[Closed] Why wont people vote green?

Their policies are awful, no nuclear power, and then something that looks old school labour where everything is nationalised. Plus I see lots of spending plans, but no way of paying for them.

I've just voted green by postal vote. I've voted labour all my life, but now just can't bring myself to do it any more. I just can't see what on earth it is they're meant to represent. I don't think they do either. After being hollowed out from the inside by Blair and Brown, all they seem to be is the Tory party, representing unchallenged, a completely failed and discredited neo-liberal consensus, but with a vague promise that while they aid corporations and the rich in ****ing us all over, they won't look like they're enjoying it quite as much as Dave and chums are. pointless.

They're the only party that seems to be prepared to mention the selection of elephants in the room. Namely a completely unreformed, unbalanced and dysfunctional economy and banking system, where the tail has been wagging the dog for far too long, to the detriment of everyone but those at the top of the pile. And an acceptance that as a result of this, everything should now follow the agenda set by these parasites, to appease them yet further. There demands must be met, even if that means the complete abandonment of the post-war consensus of the welfare state and the NHS

I don't think for one minute they have all the solutions. But the fact that they're actually acknowledging the problem in the first place, instead of a resigned shrug, and a continuation of 'business as usual' that got us into this mess in the first place (and will do again) means they're getting my vote

The fact that it upsets Hora, reassures me immeasurably that I'm right in doing so

OK more social policy really, i.e. spend like **** and fund it by taxing business to the eyeballs. Weve been there, it was a shambles.

I will say that they are the only party that offers a genuine alternative to the management style politics of the mainstream but they've forgotten about the shi77y mess we are in debt wise. They're not thinking about a different system just a badly conceived redistribution of wealth.

You're right in that the rest don't have an answer either but then politicians do overstate the power they have over economics and whoever is in charge you won't get away from the fact that some will acquire at the expense of others and periods where it's worse and better for the population as a whole. We need a bit more philosophy in politics to come up with soemthing that offers economic and indidual liberty whilst providing for an adequate social infrastructure.

I agree with binners.

If you read the content of their manifesto it sounds like they will do everything to make life perfect - cheaper transport and energy, create more jobs, increase the minimum wage, build 'truly' affordable housing, scrap the welfare cap, scrap university tuition fees.

Sounds perfect.

No suggestion of how they will do all this save for capping bankers' bonuses and scrapping the HS2 rail link. That ain't gonna pay for all those changes.

The problem for the Greens is that some of the biggest industries in the UK are Defence, Oil & Gas, car manufacturing and banking, yet they seem to want to destroy them all. That'll work well then.

If folk hadn't noticed Labour moved ground to become electable, staying further left was a guarantee they'd never get in.

The problem for the Greens is that some of the biggest industries in the UK are Defence, Oil & Gas, car manufacturing and banking, yet they seem to want to destroy them all. That'll work well then.

And that model has demonstrated grandly that it is completely unsustainable, and totally dysfunctional, and simply not fit for purpose, if your looking to the future. Yet its the suspension of disbelief with the main political parties. So we have the complete recreation of the conditions that led to this catastrophic sequence of events in the first place. A short-termist, self-serving, unregulated banking system, uninterested in investing the health of the real economy, and obsessed with a self-serving bonus culture, a government deliberately stoking a housing bubble for short-term political gain. A complete disinterest in innovation or skills, and a race to the bottom in working conditions and wages. And this goes unchallenged by what is increasingly laughably referred to, apparently without irony, as 'the opposition'

Do you think thats sustainable? We need to radically change our approach. But none of the political parties will even acknowledge theres a problem with this totally ****ed up system in the first place, so completely refuse to engage with the electorate in the issues that actually concern them. Hence the complete disenfranchisement of huge chunks of the country. Myself included. . So until they do, I think I'll vote for a party that is at least to point out there may be an issue with the emperors new clothes. Only when these things are forced onto the agenda, can they be adressed

I've just voted green by postal vote. I've voted labour all my life

This makes me happy. Please spoil your Labour vote with any other please. Bravo! Bravo! 😆

So it'll be 'hello Dave' back but not that bloody idiot Vince Cable. All fangs to Binners xx

Out of interest, where do the Greens stand on the biggest issue with sustainability, which is the massively expanding global population?

I won't vote green because I fundamentally disagree with their energy policy and their refusal to consider nuclear power.

"ARRGHH! NUCULAR! BABIES WITH THREE HEADS! DEATH! DESTRUCTION! MELTDOWNS!"

Out of interest, where do the Greens stand on the biggest issue with sustainability, which is the massively expanding global population?

Start with restricting the populations geographic movements, suppress free enterprise (drive small businesses to the wall with high taxes), forceably insert women into leadership positions.

Next, a return to communal farming policy?
Hey the early days of Comrade China anyone? 😉

you could call it a protest vote, which would probably be fair, but it's a lot better than not bothering. you could say the same things about voting ukip, but the significant difference is that the greens mean well.

women into leadership positions

WON'T SOMEBODY STOP THESE MANIACS!!!

You best get used to coalition government you Thatcherite tool. The days of Blair-esque (or your hero's) majorities are long gone. Brought on by the political parties being virtually indistinguishable from one another, and the apathy and resentment thats produced. So maybe voting for minority party (or perish the thought - voting for someone with a modicum of enthusiasm) will make bit more difference in future. I'm prepared to give it a go anyway, because I'm absolutely sick to the back teeth of the mainstream alternative

And if you're voting for the present Tory party then you're providing ample proof, as if it were needed, that you're an absolute mongtard. Talk about Turkeys and christmas.

[img] [/img]

When alls said and done. You voted for Bliar and new murder 😉

Is there a pro-nuclear power party?

I quite like electricity, so I would vote for one if it existed.

I'd vote for anyone who places large windfarms in rural ex-farmer/city workers properties.

I'd vote green if they could ensure we remain competitive in the global economy. But sadly their stance seems too blinkered for that...

When alls said and done. You voted for Bliar and new murder

How teethgrindingly pointless.

Its like in the movie badboys discussing who has the highest body-count.

We know the latter would win hands down, even if the majority are 'collateral damage'.

[i]I never eat in restaurants partly because they serve re-heated industrial bilge (check stats before you rubbish me).[/i]
These establishments do not register with me as actually being restaurants. Pizza hut is not a restaurant, Franky and Benny's, is not a restaurant, the Kings Head, is not a restaurant, etc, etc.

[i]I've just voted green by postal vote. I've voted labour all my life,[/i]
Never mind.

[i]a completely failed and discredited neo-liberal consensus, but with a vague promise that while they aid corporations and the rich in ****ing us all over,[/i]
You're sore because you ain't successful in business. Its easy to spot your jealousy. Corporations employ people and provide funds for private pensions. Go look at BP.

[i]OK more social policy really, i.e. spend like **** and fund it by taxing business to the eyeballs. Weve been there, it was a shambles.[/i]
10/10 for swear filter avoidance. Good effort !

[i]If folk hadn't noticed Labour moved ground to become electable, staying further left was a guarantee they'd never get in.[/i]
Yes, but I find it interesting to find on here, so many folk who appear to desire a massive swing to the far left, in this country. Its yesterdays nightmare and best consigned to history. Permanently !

[i]And that model has demonstrated grandly that it is completely unsustainable, and totally dysfunctional, and simply not fit for purpose, if your looking to the future. Yet its the suspension of disbelief with the main political parties.[/i]
Hold it right [b]there[/b] !
Its alright for some folk to espouse the merits of a certain political party, when the policies of that party have no or little detrimental effect to their daily lives. Its the some ole crap.
Voting green, when you already, don't drive, work local, grow your own veg, etc. Doesn't make you an example to the rest of us, any more that showing how savvy you are for selecting a party which may cause you the least inconvenience. This is not to be confused with being responsible.
Instead, this is the process of voting for the least [i]pain[/i], [i]most[/i] gain in one's life, from the choices available.

Hora - have you been putting crystal meth on your cornflakes again? Here you go….

[img] [/img]

Go and crack one off, and calm yourself down

EDIT: Solo - I don't even have to ask you the same question. The answers pretty obvious.

Its like in the movie badboys discussing who has the highest body-count.

more like hot fuzz where they're discussing which bad boys movie is the best one

binners, I never voted for Thatcher or John Major. Just for the record.

I admired her going into a chauvinistic world and the mess that she had to pick up. She was vilified because of it. She couldn't win.

"mongtard".

Is that an actual word?

Or even an argument?

It isn't an argument Wopster, but it is a word, yes. Have you ever met Hora?

binners, your extended post on p2 is fantastic.

They're the only party that seems to be prepared to mention the selection of elephants in the room

I don't think for one minute they have all the solutions

at this point, that is key.
lets remain focussed on what you are voting for this week, its not a [b]general election[/b] where you can expect an [b]outright majority[/b] and immediately see nuclear, defence and combustion engines banned

its about providing a little more balance to the conversations which are currently ongoing

To answer the question "where do the Greens stand on" the best way to answer is look here:

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/

Out of interest, where do the Greens stand on the biggest issue with sustainability, which is the massively expanding global population?

To answer this specifically, look here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pp.html

Their science policy is stuck in the dark ages anti gm, anti stem cell, and generally very damaging to medical and scuentific research on (knee jerk) principal rather than based on any sound reasoning
As a scientist I can't see past that no matter how much I a agree with their other policies

Also they need to get behind nuclear

That's not a realistic representation of Green Science policy at all, perhaps "as a scientist" you might want to do some research and provide evidence to back up your assertion?

Stem Cells:

"The Green Party acknowledges the existing and potential future benefits to humans and other animals from stem cell technologies, using both adult and embryonic cellular material. These benefits include direct medical advances, improved non-animal testing methods for new medical treatments, and the advancement of knowledge. However, we also emphasize the importance of continuing ethical regulation, adequate government funding, and transparency of research in the areas of embryonic and adult stem cell technologies, to protect donors and the public health."

Lots on GM here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/fa.html but it's probably a political opposition to GM rather than a scientific one - where GM is used to proliferate a monopoly for a tiny number of massive producers, then it's only going to cause problems - from an agriculture problem, monocultures can be devastating to food supplies, see bananas for a looming problem with that - making GM monocultures won't solve the problem, and puts the "solution" in the hands of a small number of companies.

Again, not sure what you mean by research - there are a number of relevant policies there.

Nuclear - I don't disagree, but me and people like me are yet to win the argument in the party. However, the fact that, as a party, we discus and agree on a set of policies for everyone to see means that ordinary people, and indeed experts, have a much greater degree of influence in the policies of the party than any other party.

*Like*. : )

If binners had been born in Spain he'd be called Senor Fuktardo

In terms of why do people not vote green - other than lack of media coverage (just look at the number of times the similarly sized (if not smaller) in terms of representation UKIP gets on the radio and TV, compared to a Green representative and you can see there is a massive discrepancy - despite the fact that UKIP is a single issue party, and the Green Party is not.

There is a structural bias against the green party is a lot if different things - take polling for example, some polling companies (ComRes and ICM) never include a specific option to indicate a green vote - you can say it in the free text, but this will tend to under report - YouGov sometimes has a green option, and sometimes does not. All of them consistently include a UKIP option - this has an impact on the media coverage, and therefore the awareness, which translates to votes.

Within the party, the reaction against this has been to focus on winning elections on the ground, by getting round to people's houses and talking to them, and demonstrating that a Green Councillor will be a good thing for them locally - many people never a see a councillor, and the fact that the party makes an effort in a lot of places (this is how it has taken a whole bunch of seats in the west midlands recently) means it gets a foothold - which in some places it has built on (Brighton, Bristol, Norwich, Solihull, Lancaster). These have all been won by boots on the ground election tactics, something the Tories all but abandoned years ago, UKIP have never done, and is sporadic in Labour and the Lib Dems, for Greens it's the only approach that has been demonstrated to work.

FA314 The Green Party supports a moratorium on production and import of genetically modified (GM) foods, including food from animals fed on GM feed.

with no explanation or reasoning why?
no mention of monopolies, monocultures or or any other justification, just luddism

Binbins. Calm down dear. I didn't expect you to say:
[i]"yeah, ok, you have got a point there, with some of the stuff you posted"[/i].

[i]Senor Fuktardo[/i]
I know I shouldn't, but ^^ was funny.
😆

I wish they didn't look so green, I like a bit of power dressing especially in the 40% on the board. Still they'll get my vote in the absence of anything vagely human.

edit: oh and i don't like growth,-there I've said it growth, growth, growth thats all the others bang on about looks to me like we could all do with growing a little less.

Selective quoting, why?

The full quote...

FA314 The Green Party supports a moratorium on production and import of genetically modified (GM) foods, including food from animals fed on GM feed. Whilst such food is available, it must be labelled as including GM ingredients. (See FA720-721)

With the full policy section:

Genetic Modification
Background

FA710 Genetic engineering will not solve the problems created by industrialised agriculture and it may add to them. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) tend to secure large profits for a few multinational companies, rather than making farming easier or more efficient.

FA711 Many environmental problems have been associated with genetically modified (GM) crops:

(a) GM crops may cross-breed with wild varieties or wild species and transfer genes to other plants, posing a long-term threat to wildlife and biodiversity.

(b) Herbicide-resistant genes have been transferred to other plants, creating ‘super weeds’.

(c) Herbicides used with GM crops have been shown to harm both wildlife and human health.

(d) GM crops producing bio-pesticide toxins may be toxic to wildlife and encourage resistance in the target species.

(e) GM crops undermine organic and conventional farming through cross-contamination and by creation of resistant pests.

FA712 The use of GM crops in poor countries has proved disastrous to farming communities. Not only have the crops failed in many cases, but they undermine the diversity of local seed varieties with monoculture GM crops designed to secure profits for multinational biotechnology companies. There is no evidence that GM crops will ‘solve’ the problem of world food shortages through increased productivity: there are many social and economic issues that need to be addressed to prevent food shortages in poorer countries. (See also ST362, ST370)

FA713 Despite widespread introduction of GM foods in the United States and elsewhere, the potential dangers of GM foods to human health have not been properly investigated and risks remain considerable.

Policies

FA720 The Green Party supports a moratorium on the use of GMOs in all agricultural systems including production of human food and animal feed and on importation of GM food or feed. (See AR413, CC254, EU489 and ST364)

FA721 We define GM food as any:

(a) that is genetically modified or includes ingredients from genetically modified crops; or

(b) that is from genetically modified animals; or

(c) that is from animals that have been fed genetically modified feed.

So long as any such food is available in this country, it must be labelled as containing genetically modified ingredients or coming from genetically modified sources.

FA722 The Green Party will establish and uphold the rights of consumers, farmers and local authorities to choose GM-free food and to establish GM-free zones. We will legislate for a strict liability regime which makes biotech (GM seed) companies and GM food producers fully liable for any losses through contamination or harm caused to the environment or human health. (See ST364)

FA723 We will apply the precautionary principle and place strict conditions on research using genetic engineering to ensure that GMOs do not escape, pollinate other plants or cause other damage. (See ST363)

At least reference the whole thing, rather than being selective.

I'm not saying it's perfect, and there is almost certainly a lengthy background paper hidden somewhere on the members only bit of the website which provides a lengthy background to the reasons for these aspects of the policy as well. However, there is more to it than your very selective quote.

A short-termist, self-serving, unregulated banking system, uninterested in investing the health of the real economy, and obsessed with a self-serving bonus culture, a government deliberately stoking a housing bubble for short-term political gain. A complete disinterest in innovation or skills, and a race to the bottom in working conditions and wages. And this goes unchallenged by what is increasingly laughably referred to, apparently without irony, as 'the opposition'

Not only the opposition, the electorate as well. Too many self-interested people here these days, who will cling to this model and its diminishing returns to the bitter end in the belief they will be spared its unpleasant side effects, or at best be the last to go.

The human race has a habit of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. This is going to be a bloody big horse.

The problem with the greens is they are all social lefties or that is the impression. There is no reason why a party could not be pro capitalism and still promote and legislate green laws. The two do not have to go hand in hand. They are too right on and I think this annoys a lot of people. The stupid thing is that there can't be that many people in the country would do not support an environmental policy or would not support environmental laws being brought in. So if they had other sensible policies that people agreed with then they would probably be in a very good place.

my very selective quote highlighted the important bit, - that they want a blanket ban on all GM crops!

Ill pick apart the entire piece later; its riddled with fallacies & inaccuracies, Im off to give my lab presentation at lunch, about using genome editing tools to 'genetically modify' liver cells in people who suffer from familial hypercholesterolaemia, you probably wouldnt like it

So, out of all the parties I can vote for, which one(s) will do something about population expansion ?

They will get my vote.

[i]Too many self-interested people[/i]

Thats my point, Binners can vote green/labour, cos it hurts them little, if at all.

[i]There is no reason why a party could not be pro capitalism and still promote and legislate green laws.[/i]

You'd like to think so, but lobbying is often used, imo, against the interest of the majority. Unfortunately !

Voting Green is like voting for monster loony party innit?

They are protest group Not politicians.

Everyone can write detail policies if that is the job/career.

I rather Green party become extreme eco warrior taking up arms ...

😆

that they want a blanket ban on all GM crops!

It doesn't say that though, does it. It specifically uses the word moratorium - that is, a temporary cessation, not a blanket ban - if it was a ban, then it would have said it. A moratorium doesn't preclude the use of it in the future.

I personally have nothing against genetic modification as a thing, and your absurd suggestion that I do is a tedious knee jerk reaction. As I said, the opposition to it is political, not scientific.

It's worth noting that on the agenda for the Autumn Conference is a proposal to re-write the above to read:

"Synopsis: Corporations use GM technology to control food markets. This motion strengthens regulations to counter this, as part of a pro-science and precautionary approach.

Delete FA420 part k.

Replace FA710 with the following:
Genetic engineering is a technology that may be beneficial as part of a sustainable agriculture industy. However, there are possible drawbacks and these must be balanced with the potential benefits. Genetic engineering will not solve the problems created by industrialised agriculture and it may add to them. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) tend to secure large profits for a few multinational companies, rather than making farming easier or more efficient.

Replace FA720-FA721 with the following and renumber accordingly:

FA720 The Green Party will introduce regulation to ensure that GM crops can only be grown outside of a laboratory environment if they pass strict environmental and health tests. The relevant sections of the scientific community will be consulted in the process of creating this regulation.

FA721 We define GM food as any:
(a) that is genetically modified or includes ingredients from genetically modified crops; or
(b) that is from genetically modified animals; or
(c) that is from animals that have been fed genetically modified feed.
We recognise that some consumers do not wish to buy GM foods so will require all GM food products to be labelled as containing genetically modified ingredients.

FA722 One of the biggest problems with GM food, is the corporate control of the food market, enforced through patents. Our ban on patenting genes of living organisms (FA702 ) will help to counter this.

FA723 We will push for national and international regulation to require GM crops to be "open source" - that is, their genetic code and technical documents outlining engineering procedures will be open to public inspection, free of cost. This will enable wider analysis, peer-review and derivative research."

Which I will be supporting.

There is no reason why a party could not be pro capitalism and still promote and legislate green laws.

Woody - I think someone else had cottoned on to that one a while back….

[img] [/img]

I don't know if it won him any votes, but it was part of the overall charm offensive to convince us all he wasn't part of 'the nasty party'. The trouble is that once elected, it turned to… to use his very phrase 'drop the green crap'

Both the main parties could be stressing their green credentials for all they're worth. Would you believe them? Because I bloody wouldn't. And that is what lies at the heart of most of the arguments here. Its the cynicism of mainstream politics, and their nonchalant attitude to outright deception and lies, when it comes to issues like this

I just hope the Green prty benefits from this disaffection instead of that idiot…

[img] [/img]

genome editing tools to 'genetically modify' liver cells in people who suffer from familial hypercholesterolaemia

Sounds a bit "sciencey" to me.

Do you float, or sink?