|
thehustler posted:Oh God are UKIP going to want to be in on the debates? poo poo. Perhaps they'll even be featured on question time.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:I do find it fairly ridiculous that speculation on Farage being included in the leadership debates has begun with no mention of the Greens being included. I would vote green if they weren't so absurdly anti science and wanking off over shutting down perfectly safe nuclear. don't worry about it when they're in no position to have any affect whatsoever on nuclear policy with single digit MPs. or this is just a convenient excuse and you'd find another as soon as the Greens ever switched stance on nukes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:There's space on the left for doing that, but there's no guarantee you could do it while maintaining a broad enough base of support to be competitive at the national level. Nobody wants to be the king of a bunch of passionate and engaged losers. It feels like sooner or later something is going to give, whether it's UKIP or some other insurgent party winning a bunch of seats, the SNP succeeding the next time they try an independence referendum, or the voting system finally being changed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Working class UKIP support is, at least in part, a manifestation of Zizek's point about it being easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Working class UKIP voters are aware things are poo poo and likely aware they going to continue to get worse (as they will for everyone who is not extremely rich) but also believe nothing will change this so they're focusing on making things even worse for the "other". They know they're on a sinking ship, they seek solace in seeing the non-whites, disabled people and so on drowning first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Zephro posted:
Sure but it's exactly that, historical. Nobody can vote it. And I suspect that a lot of Labour's support relies on historical momentum, and hope they'll turn back to the old ways. And if Labour did actually move left and start opposing the government based on conviction, instead of purely in rhetoric for political gain, they'd already be opposing the establishment - just by sticking a crowbar in the political structure that they helped to create. Imagine how many people would vote Labour if they actually believed it would mean real change! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
namesake posted:Unison/healthcare. Little bit nervous because the other parts of my team are away and no one knows I'm a union member so the chances of my managers being unhappy are quite large. I'm not in a hospital though so no one will die. Are you in contact with a union rep? Worth giving them a shout if you can just to reassure yourself, but I've always had it reiterated to me that you don't need to say in advance that you are a union member and will be striking, and if bosses try and give you grief for it they'll get into trouble themselves. And good luck! I've never actually been out on strike myself yet, but I'm in two unions so clearly hedging my bets for the exciting possibilities of future industrial action!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Oh God are UKIP going to want to be in on the debates? poo poo. Top Tories (including Cameron and Osborne) believe it was the TV debates that lost it for them in 2010, so they're trying to scupper the debates this time around. Of course, they can't be seen to be ducking them directly as the media loves the debates, so instead they're trying to weasel around them. Negotiations between the parties and the broadcasters have been going on for a while already. Labour and the Lib Dems have both basically signed up for a repeat of last time (what's known as the 3-3-3 format) as their starting position, so the Tories have had to get creative to throw spanners in the works. Tory ideas so far have included: A 5-3-2 format (LabLibConKipGre-LabLibCon-LabCon) which allows them to neutralise the first debate by making it unmanageably large, and turn the third debate into a Presidential style Miliband/Cameron face-off. This is the least obvious attept at a spoiler and could possibly work. A 3-4-2 format (LibKipGre-LabLibConKip-LabCon) which separates out the parties not-of-governement and nullifies the first debate, makes the second debate too large again, and also does the Presedential thing, as well as being completely unacceptable to everybody. A 2-2-2 format (LabCon-LabCon-LabCon) but spaced way before the actual election campaign. And a bunch of other crazy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Cerv posted:don't worry about it when they're in no position to have any affect whatsoever on nuclear policy with single digit MPs. It's a baffling position, I can see no reason to not vote Green on the principle of "they are dumb about some science stuff". What's the alternative, vote Labour for a child benefit freeze, or vote liberal for  ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:It's a baffling position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CreCter7AS8
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:It's a baffling position, I can see no reason to not vote Green on the principle of "they are dumb about some science stuff". What's the alternative, vote Labour for a child benefit freeze, or vote liberal for It's baffling that you don't want to vote for a party which has policies you fundamentally disagree with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Eh, it's unlikely you'll ever agree 100% with any party's policy though. Not saying people should vote Green or anything, I never would personally, but party politics is a pretty imperfect game for voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Isorenieratane posted:It's baffling that you don't want to vote for a party which has policies you fundamentally disagree with? Baffling in the sense that the Greens opposition to nuclear isn't realistically going to have any bearing on government policy. If you don't like their policies you can join them and vote to change it at their party conference, and as it's a small party your vote counts for more. Outside of this one area, they are fundamentally better than any of the mainstream parties, and certainly a better use of a protest vote than some Trot party who'll never see their deposit again or UKIP, who are actual fascists. Maybe you care more about nuclear power than continued austerity though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Isorenieratane posted:It's baffling that you don't want to vote for a party which has policies you fundamentally disagree with? you'll never agree with any party on everything. not even if you're the elected leader of it. so consider which policies are more relevant to you / the party / conceivable electoral outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Baffling in the sense that the Greens opposition to nuclear isn't realistically going to have any bearing on government policy. If you don't like their policies you can join them and vote to change it at their party conference, and as it's a small party your vote counts for more. Outside of this one area, they are fundamentally better than any of the mainstream parties, and certainly a better use of a protest vote than some Trot party who'll never see their deposit again or UKIP, who are actual fascists. They want to end all animal based biomedical research and ban research on GMOs and exotransplants. Those are kick the sick/disabled policies. In addition to their energy policy being a joke. So vote green if you want people with heart valve defects to die, children with congenital malformations that require surgery to correct (surgeons can't practice anymore on pigs or goats) to bootstrap themselves a functioning body, and you're in favour of rolling black outs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Which party has a good energy policy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Which party has a good energy policy? Which party has a policy of new nuclear plus renewables?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:UKIP, who are actual fascists. UKIP are more the Old Tory Right, which really should be as bad a statement as saying 'actual fascists' but for different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Which party has a policy of new nuclear plus renewables? Lib Dems (who are more likely to form a government than the Greens) and Labour are the only possibles on that. Tories are Nuclear but not renewables, Greens and SNP are renewables only. Edit: I don't know UKIP energy policy but it seems very likely it'd be fossil fuel only. Probably as dirty as possible. ReV VAdAUL fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Edit: I don't know UKIP energy policy but it seems very likely it'd be fossil fuel only. Probably as dirty as possible. The North turned into a blasted industrial wasteland, strewn with classic cooling towers and belching acrid black smoke into the sky, all to supply power to the green and pleasant land to the south. The fuel source is whatever we drat well want to burn Just kidding, it's probably zero renewables, possibly nuclear somewhere else and hog wild for fracking. I wasn't kidding about the cooling towers though. I bet they're heavily into fossil fuels just because that's what power plants looked like when they were growing up e- http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/energy-policy-2014-f-20-09-2013.pdf  Ok in summary then
baka kaba fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:24
|
|
Also it's the EU's fault
|
Haha no way is that real. <- BIRDS
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
I'm striking on Monday. The only one in my team, as far as I know. I've heard gently caress-all about any pickets, or demos, so yeah. I'll get to work at the usual time and hopefully there'll be something I can join in with for a couple of hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:I'm striking on Monday. The only one in my team, as far as I know. This is he worst organised strike I've ever been involved with. It's almost as if they haven't organised gently caress all because they intended to call it off anyway. Well other than shafting us health staff and leaving us out to dry in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
If you can afford a bucket, a rag and some water you can afford not to stink, sorry UKMT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
My Mum always says that its bad to wash your hair everyday because it takes the life out of it or something, I'm not 100% sure. That still doesn't mean not shower daily though; since generally your hair starts smelling long after lots of other parts of the body do, and I don't that there is any reason to walk around stinking; since that'll only make your and everyone else's lives harder...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:This is he worst organised strike I've ever been involved with. It's almost as if they haven't organised gently caress all because they intended to call it off anyway. Well other than shafting us health staff and leaving us out to dry in the wind. Where the public sector are concerned, Unison are completely incompetent. These are the people who thought that because they were able to negotiate 4.5% rises with Scottish Hydro, they should turn down lower offers made to regional council staff. Because, y'know, it's not like private sector companies that can pass on the cost of wage increases to their customers are in any way different from local authorities with a finite fixed budget set by the central government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Berious posted:If you can afford a bucket, a rag and some water you can afford not to stink, sorry UKMT. No, the only Correct way to wash is in the shower, daily, because reasons. I use a sink not a bucket, flannel not rag and less water than a single toilet flush to deal with all that yucky smelliness in less than two minutes. This is apparently beyond the collective UKMT intelligence to work out though, bless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:They want to end all animal based biomedical research and ban research on GMOs and exotransplants. With the new influx of members, I am highly sceptical that the more objectionable policies like an outright ban on all animal testing will remain that way for long. (At least in Scotland, though I've not actually seen anything written down outlining any ban of this sort anyway)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:With the new influx of members, I am highly sceptical that the more objectionable policies like an outright ban on all animal testing will remain that way for long. (At least in Scotland, though I've not actually seen anything written down outlining any ban of this sort anyway) My mate's been an active green (including taking part in debates at conferences) for about a decade, and he used to think exactly that, and thought progress was being made when they dropped the AltMed poo poo....and then Take Back Our Flour happened and he realised that the nuclear, GMO and animal rights policies are fundamental principles of the party and aren't going to change. Even Friends of the Earth has revised their nuclear policy, but the greens, nope, they're fundamentally opposed to nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:My mate's been an active green (including taking part in debates at conferences) for about a decade, and he used to think exactly that, and thought progress was being made when they dropped the AltMed poo poo....and then Take Back Our Flour happened and he realised that the nuclear, GMO and animal rights policies are fundamental principles of the party and aren't going to change. Yeah I've always been of the impression that the idea that the greens can be rehabilitated into non-ridiculous positions on nuclear, genetic and biomedical science issues rather misses the point that for many of their supporters these policies are the greens working as intended and if you really want to co-op the greens as a new left alternative vote you'll need to replace that section of their representatives and voters before you'll get them to reform on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
For what it's worth, Natalie Bennett is slightly more level-headed than Caroline Lucas. They're still susceptible to the cucumber/watermelon/mango factionalising, though. My own personal opposition to the Greens boils down to three letters: HS2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:A few pages back people wondered why right-wing posters don't try to engage with this thread more often or make more assertive challenges to the accepted narrative. The answer is that we really don't need to. actually it was one person and everyone else mocked him but okay you mature right-winger you 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
TinTower posted:My own personal opposition to the Greens boils down to three letters: HS2. What benefits do you think HS2 will bring?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:My mate's been an active green (including taking part in debates at conferences) for about a decade, and he used to think exactly that, and thought progress was being made when they dropped the AltMed poo poo....and then Take Back Our Flour happened and he realised that the nuclear, GMO and animal rights policies are fundamental principles of the party and aren't going to change. I'd agree, but with regards the Scottish Greens I would say this is possible given the number of new members (who wholly outnumber the old). I was at a meeting the other day, and there was a very clear tension between the Old Greens (as I'm sure they'd hate being called) and the newer members (many of whom were ex-labour/RIC types) who were clearly considering the viability of rebranding the party to re-emphasise the red and downplay the green, so to speak. I'm still hopeful for the RIC conference and the possibility of a broader properly leftist party emerging that incorporates lots of different interests. I'd jump on that in an instant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:What benefits do you think HS2 will bring? Capacity on the WCML which can be taken partially by freight trains, thereby reducing the heavily polluting industry of road freight transport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'd agree, but with regards the Scottish Greens I would say this is possible given the number of new members (who wholly outnumber the old). I was at a meeting the other day, and there was a very clear tension between the Old Greens (as I'm sure they'd hate being called) and the newer members (many of whom were ex-labour/RIC types) who were clearly considering the viability of rebranding the party to re-emphasise the red and downplay the green, so to speak. Looks like some ex-RICers are launching something - The Scottish Left Project going around on facebook this evening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
I can sympathise a lot with the Greens insofar as their general attitude - it is important to protect our Green And Pleasant Land, and I do agree that there should be priority investment in renewables research - even if we find more oil wells, the fact remains that it's ultimately finite and you cannot expect it to last forever. However, there's just too much obsessive totemic nonsense surrounding too many of their specific policies, from their anti-nuclear to their republicanism (how is printing 40 million presidential ballot papers every four years supposed to help the environment?) and their unreasonably absolutist stance on animal testing just makes them... impossible. Anyone joining the Green with the expectation that it's going to be New Left alliance must be aware that it's not going to be as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:A few pages back people wondered why right-wing posters don't try to engage with this thread more often or make more assertive challenges to the accepted narrative. The answer is that we really don't need to. I was going to ignore this fantastic piece of comedy but now two peeps have replied thusly: Phoon posted:One person said this and the rest of the thread responded with mockery and derision Farecoal posted:actually it was one person and everyone else mocked him but okay you mature right-winger you More sensibly (much less manic tonight), I'm a bit surprised that the Scottish Greens are being painted as quite as anti-science as they are ITT. Back when I did doorstepping for the Greens in Edinburgh people like Aubrey Manning, Ulrich Loening, and Stephen Salter were involved, none of whom could be called "anti-science" meaningfully - course this was last century so I suppose younger more airy-fairy types might have colonised them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I'd agree, but with regards the Scottish Greens I would say this is possible given the number of new members (who wholly outnumber the old). I was at a meeting the other day, and there was a very clear tension between the Old Greens (as I'm sure they'd hate being called) and the newer members (many of whom were ex-labour/RIC types) who were clearly considering the viability of rebranding the party to re-emphasise the red and downplay the green, so to speak. Sounds a bit like entryism
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
The Greens seem pretty cool to me..? I mean, 90% of their policies seem pretty good or very good, so I should vote for them, right? I'm struggling to find a reason not to, right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
So can anyone explain to me briefly on what the Common Weal bases it's fundelementals on and what it wants to achieve?Umiapik posted:The Greens seem pretty cool to me..? I mean, 90% of their policies seem pretty good or very good, so I should vote for them, right? I'm struggling to find a reason not to, right now. If you think 90% of their policies are fine then it's preety much a fine reason to vote for them because I doubt the remain policies will outway the positive ones (Unless of course it's a major biggie).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:02
|
|
