[Closed] Natalie Bennett that was bad!

Shocka 😆

Meh. What's the big deal? It's just one bad interview that was short enough so that she couldn't give a full account of their policies against a typical point-scoring journalist.

full account of their policies

I dare you to read them without coming down with a chronic case of WTF.....????

I am particularly fond of the one that ostensibly says it shouldn't be a crime to be a member of a terrorist organisation.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/just-joined-the-green-party-feelis-like-a-weight-has-lifted ]PMSL[/url]

Is this where we get into an argument on the internet, with the only winner being comedy?

[img] [/img]

😀

My personal fave is deliberately taking the economy into negative growth so it can be replaced by a system of barter!!!! 😆 😆 😆

Imagine the collateral they'd inflict on the way to achieving their goal with that little gem 😯 ......

My guess is they'd be the first against the wall after about a week!

It's fair to say she muffed it a bit, but what isn't revealed is the affiliations of the interviewer Nick Ferrari, or Andrew Neil who administered the previous hatchet job.

Nick Ferrari is big mates with Boris:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Andrew Neil has long affiliations with the Conservative Party, from his days on the Sunday Times up to his current role chairing the Spectator:

[img] [/img]

That said, you'd hope as Party Leader, Natalie Bennett could hold her ground a bit better, but as she's said today, it was her error, not the party's.

Natalie Bennett has been watching the Ukip get more and more popular on the back of their series of horrendous gaffes so she probably wanted in on the action

mrlebowski - Member
My personal fave is deliberately taking the economy into negative growth so it can be replaced by a system of barter!!!!

Which one's that then?

What a car crash, I thought the Andrew Neil interview was bad enough, but hell and who was that other scary mad woman?

They're not going to ditch the tree hugging watermelon tags like that.

Which one's that then?

If you implement the following, that's potentially where it ends up:

The cancellation of illegitimate and unsustainable debts
owed by EU countries.

She fluffed it on The Today programme as well.

They have one of the best MPs… such a wasted opportunity not to capitalise on that. Lucas should never have stood down as leader.

[b]geetee1972[/b] needs to have look at how much of the debts of some EU countries were forced on them by the 2nd world war…

If you implement the following, that's potentially where it ends up:

Excellent, a slippery slope argument.

Well where else do you end up if you suddenly decide to cancel an enormous amount of debt? What does that do to the value of your currency? When your currency is effectively worthless, what are you going to use to buy things with?

geetee1972 needs to have look at how much of the debts of some EU countries were forced on them by the 2nd world war…

I am more open minded about debt that is 'illegitimate' and I assume this is what you mean. But they also use the word 'unsustainable' which could mean them cancelling debts legitimately incurred.

If you're against cancelling unsustainable debts, I guess you must be in favour of sustaining them. Good luck with [i]that. [/i]

dannybgoode - Member

I think the overriding issue with the Greens is they mean well but their sums do not stack up.

You mean the 500,000 social rented homes by 2020 ? Agreed, it needs to be more radical than that.

In the 1950s, despite a huge deficit and a huge debt, severe austerity - there was still food rationing, Britain was building 300,000 houses [u]A Year[/u], approximately half was social housing.

And now according to the Lloyds Banking Group Commission on Housing we need 2.5 million new homes by 2025 :

[url= http://www.smartnewhomes.com/discover/property-news/housing-shortage-means-2-5-million-new-homes-needed-28-01-15/#Hg8ARc5gtdrbIGld.97 ]Housing shortage means 2.5 million new homes needed[/url]

And 800,000 new homes by 2021 (from 18 months ago) in London alone :

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24099715 ]London 'needs more than 800,000 new homes'[/url]

500,000 new social rented homes by 2020 ? The Green Party clearly needs to get more radical and challenge this myth that the 5th wealthiest nation on earth can't afford to give all its citizens decent housing.

That's odd because it's here:

Green Party Manifesto 2014

I know this is from last year, but I'm presuming that they are grown up enough not to try and reinvent themselves too far from this.

Lots of chapters are being completely revised at the spring conference next month. The broad strokes will be the same, but a lot of the specific wording will change.

Ernie, could those ambitions not falter at a more local level within the Green Party? I can't imagine too many within planning supporting gravel extraction tarmac plants and concrete batching plants in their area. I don't doubt that housing is required, and providing energy efficient homes is certainly better than much of the delapidated housing at the moment, but short-termism and NIMBY viewpoints will not be easily overcome.

...short-termism and NIMBY viewpoints will not be easily overcome.

I have never heard of a political party losing power or having serious popularity issues because too many homes where built under their watch.

Or that one of Thatcher's great "achievements" was the massive drop in new homes, especially affordable new homes, built during her premiership.

Look at the graph below and at a glance, preferably without paying attention to the dates, see if you can figure out when the Thatcher "revolution" (continued under New Labour) began.

[img] [/img]

Why the sudden drop in house building? A sudden and inexplicable need for less new homes? Or a change in political priorities? Go figure.

I agree with the sentiment at a national level Ernie, but can't help but think it will require many elected officials at council level within planning committees to fall on their swords for the greater good, in places of raw material production, particularly the Green's who may feel that foregoing constituents environmental concerns in their area makes their sword all the pointier.

At least she didn't try to cover up her diabolical performance.

But "brainfade", come on. Perhaps she could try again in a couple of days when her cold is better.

....makes their sword all the pointier.

But then considerably blunted by the huge environmental and economic benefits of new affordable energy efficient homes.

Typical dumb Brit going into work with a cold - makes you look a berk then you end up spreading the virus too.

She should have stayed home alas.

She should have stayed home alas

Bet she wished she'd stayed in Oz!

I love the Greens, they make me feel so young. Apparently I was born on the 23 Feb 2015!!! 😉

Frankenstein - Member
Typical dumb Brit going into work with a cold - makes you look a berk then you end up spreading the virus too.

She should have stayed home alas.

Idiot.

Idiot? As you quite rightly point out entire bloody industries would collapse overnight if people heeded his advice. He's worse than Hitler!

I would have thought that in a city where they control the council and have an MP they could manage to be a bit better than 306th (out of 326 councils) when it comes to recycling.
They seem particularly bad at getting it to a reasonable level

Which one's that then?

[url= http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html ]Should cover it..[/url]

Should cover it..

jota180 - Member

I would have thought that in a city where they control the council and have an MP they could manage to be a bit better than 306th (out of 326 councils) when it comes to recycling.

Not that simple is it? They took over a regime that was even worse for recycling, no garden waste collection etc, and it's been disrupted by strike action. Also they're a minority administration

This description of the press conference yesterday is priceless:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11432400/Sketch-Shes-not-going-to-answer-that-Natalie-Bennett-the-Green-Party-and-the-weirdest-meltdown-of-the-2015-election-so-far.html ]A voice like an indignant dormouse[/url]

Wonder if CH4 will do a "Greens: The first 100 days" programme ?

Na, didn't think so. 😆

ooof..

[img] ?w=540&h=960[/img]

If she stuttered or bumbled abit in interviews- that I can definitely forgive as I hate silver-tongued snake-like politicans.

However I feel shes the sort that likes being a leader and others do the work so doesn't know the detail/doesn't get involved/worry about it. Thus when shes caught out- its bad. True?

Anyone else thinking Patrick Harvie should invade?

A voice like an indignant dormouse

I don't know if you read your own link properly but that insult was aimed at Jenny Jones not Natalie Bennett :

[i]"Hosting the press conference was Jenny Jones, the seaweed-haired Green Party peer with a voice like an indignant dormouse". [/i]

I like Jenny Jones, although I can understand why the Daily Telegraph writers might not like her. Here she is laying into Daily Telegraph columnist Boris Johnson for his appalling slur against cyclists in which he falsely claimed that cyclists were responsible for the majority of accidents :

I would rather have seaweed-haired Jenny Jones with her voice like an indignant dormouse speaking on behalf of me than the tousled haired blonde with the baritone voice.

hora - Member

If she stuttered or bumbled abit in interviews- that I can definitely forgive as I hate silver-tongued snake-like politicans.

However I feel shes the sort that likes being a leader and others do the work so doesn't know the detail/doesn't get involved/worry about it. Thus when shes caught out- its bad. True?

At least it's confirming everything I ever suspected about The Telegraph.

So you don't have anything specific to back your claims up, just a link to some nice policies that have the aim of making the world better and fairer.

EC201: To this end, the Citizens' Income (see EC730) will allow the current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth to be feasible without individual hardship should this be necessary on the grounds of sustainability. (see PB104-106)

NOTE: "Zero or negative growth....." Mmmmm....that's got my vote right there!

NOTE: "Zero or negative growth....." Mmmmm....that's got my vote right there!

The possibility of infinite economic growth on a finite planet. Discuss.

The possibility of infinite economic growth on a finite planet. Discuss.

[img] [/img]

Problem solved!

Boris really is a nasty piece of work isn't he.