.

[Xann]

What you seem to be proposing is anti-science. Even if I accept your proposition of "lower tech solutions now", I want the possibility of high tech solutions in the medium term. "No nuclear power" disallows a huge set of solutions and appears to be based on FUD.

 

I'm not proposing anything of the sort. It's a lesser of evils situation even with the Greens.

 

The current society model is hardly based on sound scientific principles.

 

The scientists are telling us we're on a collision course with global disaster. Also that the folks that are pulling the strings have strong psychopathic tendencies.

 

It's a big part of the reason for Green surge, along with dissatisfaction with the greedy, cruel, nest feathering scum currently running the show.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

Nuclear will have its time. Especially if we wish to got to the planets then the stars, but it's not the most pressing concern in the present.

[villaajax]

The Greens have now dropped their massively miscalculated 'Citizen's Income' policy.

 

This news comes on the same day that they apparently put out an advert for a Policy Assistant at their London headquarters for £1000 less than the 'London living wage', which is also something they support.

[Condimentalist]

The Greens have now dropped their massively miscalculated 'Citizen's Income' policy.

 

This news comes on the same day that they apparently put out an advert for a Policy Assistant at their London headquarters for £1000 less than the 'London living wage', which is also something they support.

 

Where is that? 

[villaajax]

 

The Greens have now dropped their massively miscalculated 'Citizen's Income' policy.

 

This news comes on the same day that they apparently put out an advert for a Policy Assistant at their London headquarters for £1000 less than the 'London living wage', which is also something they support.

 

Where is that? 

 

 

Version from the Torygraph

 

 

The Green Party has ditched plans to give every adult £72 a week regardless of income from their 2015 election manifesto after criticism over its cost

Caroline Lucas, the party’s only MP, said the citizens’ wage – which would cost an estimated £280 billion a year – was a “longer term aspiration” rather than a red line for any post-election negotiations.

 

Ms Lucas also issued a warning to Labour by declaring the Greens wanted to bounce the party into adopting more Left-wing polices such as renationalisation of the rail service.

 

It comes with Green policies coming under renewed scrutiny in recent weeks after the party enjoys a surge in the polls amid boosting membership figures.

The party has recently overtaken both the Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party in terms of size with its membership base more than doubling since the 2010 election.

 

With the party consistently polling equal or above the Liberal Democrats according to vote share and becoming a recent addition to the proposed TV election debates its policies have reentered the media spotlight.

 

In particular the flagship proposition to pay every British adult a £72 a week regardless of wealth – the so-called citizens’ incomes – has been attacked for being uncosted and unrealistic.

 

Natalie Bennett, the Green leader, recently publicly defended the policy stance on the BBC1’s Andrew Marr programme by saying it would “provide a sense of security” and ensure “no one needs to live in fear”.

 

However speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Ms Lucas downplayed the significance of the policy to the Green Party’s election pitch.

“The citizens’ income is not going to be in the 2015 general election manifesto as something to be introduced on May 8th. It is a longer term aspiration; we are still working on it,” Ms Lucas said.

 

She said the aim is still “absolutely to be able to give everybody a guaranteed non-means tested income” but gave no indication about when the party would want to see it adopted.

 

Pushed later in the interview about whether the policy would be prioritised in any post-election negotiations, Ms Lucas said: “The citizen's income, as I've explained, is not going to be a red line and because it’s not going to be in the 2015 election manifesto.”

 

Confirmation that the policy will neither appear in the party’s manifesto nor be a priority in any post-election power-sharing discussions effectively kills off the policy in the election campaign.

 

During the rest of the interview, Ms Lucas defended the party from criticisms of having an amateurish approach to policy by saying it is a “small party with a shoestring staff”.

 

However she said its “radical” and “visionary” ideas were attracting huge swathes of new supporters.

 

Ms Spellman said the Greens would “push Labour in particular to be far more progressive”, citing its drive to scrap austerity and renationalise the rail network.

[snowychap]

... 

Pushed later in the interview about whether the policy would be prioritised in any post-election negotiations, Ms Lucas said: “The citizen's income, as I've explained, is not going to be a red line and because it’s not going to be in the 2015 election manifesto.”

 

Confirmation that the policy will neither appear in the party’s manifesto nor be a priority in any post-election power-sharing discussions effectively kills off the policy in the election campaign.

...

That's an incredibly disappointing and limp choice to make if that actually does turn out to be the case.

I don't see why they couldn't stick with the original line of it being a longer term aspiration that they are still working on.

[blandy]

... 

Pushed later in the interview about whether the policy would be prioritised in any post-election negotiations, Ms Lucas said: “The citizen's income, as I've explained, is not going to be a red line and because it’s not going to be in the 2015 election manifesto.”

 

Confirmation that the policy will neither appear in the party’s manifesto nor be a priority in any post-election power-sharing discussions effectively kills off the policy in the election campaign.

...

That's an incredibly disappointing and limp choice to make if that actually does turn out to be the case.

I don't see why they couldn't stick with the original line of it being a longer term aspiration that they are still working on.

I think the opposite Obviously it's just opinions, but I think it's wise to drop it as a declared policy until or unless they can make the maths add up, which they currently don't (I'm not sure they ever will). If they want to keep looking at the idea, then they can and once/if they get to a point where they have a credible way of implementing such a thing, then they could re-instigate it as a policy.

As a political party, bidding to represent "us" they need to have stated aims on monetary stuff that add up. Something which as of now would make the poor worse off, and is not in any way financially viable is not something to keep as a policy - where apart from voters knowing it's, er, daft, will be ripped apart by all the other parties and used to their political advantage and the green's disadvantage.

[snowychap]

I think the opposite

I'm not surprised and I have no intention of repeating the circular discussion we had in the other thread about either the policy or the idea so I'll stick to a general point about manifesto 'commitments' thus: I really don't see why something shouldn't be included as an idea that is 'a longer term aspiration' and something that they are 'still working on'.

I think this is a limp decision (again if that's how it actually turns out - we'll have to see what their manifesto contains when they release it) because if it's something that they feel is important to look at (I think they do) and they acknowledge that they are unlikely to be in government on their own (I think they do) then, whilst making it something that their own voters and supporters can't mark them down for not having as a red line if they were to be in some grand rainbow coalition, they could still continue to have it discussed during this electoral campaign.

Edit: This is the case for all parties and pretty much any potential policy. (Manifesto 'commitments' are merely aspirations anyway - see Gordo re: EU referendum).

As far as the rest of your post goes, Peter, it seems a bit of a cheap shot, after how we ended that other discussion, to try and kick it off again.

Edited February 2, 2015 by snowychap

[blandy]

...Peter, it seems a bit of a cheap shot, after how we ended that other discussion, to try and kick it off again.

Certainly not intended that way, Darren. I tried to take into account the different angles we look at it, and I respect your view. My post was aimed at summarising, in a short post, what my view is (in the correct thread this time). Genuinely not any kind of "shot" at all. Sorry if it comes across that way. While I replied to your post, my comments were aimed at anyone who's bored enough to read them.

oh and the bit "commitments' are merely aspirations"  - it's a shame that parties treat them like that, and that the likes of us view them in that way. it's why people don't trust politicians.

[kidlewis]

If it would really cost £280bn then that's a non starter, that's what, 220% the total NHS budget and 50% more of the welfare budget?

What about dementia care and elderly care.

They should be assigning elderly care to the welfare budget and not NHS, recharge care from one to another and invest a solid £80bn into elderly care.

Home care important but very costly, specialist trained nurses to deal with elderly and mental health issues (elderly ones). Not cheap care from Asia where language has proved to be an important aspect of care.

They should shrink welfare/tax breaks payments to the most needy. People earning £80k or less can get childcare vouchers, shouldn't be more than £50k MAX.

Re apportion savings to people earning under £20k.

This green economy is there but their policies are just financial madness. Even with a USA GDP with out population we'd probably struggle to achieve their goals in the timeframe they want

[snowychap]

oh and the bit "commitments' are merely aspirations"  - it's a shame that parties treat them like that, and that the likes of us view them in that way. it's why people don't trust politicians.

Well, I'd prefer parties (and politicians) to be honest about treating them that way when they are trying to get elected on them rather than leaving things unsaid (or claiming them to be firm pledges) at the time and telling the electorate (or the courts) otherwise afterwards. It's this duplicity (and the expectation that it exists everywhere) that means they don't have my trust.

I don't see why there shouldn't be room for different things: firm commitments, things that they'd like to try and do/implement, and things that they'd like to look at.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

... 

Pushed later in the interview about whether the policy would be prioritised in any post-election negotiations, Ms Lucas said: “The citizen's income, as I've explained, is not going to be a red line and because it’s not going to be in the 2015 election manifesto.”

 

Confirmation that the policy will neither appear in the party’s manifesto nor be a priority in any post-election power-sharing discussions effectively kills off the policy in the election campaign.

...

 

That's an incredibly disappointing and limp choice to make if that actually does turn out to be the case.

I don't see why they couldn't stick with the original line of it being a longer term aspiration that they are still working on.

 

 

Disappointingly, the Green Party dropped it as a policy on the very day Paul Mason, in a well-known left-wing newspaper, explained why it is a good idea.

 

He says it would kill off low-paid menial jobs and end the sort of inequality and exploitation which people find unacceptable.

 

When Milton Friedman ironically suggested that money needed to be dropped from helicopters, this is the sort of thing he meant.

 

Pity the Greens lost their bottle as they started to be seduced by the idea of real power, rather than function as a party which opened up debate and challenged the orthodoxies.

[blandy]

....In brief, most migration is caused by people fleeing either conflict or environmental degradation (I suppose everyone accepts this is a fact, no?)......

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...

definitely NO to the first point. Most migration is economic, surely? All the Brits that migrate to yurp, murka and Aus are not fleeing war or environmental degradation. Ditto the French, Polish, and others who come to the uk.

On the second point the greens have now "clarified" that like everyone else, of course joining AQ or ISIS should be illegal.

[chrisp65]

 

....In brief, most migration is caused by people fleeing either conflict or environmental degradation (I suppose everyone accepts this is a fact, no?)......

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...

definitely NO to the first point. Most migration is economic, surely? All the Brits that migrate to yurp, murka and Aus are not fleeing war or environmental degradation. Ditto the French, Polish, and others who come to the uk.

On the second point the greens have now "clarified" that like everyone else, of course joining AQ or ISIS should be illegal.

 

 

when was this 'clarified'?

 

Bennett made a big thing of how she couldn't change stuff on the hoof from leadership level, they were the only truly democratic party and only the members could vote to get it changed? Was there a vote? Or did she get that democracy bit, a bit wrong?