OutByEaster? Posted January 28, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: Yet they want to remain in the EU? I don't see those things as necessarily in opposition - the EU is a mess, that gives it a little flexibility - it supports both the idiocy of trickle down economics and Friedman's monster but at the same time is open to progressive steps on things like protection of labour and nationalised industries - the EU is more left wing than the UK government, that's one of the reasons that there's a move to break it up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 28, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Chindie said: Green parties will never hold significant power until either they fundamentally change or its too late. They aren't immediately obviously offering policies of self interest, and they exist with an image of a single interest party, with a hint of 'loony left', so people won't vote for them. That will prevent them usurping Labours niche. And I think this is the issue for both the Green Party and Labour - I'm essentially a socialist, I voted Green at the last election because Labour weren't a socialist party (and in spite of their ecological policies) - I was excited by Corbyn and the promise of bringing that Labour party back, but he hasn't succeeded in changing the party and the internal fight, coupled with a hostile media and the fact that he's a bit scruffy looking means he won't ever be effective as a vote winner. The Greens won't be effective either, because, well, because they're the Greens and they're just mad environmentalists innit. There's a massive gap in the political landscape for a party that can effectively deliver a message that I believe the majority of the British people support. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 28, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted January 28, 2017 29 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I sorta keep hearing about how the nation agrees with left leaning policies like the greens have and Corbyns left views ... and yet haven't elected a left government in yonks it can't all be down to media brainwashing can it ? This came up before. The nation (generally, there's always an element of crackpots and evil people with great investment portfolios, mostly around London) will agree with some fundamental left policies, the social safety net stuff. Labours issue, that they haven't overcome, is those policies, whilst subtly under threat, are the norm now. All the parties can talk about the NHS, and none of them will say bin it. So the left has moved towards to more grand international concerns, and the more 'minor' concerns like social justice, which many people find to varying degrees either unpragmatic, unfeasible, against their own self interest... Etc. The Left has a problem, and in the UK Corbyn isn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 So much sense being said here. Is this a good time for a reminder about the http://www.healthandfitnessparty.org.uk/ ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html The Greens are essentially a socialist party - they're against the prevailing economic global regime and directly in opposition to the Washington Consensus and by extension right wing thought. The want to restore the private sector, impose regulation on the corporate and banking sphere and end austerity. Am I reading them wrong? I'm not sure how they can be seen as Conservative? There's a reason I wrote 'Green politics' rather than 'Green Party' and 'conservative' with a lower-case 'c'. The foundations of environmentalism share many features with conservative thought. For instance, there's a belief in a 'natural order of things' which shouldn't be challenged (for environmentalists, this is Gaia/Mother Earth etc, for conservatives the nobility/royalty/class system). Environmentalists also tend to favour stewardship and sustainability as goals, which are also philosophically conservative aims. In a more negative light, they also frequently come from the same strata of society (Zac Goldsmith being the personification of this role) and share with upper-class Tories the tendency to view animals more favourably than poor people. None of this is to say that any individual Green Party policy is necessarily wrong (and I have voted for the party in the past). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 28, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2017 40 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The foundations of environmentalism share many features with conservative thought. For instance, there's a belief in a 'natural order of things' which shouldn't be challenged (for environmentalists, this is Gaia/Mother Earth etc, for conservatives the nobility/royalty/class system). Environmentalists also tend to favour stewardship and sustainability as goals, which are also philosophically conservative aims. I think I agree with them on this - I think it's also worth pointing out that whilst you can describe these as conservative rather than radical ideas, they're also very much ideas from the left and a reflection of left wing socialist ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: I think I agree with them on this - I think it's also worth pointing out that whilst you can describe these as conservative rather than radical ideas, they're also very much ideas from the left and a reflection of left wing socialist ideology. I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, but I don't agree. Leaving aside 'left' and 'left wing' for a minute, they cannot conceivably called 'socialist' in any way. Socialism is a philosophy of redistribution. You can redistribute wealth in two ways - either by force or coercion in the present, 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor', or by ensuring that the proceeds of future growth disproportionately go to the poorest. The UK's environmentalist party, the Green Party, cannot believe in the second option, because they don't want future growth: they aim to move to a zero-growth model. That leaves redistributing wealth today, but they don't have a plan for that either. Their proposal for a land tax has the potential to be redistributive, but is not particularly socialist. The basic income is a mechanism, which can be implemented in progressive or regressive ways, and (for reasons of political pragmatism) their plan was very much at the 'regressive' end (ie, it wouldn't have done anything more than replace basic welfare programs). Instead, as is traditional for small-c conservatives, they aim to temper the growth of the economy while keeping its basic shape the same, which, practically applied, could only mean wage stagnation for the majority of workers and increased inequality. This is not far removed from the effects of Tory party policy - the Greens just have a better reason for achieving similar effects. TL/DR - there's a reason why 'conservationist' and 'conservative' are very similar words. Neither group presents a significant challenge to the established social order, and as such neither can be considered socialist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 28, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: TL/DR - there's a reason why 'conservationist' and 'conservative' are very similar words. Neither group presents a significant challenge to the established social order, and as such neither can be considered socialist. That being true (and it is) I'd therefore have to disagree with the suggestion that the Green Party are conservative with either c. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: That being true (and it is) I'd therefore have to disagree with the suggestion that the Green Party are conservative with either c. They are conservative, in the small-c sense of seeking to conserve the environment, and through that, maybe not deliberately but inevitably, the social order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 28, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: They are conservative, in the small-c sense of seeking to conserve the environment, and through that, maybe not deliberately but inevitably, the social order. I understand, I guess I see it as trying to reinstate a social order, they're not looking to maintain the prevailing societal conditions based on free markets, deregulation, privatisation and reductions in public spending - for me that makes them radical and if not socialist by definition, socialist by direction. I guess whether or not they're conservative in trying to maintain something might be down to whether you believe that thing still exists. Anyway, I think we're arguing on definitions and semantics and, in the spirit of the new age, I reserve the right to define those things in any way that suits me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I understand, I guess I see it as trying to reinstate a social order, they're not looking to maintain the prevailing societal conditions based on free markets, deregulation, privatisation and reductions in public spending - for me that makes them radical and if not socialist by definition, socialist by direction. I guess whether or not they're conservative in trying to maintain something might be down to whether you believe that thing still exists. Anyway, I think we're arguing on definitions and semantics and, in the spirit of the new age, I reserve the right to define those things in any way that suits me. Ha! Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 28, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2017 Which is my slightly backward way of saying you're right @HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Which is my slightly backward way of saying you're right @HanoiVillan Oh, you smoothie, you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: . The Greens won't be effective either, because, well, because they're the Greens and they're just mad environmentalists innit. Tbf they ducked Brighton up royally so they are also incompetent as well as mad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 28, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2017 3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: In a more negative light, they also frequently come from the same strata of society (Zac Goldsmith being the personification of this role) and share with upper-class Tories the tendency to view animals more favourably than poor people. Blimey! that's a bit of a leap! And IMO completely, massively, wrong on all 3 counts. But as this isn't the lentil munching thread I'll leave it there except to say I also think you're wrong about the Greens being "conservative", (with either a small or a large C). Talking about large C's, Corbyn and Labour are utterly doomed because they don't know and can't elucidate a consistent message on what they stand for. They're also beyond inept as an opposition. If you can't demonstrate basic competency as opposition, no one will elect you to govern. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, but I don't agree. Leaving aside 'left' and 'left wing' for a minute, they cannot conceivably called 'socialist' in any way. Socialism is a philosophy of redistribution. You can redistribute wealth in two ways - either by force or coercion in the present, 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor', or by ensuring that the proceeds of future growth disproportionately go to the poorest. The UK's environmentalist party, the Green Party, cannot believe in the second option, because they don't want future growth: they aim to move to a zero-growth model. That leaves redistributing wealth today, but they don't have a plan for that either. Their proposal for a land tax has the potential to be redistributive, but is not particularly socialist. The basic income is a mechanism, which can be implemented in progressive or regressive ways, and (for reasons of political pragmatism) their plan was very much at the 'regressive' end (ie, it wouldn't have done anything more than replace basic welfare programs). Instead, as is traditional for small-c conservatives, they aim to temper the growth of the economy while keeping its basic shape the same, which, practically applied, could only mean wage stagnation for the majority of workers and increased inequality. This is not far removed from the effects of Tory party policy - the Greens just have a better reason for achieving similar effects. TL/DR - there's a reason why 'conservationist' and 'conservative' are very similar words. Neither group presents a significant challenge to the established social order, and as such neither can be considered socialist. Already given it a like but that is great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 56 minutes ago, Awol said: Already given it a like but that is great post. Thank you very much, that's very kind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 today is one of those days where corbyn could step up, do something, say something, stamp all over the big political story... same old, the only he has to say on it is a comment on what the tories are doing...he offers nothing, he can stand there all day and tell you how shit the tories are, he cant tell you what labour would do about it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, villa4europe said: today is one of those days where corbyn could step up, do something, say something, stamp all over the big political story... same old, the only he has to say on it is a comment on what the tories are doing...he offers nothing, he can stand there all day and tell you how shit the tories are, he cant tell you what labour would do about it He's the leader of the official opposition. Pointing out what the Govt. is doing, is what he's there for. As for saying what Labour would do, well they are voicing their opposition to Trumps proposed ban. Find fault with Corbyn if you will, but he's been pretty open on plenty that he would prefer the Govt to do on many issues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 23 minutes ago, villa4europe said: he can stand there all day and tell you how shit the tories are, he cant tell you what labour would do about it What can Labour do about an executive order by an American president? Not a whole lot I'm afraid, is the answer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts