[Closed] The Greens are coming! Quick, panic!

[i]church schools will be stripped of taxpayer funding. Religious instruction will be banned in school hours. [/i]

they've got my vote 🙂

Interestingly our local Tory candidate tweeted this am that he sees the Hove seat being a battle between the Tory and Green candidates.

I'm slightly wary that these policies are being analysed by the Torygraph.

Some of what the Greens say make sense, and are quite attractive. But some if it smacks a bit too much of Pol Pots push for Year Zero, and none of it appears to be properly costed and funded. I can see them taking votes from Labour and the LibDems, not sure they will take enough to gain seats.

But with so many disaffected voters on all sides, it will be a very hard election to predict with any sort of accuracy.

Blimey - to say that people accuse them of not having any policies, there are an awful lot of controversial statements in that article.

I know it's the Torygraph, but they're not trying to make friends are they?

(except me)

It's bizarrely written as the "scariest horror story you can tell the right wing"... whilst I read it as "that's a bit mad but the rest of it makes perfect sense"*

* I read the Guardian MOTWYW

church schools will be stripped of taxpayer funding. Religious instruction will be banned in school hours.

But some if it smacks a bit too much of Pol Pots push for Year Zero

Think you may be overstating it a bit

It does range [ and i have not read the article but the green website] from the yes I like that to the WTF though

They are nuts lets just walk away from NATO, EU, and get rid of any form of defence.

[i]It does range [ and i have not read the article but the green website] from the yes I like that to the WTF though [/i]

I find that with all the political parties, tbh.

The Tories seem to lurch from 'free market/personal choice' to 'you can't do that/we know best' with their policies and Labour constantly try to out Tory the Tories on economic policies.

The language in the Telgraph article makes it difficult to see the policy for the spin though. I agree with decriminalising drug possesion, for example, but I don;t understand enough about prostitution to know if it's a good idea.

It's bizarrely written as the "scariest horror story you can tell the right wing"

Yeah, the opening gambit is basically, 'they're gaining ground, quick, stop them!'

I read it as 'Take every policy that would be a Tory wet dream and state the opposite'.

At this stage where they're never going to get power to enact that to any significant degree I'm ok with going with them as a counter to the nutters on the other side.

Its less of a scare story and more of a summary of their policies that can be found on the greens website.

amongst their other bonkers destructive policies:

- membership and public support for proscribed terrorist organisations like Al Quaeda and the IRA will no longer be a criminal offence
- "inheritance" taxes will no be charged during life as well as on death
- the economy will be managed into decline so as to reduce consumption - with the goal being prolonged recession
- dope will be available for all, despite the knock on effect on mental health... but booze will be taxed much higher
- independent schools will pay corporation tax, almost certainly leading to the long term failure of the country as we "dumb down" to the lowest standard
- the BBC will be forced to show "educational" programming at peak time, irrespective of whether anyone wants to watch it
- advertising of holidays / holiday flights will be banned
- a vegan diet will be imposed on the population through "research, education and economic measures”
- Britain will leave NATO
- Large enterprise will be dismantled and we will all work for cottage industries

The Green's seem as far removed from reality as much of the labour party whose policies are largely driven by populist politics of division, perfectly illustrated by the spat between Chris Bryant and James Blunt

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11355123/James-Blunt-pens-letter-to-classist-prejudiced-wazzock-Chris-Bryant-MP-over-privilege-claims.html ]Chris Bryant is a classist prejudiced wazzock[/url]

get rid of any form of defence.

Who are we defending ourselves from? As opposed to poking our armed forces in where they aren't welcome?

At least half of what just5minutes has posted sounds pretty reasonable to me. Far more reasonable than "everyone keep eating fatty stuff, drinking loads of booze, polluting etc, businesses carry on benefiting at the expense of the general public and we'll carry on getting involved with wars that are none of our business", which seems to be the current policy.

but I don;t understand enough about prostitution to know if it's a good idea.

Spounds like you need to do some 'research' 😉

Ah beaten to the joke 😉
IMHO its the same as drugs - prohibition does not work so do least harm. this is within the legal framework. I am not a fan of prostitution but my personal view wont end the profession lets protect the women

The Tories seem to lurch from 'free market/personal choice' to 'you can't do that/we know best' with their policies

So they trust business to do the right thing but not people 😕

I've never been accused of just "overstating" stuff on here before!

Like all the parties there is good and bad. Drugs and prostitution have not been defeated over the years, decriminalisation and effective control may be more appropriate. Consumers expectations of ever increasing but unsustainable living standards need to be reset, addressing the underlying social, political and economic causes of terrorism needs to happen, but I'm not convinced by a lot of their other policies.

To me, the problem with a lot of socialist policies are that they assume that all people can and will be happy with an equal share of everything, when the old adage is true that if you gave the entire world population an equal share of global wealth then human nature dictates that 24 hours later some will have nothing left and some will be richer.

The problem with many right wing policies is that they pander to those who get richer at the expense of those who are more vulnerable.

Clearly the only solution is for me to create a benign dictatorship and rule the world for the good of all people. Mwehahaha!

[url= http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21637420-green-party-growing-force-british-politics-if-only-it-was-more-world-green ]Not sold[/url]. As per the article shame we don't have an alternative choice who aren't year-zero nutters or nationalist zealots.

Hang on, are we getting rid of soaps and reality TV in favour of more educational programming?

Mods, delete my post above, I'm voting Green!

Perhaps they might extend the education policy to eliminate charitable status from the independent sector (they may already be proposing this). In which case, they will prove their inability to join the dots up. Nice ideas that fall over on implementation because they are economically naive.

Nice and fluffy thought. The "lenor" party!?!

church schools will be stripped of taxpayer funding. Religious instruction will be banned in school hours.

Sold.

Sold here too, if anyone from a party with a realistic chance of power are reading this... please stop subsidizing the instruction of our children to live their lives according to some Iron Age fairy tale.

Indoctrinate your children by all means but don't expect the taxpayer to fund it.

But some if it smacks a bit too much of Pol Pots push for Year Zero,

Emptying the cities and making everyone work on the land?
Forcibly removing children from their families and placing them in collectives?
Torturing intellectuals?
Murdering 2 million people?

I must have missed that in the manifesto...

The Green party is as religious as any actual religion.

The policy list really is quite bonkers in places.

hatter,
Bronze age not Iron age
.. otherwise agreed 🙂

Given the track record of both the main parties over the last few decades, I reckon its time to give some people who are 'plainly bonkers' a go.

People say they're mental. And some of the stuff is. But is it any more mental than saying we're going to spend one thousand scallion quid on Trident? Which both the main parties unquestioningly support. Or carrying on spanking billions in the completely ridiculous 'war on drugs'. Again... something neither main party will coutenece disputing the completely expensive, totally ineffectual status quo?

Could it work out any worse for the average bod on the street, than another 5 years of the usual suspects? You remember them? The people (us) which the main parties have now given up any pretence to giving a flying **** about

The policy list really is quite bonkers in places.

Such as?

In general terms, can we really say that the status quo has so worked well (economically, environmentally and socially) that we shouldn't try something different?

Perhaps the independent sector could actually be a charity and we would not need to do this?
they will treat them as a business as that is what they clearly are
What "charitable" work would you like to claim the fee paying schools do ?

Again when you state your view you need to explain WHY you think as you do as, ironically, its impossible to join up the dots in your thinking.

Its worth noting

Private schools, it always surprises me to remember, are charities. They are therefore subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of more than £100m a year.

Wow, the Greens are certainly 'different', but in a batsh!t mental kind of way

The Green party is as religious as any actual religion.

By all means criticise them [ and there is plenty there if you disliek them] but the year zero trope and this is , to put it mildly, weak mud slinging

In general terms, can we really say that the status quo has so worked well (economically, environmentally and socially) that we shouldn't try something different?

You think creating more jobless people, through managed recession is actually going to achieve a benefit to the environment? No, what it will end in is either the Greens having to take power undemocraticly to get policies through, or they will be voted out of power after massive social instability. The alternative is managed growth that encourages the development of green technology and space exploration in combination with good family planning education.

That's just one to start with. Let's not forget their policies in regards to nuclear and GMO's which are at odds with science.

What is the god they believe in?

How hard is it to understand that you do not need "god", to effectively be religious. These people are as brainwashed and shot in the head as any Jehova's Witness.

heh heh.. the usual right wing nutjobs on here just popping up and going 'it's all bloody bonkers' is making me giggle..

bleedin eedjits 😆

"Make BBC4 the new BBC1".... again gets my vote.

[?] Green

Tom_W1987 - the thing is no one expects them to get the power to do some of these things

A fair number of their policies do make sense to a lot of people though and I, for one, hope they end up in a coalition where they do a deal more than the LibDems to influence their partners.

I've lived under a Green council for the past few years and whilst a lot of what they do isn't much different to the other parties they have done a number of 'Green' things I applaud to influence the local environment (city wide 20mph speed limits, for example)

Private schools, it always surprises me to remember, are charities. They are therefore subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of more than £100m a year.

You think creating more jobless people, through managed recession is actually going to achieve a benefit to the environment? No, what it will end in is either the Greens having to take power undemocraticly to get policies through, or they will be voted out of power after massive social instability.

Repeating "the end of the world is nigh" isn't making your assertions any more credible.

That's just one to start with. Let's not forget their policies in regards to nuclear and GMO's which are at odds with science.

And a fair few of their policies make no sense at all wwaswas. I'm sorry, I can't vote for them, they smack me as being way to ideological as opposed to being driven by rationality.

I'm reminded of the following quote -

The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. They want to turn the world into a sickroom. And once they get humanity strapped to the operating table, they operate on it with an ax.

I'd say it was more than £100 million. They saved a lot just on rates, let alone any other tax/vat savings they make;

[i]However, 2,570 fee-charging schools can claim an 80% cut in their business rates on the basis that they are charities, and in 2013 they saved £165m through this route.[/i]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/24/private-schools-labour-warning-tax-breaks-tristram-hunt ]http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/24/private-schools-labour-warning-tax-breaks-tristram-hunt[/url]

[i]they smack me as being way to ideological as opposed to being driven by rationality. [/i]

Can you point me at a political party where none of their policies are driven by ideology?

I think [url= http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/ ]these[/url] should make a comeback - some of their policies look ok

And a fair few of their policies make no sense at all wwaswas. I'm sorry, I can't vote for them, they smack me as being way to ideological as opposed to being driven by rationality.

You're suggesting that a political party is driven by ideology? Whatever next!

Repeating "the end of the world is nigh" isn't making your assertions any more credible.

This is rather ironic given what the greens stand for.

Anyone who has any understanding of political sociology would know that policy in particularly, would lead to massive upheaval. Anyone with any common sense would also know that it would in no way make any difference to the state the planet is in.

You're suggesting that a political party is driven by ideology? Whatever next!

They shouldn't be, but the greens more so than anyone and that makes me uneasy. We need less ideology.

This is rather ironic given what the greens stand for.

Anyone who had any understanding of political sociology would know that policy in particularly, would lead to massive upheaval. Anyone with any common sense would also know that it would in know way make any difference to the state the planet is in.

So you keep saying. Any chance of some evidence for your assertions?

They shouldn't be, but the greens more so than anyone and that makes me uneasy. We need less ideology.

Having just read the scare tactics, half of it makes sense and the other half is off the scale bonkers, very tempted to vote for them until I read that:

[b]The monarchy will be abolished[/b]

So you keep saying. Any chance of some evidence for your assertions?

Neither can the Greens, or you, make a case for managed decline and the inevitable joblessness that would be associated with such a policy.

Anyone with any common sense would also know that it would in no way make any difference to the state the planet is in.

Anyone with any common sense would probably be too busy being a bit embarrassed by your suggestion that the Green party are going to stage a coup.

All politicians should be driven by an ideology, then we can understand what they wish to achieve.

I'm not convinced by the Greens ideology. Or anyone else's at the moment.

And I'm really sorry for making all those people think I really thought the Greens were the next Khmer Rouge 🙄

Anyone with any common sense would probably be too busy being a bit embarrassed by your suggestion that the Green party are going to stage a coup.

Exactly how else would hold such a policy down, whilst the rest of the world powered ahead - ignoring the kooks that were now running the UK?

They couldn't.

[i]They shouldn't be, but the greens more so than anyone[/i]

Could you maybe explain how the Greens ideological approach is any different to/deeper than the Tory one, as an example?

Neither can the Greens, or you, make a case for managed decline and the inevitable joblessness that would be associated with such a policy.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you want a proper discussion, then quote their main policy commitments and provide us with evidence as to why they won't work.

"The monarchy will be abolished" and the bit about not teaching religion in schools are two of the main reasons to vote for them!

Give them a go, seriously, what's the worst that can happen? Things might actually improve.

The monarchy will be abolished

Yay! French stylee I hope! 😀

[img] [/img]

As long as they don't start waving pints around in a pub, I'm happy to vote for a better use of the television medium.

Wwaswas, the independent schools may have claimed tax relief to the tune of £100m or so but the additional cost to the state of educating their 615,000 pupils would be around £4.5b in direct costs and likely many more times that in capital costs to build the space required. £100m to save £4.5b seems like a pretty good return.

And I'm really sorry for making all those people think I really thought the Greens were the next Khmer Rouge

I just thought referencing an organisation that murdered 2 million people made you look like a bit of a knob.

I just thought referencing an organisation that murdered 2 million people made you look like a bit of a knob.

“Alternative” medicine will be promoted.

I'm out.

I don't know what you're talking about. If you want a proper discussion, then quote their main policy commitments and provide us with evidence as to why they won't work.

The party’s manifesto argues for zero, or even negative growth and falling levels of personal consumption. Britain would be in permanent recession; families would become materially poorer each year.

As to why that won't work, see rest of world.

“Alternative” medicine will be promoted.

LMFAO!

I think it was more the empty the cities and head into the fields bit, rather than the head count reduction he was talking about

If it wsa done after an intelligence test, I would vote for a cull, rid this land of a few chavs and prisoners, would that really be so bad?

As to why that won't work, see rest of world.

I asked you to quote their manifesto, not what the Torygraph thinks of it.

“Alternative” medicine will be promoted.

I can't find that on their website...

I agree with the sentiment of the Greens:

A system based on inequality and exploitation is threatening the future of the planet on which we depend, and encouraging reckless and environmentally damaging consumerism.

A world based on cooperation and democracy would prioritise the many, not the few, and would not risk the planet’s future with environmental destruction and unsustainable consumption.

...but yeah, there policies do seem pretty crazy (even accounting for The Telegraph re-wording them). However, it says they were last main draft was in 1990.

Maybe now people are falling out of favour with the main parties, some suitably high-calibre people will be attracted to parties that previously wouldn't have been anywhere near power, and rewrite them (as happened to UKIP recently)

[i]Wwaswas, the independent schools may have claimed tax relief to the tune of £100m or so but the additional cost to the state of educating their 615,000 pupils would be around £4.5b in direct costs and likely many more times that in capital costs to build the space required. £100m to save £4.5b seems like a pretty good return. [/i]

One assumes that parents of these children are currently spending more than £4.5billion/annum on their education - typically 3-4 times probably.

It's more than £100 million subsidy - see above.

Will that 'discretionary' spend that currently goes on school fees not then go elsewhere and be taxed (either as VAT or something else)?

also, what proportion of the 615000 are pupils who are not UK residents and would thus not enter the state system in any case?

I wonder whether the people of Brighton understand that their MP is in favour of decriminalizing Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Given it's a city with a large number of retirees I cannot imagine their inheritance tax proposals will find much support either

The list of Green party policies makes UKIP look middle of the road. Having seen them we do need them in a debate, they'll be a laughing stock.

Can we just discuss this "Common sense" thing for a second? What does it actually mean?

The overall mindset of the people clearly varies significantly accross a variety of issues, hence the existence of a range of political parties, different coloured wallpaper, preference for hardtails or fullsofas and so on and so forth.

Where is this "common" sense of which some speak? Or is it a mirage and a misidentifying of the proponent's views as "commonly held" or "correct" rather than universal?

I don't think it's a term that stands up to any scrutiny, and perhaps we'd all be able to understand what people were really saying if they cut it out.

PS: definitely read their site, not the Telegraph interpretation e.g.

What the Greens say on their website

"It will make full-time paid employment less necessary, and will encourage home-based and part-time employment, and work in the 'third sector'. People will be able to choose their own working lifestyles"

The Telegraph spin...

"the Greens argue that government policy should make paid work “less necessary”, with people making their living from the home-based “informal economy”"

One assumes that parents of these children are currently spending more than £4.5billion/annum on their education - typically 3-4 times probably.

It's more than £100 million.

Will that 'discretionary' spend that currently goes on school fees not then go elsewhere and be taxed (either as VAT or something else)?

also, what proportion of the 615000 are pupils who are not UK residents and would thus not enter the state system in any case?

I would imagine a large portion of that school fee money would be invested in property otherwise or put into pensions.

10% of private school kids are non UK resident would be my guess, higher for some top schools of course but not across the whole country

They can say whatever the f they like in the secure knowledge that they will never be called upon to deliver it, but it will attract the kind of batshit mental demographic that they want.

Bit like the LibDems before it all went wrong and they ended up in coalition, dropping their manifesto promises left, left, and left.

The Greens hope to get 3 seats, that's less than 0.5% of the seats in Parliament so they will quite rightly have zero impact on Government

I wonder whether the people of Brighton understand that their MP is in favour of decriminalizing Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Has anyone ever actually been convicted of being a member of either of these organisations? Its just one of those stupid pointless laws, put on the statute books to stop the Daily Mail humphing for 30 seconds. Our legal system is littered with this type of unenforceable, ill-conceived, barely thought through, back of a fag packet, tabloid pacifying nonsense.

Dangerous Dogs Act anyone?

[i]I wonder whether the people of Brighton understand that their MP is in favour of decriminalizing Al-Qaeda and ISIS.[/i]

I've had a quick look on their website (particularly at their 2010 manifesto) and can't see this mentioned?

[edit]
There's a bit in here about not outlawing organisations but still beign illegal to aid or abet or fund terrorism - is that the thing? I guess it's a freedom of speech choice, isn;t it?
[i]
Terrorism

PD440 Terrorism is an extremely loaded term, frequently used by those in power to justify excessive use of force or the weakening of controls on the exercise of their power. Sometimes governments justify their own terrorist acts by labelling any groups that resist their monopoly of violence "terrorist". A Green government, by implementing principles laid out elsewhere in this manifesto, particularly those of self-determination and non-interventionist foreign policies, would seek to overcome the unjust divisions within our global and domestic society and address the desperate motivations that lie behind many atrocities labelled "terrorist".

PD441 However, democratic societies need to protect themselves against those who seek to use terror and violence against them and to have plans in place that mitigate against the effects of attack. In a complex, modern society, it will be a long time before we can entirely eradicate the root causes of "terrorism". Any measures to protect society should not undermine the fundamental values that shape a green society: inclusion, justice and equality.

PD442 Police and intelligence investigations of terrorist activity need to be well resourced, and given sufficient freedom to ensure their safety and efficacy. They must, though, be carried out in a transparent and accountable way, and remain within the law.

PD443 Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.

PD444 We support the inclusion of crimes of terrorism in the mandate of the International Criminal Court and, in the meantime, the use of ad hoc courts under UN auspices, on neutral territory but under the law of the country in which the crime was committed.

PD445 The contribution of particular activities (such as air travel and nuclear power) to the general risk to society of massive attack should be ad[/i]equately factored into public choice about their funding and future.

Would like to see the logic that ends up with them being be anti religion in schools but pro alternative medicine.

The Greens hope to get 3 seats, that's less than 0.5% of the seats in Parliament so they will quite rightly have zero impact on Government

All that tells us is that FPTP is very poor at representing the will of the electorate.

Would like to see the logic that ends up with them being be anti religion in schools but pro alternative medicine.

All I can see on their website is that they're in favour of regulating alternative medicines so they're safe. That's a good thing, isn't it?

church schools will be stripped of taxpayer funding. Religious instruction will be banned in school hours.
Sold.

Sold here too, if anyone from a party with a realistic chance of power are reading this... please stop subsidizing the instruction of our children to live their lives according to some Iron Age fairy tale.

Indoctrinate your children by all means but don't expect the taxpayer to fund it.

Strange, about a quarter of UK primary schools are owned by the church (land, buildings or both) who allow the government to use them free of charge,

The Green Party policy appears to require shutting about 4500 schools. Can you imagine if the Tories suggested that?

Presumably they mean 'church' schools that aren't in voluntary local council control.

Strange, about a quarter of UK primary schools are owned by the church (land, buildings or both) who allow the government to use them free of charge,

Really? Round here, the church has allowed the state to rebuild its schools for free, and provide 95% of the funding needed to run them. In return, the church sets an admissions policy that excludes most of the local community.

ransos - Member
All I can see on their website is that they're in favour of regulating alternative medicines so they're safe. That's a good thing, isn't it?

well, let's have a look:

H326 ...a single agency... will ensure that medicines meet minimum safety standards, provide clear labelling of both ingredients and side-effects. The agency will cover existing synthetic medicines as well as those considered as natural or alternative medicines.

HE349 Assisted death presents moral and legal concerns to health care professionals and the public ... [b]Alternatives[/b], such as palliative care must be discussed with the patient

For individuals suffering from mental health distress, a range of evidence-based therapies and treatments will be readily available, based on the NICE guidelines. Provision of talking therapies should be made more readily available either in addition to or as an [b]alternative[/b] to medication.

crazy talk!

[i]The Green Party policy appears to require shutting about 4500 schools.[/i]

or, like the Tories want to do, the state could just lease the school premises from a private organisation (in this case the Church) and carry on as normal just without the indoctrination bit. The extra income woudl get the CofE out of a lot of financial difficulties they face too.

Can we just discuss this "Common sense" thing for a second? What does it actually mean?

...

I don't think it's a term that stands up to any scrutiny, and perhaps we'd all be able to understand what people were really saying if they cut it out.

Oi! Stop that! There's people here trying to have a froth-mouthed, bug-eyed political screeching match based solely on cherry-picked assertions in a one-sided, click-baity article from a famously partisan newspaper's website. How are they supposed to get all het up and fractious with spoilsports like you asking sensible question and defining terms and whatnot?

crazy talk!

I know, what a bunch of yoghurt-knitters! It's no wonder people think UKIP are sane by comparison.

Would like to see the logic that ends up with them being be anti religion in schools but pro alternative medicine.

<edit>looks like ahwiles did the same ctrl+F speed read on the greens I did 🙂
apologies if you did actually read all that ahwiles

In return, the church sets an admissions policy that excludes most of the local community.

In all maintained Schools the admissions policy has to follow legislation and the governments school admissions code. Thry can't just make it up like you're inferring.