Can Caroline Lucas change British politics for ever?

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 29 Apr 2010, 20:14

UndercoverElephant wrote:
cubes wrote:
Can Caroline Lucas change British politics for ever?
No, next question!

Looking at their website I find very few (what I would call) "green" policies.
And what would you say if you only found green policies?

I think you're a paid-up member of the conservative party.

True about the only green policies bit - but I couldn't see many green policies there at all.

FOAD re: the 2nd comment

I absolutely refuse to vote labour this time around. I'd rather vote lib-dem, but he isn't from Norwich, has never lived here and very little connection to here. Doesn't leave much choice imo.

There is a green party candidate here but I won't be giving him the time of day let alone my vote.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 29 Apr 2010, 21:51

Can Caroline Lucas change British politics for ever?

Not this time. Environment nowhere in the election agenda this time. Lib Dems have stolen all the Greens thunder.

Maybe next time under a PR system.

Eternal Sunshine · Post by **Eternal Sunshine** » 03 May 2010, 22:55

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Sometimes they are in step. The biggest problem I see is this: why, if you have already accepted that 2bn+ people are going to die of starvation anyway, should any resources be devoted to attempting to raise their standard of living? (or even to keep them alive?)

Because the "them" that you are referring to are the least able to adapt to the coming changes, through no fault of their own. And worse still, 'they' are the ones who have cointributed least to the problems. It isn't acceptable to just say "we're all right Jack" and let the poorest, least able suffer just because of the unlucky situation they were born into.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 03 May 2010, 23:00

Eternal Sunshine wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Sometimes they are in step. The biggest problem I see is this: why, if you have already accepted that 2bn+ people are going to die of starvation anyway, should any resources be devoted to attempting to raise their standard of living? (or even to keep them alive?)
Because the "them" that you are referring to are the least able to adapt to the coming changes, through no fault of their own. And worse still, 'they' are the ones who have cointributed least to the problems. It isn't acceptable to just say "we're all right Jack" and let the poorest, least able suffer just because of the unlucky situation they were born into.

Erm because for all we know, we might be among them!

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 May 2010, 23:10

Eternal Sunshine wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Sometimes they are in step. The biggest problem I see is this: why, if you have already accepted that 2bn+ people are going to die of starvation anyway, should any resources be devoted to attempting to raise their standard of living? (or even to keep them alive?)
Because the "them" that you are referring to are the least able to adapt to the coming changes, through no fault of their own. And worse still, 'they' are the ones who have cointributed least to the problems.

Both of these things are true, but don't answer the question.

It isn't acceptable to just say "we're all right Jack" and let the poorest, least able suffer just because of the unlucky situation they were born into.

What are you suggesting we do about it, given that we are going to be (a) financially screwed ourselves and (b) desperately trying to re-invent our own civilisation?

The problem here is the same ideological problem faced by totalitarian communism: it forces everybody down to a level somewhere near the bottom. In conditions of global die-off we may have to accept that it is better to try to preserve something resembling civilisation in at least some parts of the world. We are unlikely to have much spare to sustain parts of the global system that are in free fall back towards the iron age.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 03 May 2010, 23:13

It's in everybody's interest to keep the world as stable as possible. Countries full of starving people don't make for a stable world.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 May 2010, 23:13

RenewableCandy wrote:
Eternal Sunshine wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Sometimes they are in step. The biggest problem I see is this: why, if you have already accepted that 2bn+ people are going to die of starvation anyway, should any resources be devoted to attempting to raise their standard of living? (or even to keep them alive?)
Because the "them" that you are referring to are the least able to adapt to the coming changes, through no fault of their own. And worse still, 'they' are the ones who have cointributed least to the problems. It isn't acceptable to just say "we're all right Jack" and let the poorest, least able suffer just because of the unlucky situation they were born into.
Erm because for all we know, we might be among them!

If the answer to the problem is global eco-communism then we will be among them.

Eternal Sunshine · Post by **Eternal Sunshine** » 03 May 2010, 23:19

Heaven forbid that 'we' in the West might have to accept a simpler lifestyle that not based upon materialism. How would we ever cope?

The problem is not so much about increasing numbers as increasingly consumerist lifestyles. Maybe if all the world wasn't so hell-bent on obtaining our western lifestyle we would be facing a brighter future?

P.S. Just noticed I used 2 'Goddy' terms above.... not sure where that came from....??

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 04 May 2010, 00:51

Andy Hunt wrote: Countries full of starving people don't make for a stable world.

No, but countries full of dead people do.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 04 May 2010, 11:22

Did anyone see Caroline Lucas on question time?

She doesnt seem to think there is an issue with the UK national debt and public sector deficit.

She wanted to increase spending substantially, rather than cut it.

Hmm .....

She also wanted to see a equitable sttlement of the BA strike at the time, DD pointed out that is ironic as under the greens the airlines dont have a rosy future!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 04 May 2010, 11:35

Totally_Baffled wrote:DD pointed out that is ironic as under the greens the airlines dont have a rosy future!

Ah but, once the Greens are in government, the green gets paler and paler...

It is what Biff called earlier 'realpolitik' and it's hateful.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 May 2010, 11:53

emordnilap wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:DD pointed out that is ironic as under the greens the airlines dont have a rosy future!
Ah but, once the Greens are in government,

...the airlines' employees might (which is what matters). Even if there isn't over-all economic growth, the government should try to grow some green industries, such as public transport.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 04 May 2010, 12:04

RenewableCandy wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:DD pointed out that is ironic as under the greens the airlines dont have a rosy future!
Ah but, once the Greens are in government,
...the airlines' employees might (which is what matters).

You try convincing them.

marknorthfield · Post by **marknorthfield** » 05 May 2010, 09:49

emordnilap wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:DD pointed out that is ironic as under the greens the airlines dont have a rosy future!
Ah but, once the Greens are in government, the green gets paler and paler...

It is what Biff called earlier 'realpolitik' and it's hateful.

Isn't that simply the nature of coalition government? You don't get all the things you want (especially if you're the minor player) and are forced to support things which appear to dilute your principles as part of the bargain. However, you have the chance to exercise influence.

Would it be better to wait until you're in a position to form a majority government and do exactly what you want to? Not if you think climate change and peak oil require immediate action.

High principles are easy in opposition.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 05 May 2010, 10:02

marknorthfield wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:DD pointed out that is ironic as under the greens the airlines dont have a rosy future!
Ah but, once the Greens are in government, the green gets paler and paler...

It is what Biff called earlier 'realpolitik' and it's hateful.
Isn't that simply the nature of coalition government?

Yes and no, Mark. It all depends upon (a) how badly your elected are needed to form a government and (b) how tough you are in negotiations. I felt that the Green party here were weak in their negotiations - they felt they had to get into government at any cost. They lost deep green members as a result.

marknorthfield wrote:You don't get all the things you want (especially if you're the minor player) and are forced to support things which appear to dilute your principles as part of the bargain. However, you have the chance to exercise influence.

It's also easy to be tarred with the same brush, as has happened in Ireland with the Greens. They'll be clobbered at the next election unless some there's some black cygnet event in their favour between then and now. They're ridiculed for their successes, because they're seen as minor (protecting a slug, for instance) or repressive, such the recent very small 'carbon' tax on fuel.

marknorthfield wrote:Would it be better to wait until you're in a position to form a majority government and do exactly what you want to?

Excellent idea. But a green party really true to its roots will never form a majority. The changes required are impossible to deliver, let alone promise. They're just unacceptable to people and to business. This is possibly why I would favour staying out of coalition for greens: they can then occupy the high moral ground and still influence by having a strong, vocal, loyal following.

marknorthfield wrote:High principles are easy in opposition.

Precisely my point!