That Lunancy from the Greens in Full...
Discussion
Yazar said:
OllieC said:
it is easy for the greens to come up with pie in the sky ideas when they know they don't have to make them work.
When they do have to make it work, they still keep their pies in the sky!!Brighton Green council:
- Meat Free Mondays in council canteens (scrapped after bin men revolt)
- Gender Neutral toilets
- 4.75% increase in council tax to be put to a referendum (idea scrapped after they realised cost of referendum was £900k
Best bit is that Brighton under Greens ranks 302nd out of 326 councils for its recycling record
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11526891.Sussex_cou...Reading their nicely produced pamphlet (link on page 1) there's a casual commitment to 'reduce petrol and diesel consumption'.
No other info. Now how could they achieve that? I wonder if fuel duty (and VAT) would have to rise to 'price motorists onto public transport'? What a vote winner!
Also no mention of how they will provide energy to the (grateful) population having closed all nuclear, abondoned fracking, and 'left all fossil fuels in the ground'.
So with a probability of increased private motoring costs and a lack of leccy, plus an open migration policy, free money for all, it's not really such a brill prospect.
No other info. Now how could they achieve that? I wonder if fuel duty (and VAT) would have to rise to 'price motorists onto public transport'? What a vote winner!
Also no mention of how they will provide energy to the (grateful) population having closed all nuclear, abondoned fracking, and 'left all fossil fuels in the ground'.
So with a probability of increased private motoring costs and a lack of leccy, plus an open migration policy, free money for all, it's not really such a brill prospect.
MitchT said:
Actually, I'd vote for that. If we got kids walking to small, local schools they'd be healthier and the roads would be less congested. I was always within walking distance of school when I was a kid. Then, most of the small schools were closed and the few remaining ones expanded and kids bussed to large, intimidating, impersonal schools instead ... and the roads all ground to a halt.
Woah, woah woah! It goes a bit further than just that. Your proposal is for more small schools - fine, a laudable objective in many ways. But the Greens want to end existing schools over the 700 pupil limit. Not allow them to co-exist. So either close them, or have a really fun lottery to see which kids get thrown out.
The Don of Croy said:
Reading their nicely produced pamphlet (link on page 1) there's a casual commitment to 'reduce petrol and diesel consumption'.
No other info. Now how could they achieve that? I wonder if fuel duty (and VAT) would have to rise to 'price motorists onto public transport'? What a vote winner!
Also no mention of how they will provide energy to the (grateful) population having closed all nuclear, abondoned fracking, and 'left all fossil fuels in the ground'.
So with a probability of increased private motoring costs and a lack of leccy, plus an open migration policy, free money for all, it's not really such a brill prospect.
I don't see their open migration policy being a huge problem. If they did all the other stuff, who the fNo other info. Now how could they achieve that? I wonder if fuel duty (and VAT) would have to rise to 'price motorists onto public transport'? What a vote winner!
Also no mention of how they will provide energy to the (grateful) population having closed all nuclear, abondoned fracking, and 'left all fossil fuels in the ground'.
So with a probability of increased private motoring costs and a lack of leccy, plus an open migration policy, free money for all, it's not really such a brill prospect.
k would come here? Last one out, blow out the candle.Andy Zarse said:
We don't have battery chickens any more in this country. The Greens proposed method of food production will be HIGHLY inefficient, not more efficient.
It's more important that they're not sold than they are not produced in this country and there are still plenty of unacceptable ways in which animals are treated in food production, cosmetics and sport. The Tories want to make Fox Hunting legal again FFS. Andy Zarse said:
The Greens want to scrap ALL nuclear power immediately, not increase it which is the exact opposite of what you want. Wind power is useless, on yesterday morning it was freezing yet despite the tens of billions in subsidies spent on windymills, wind power was producing just over one percent of our electricity. Voting for this is a vote for energy poverty on an unimaginable scale; you can't honestly want that?
I don't want the Greens in power. I would hope that if major parties saw people caring about moving away quickly from fossil fuels they might consider nuclear expansion as an alternative. What I want is a move away from fossil fuels, to whatever is most efficient, which I believe to be nuclear. The Greens are the only party serious about change in this sphere. Andy Zarse said:
We tried an incomes and prices policy in the late sixties/early seventies. It totally failed, lead to massive inflation which impoverished the poorest in society and lead to three terms of Thatcher. Is that what you really want?
Australia is managing just fine with a minimum wage 75% higher than ours. Scandinavian countries structure their labour markets in such a way that minimum wage laws aren't necessary. The average minimum wage across collective bargaining agreements in Denmark, for example, is £13.20 an hour. They're not on the brink of economic ruin or voting in someone remotely similar to Thatcher...Andy Zarse said:
Scrap tution fees. Fine, but tell us where the money is coming from to send 50% of school leavers to Uni?
I don't think 50% of leavers should go to university, as I said in my post. I don't think the Green Party have policies which are complimentary of each other, and as such, the implementation of their manifesto would be disastrous, as I said in my post. Andy Zarse said:
No media sensorship? But the Greens wanted Page Three banned? How does that work then?
I remember Caroline Lucas getting behind this one and she's no longer leader of the party. I'm not voting to get them in power, anyway. I'm voting in the hope others will adopt some of their principles. No censorship is one of their principles. I also don't have any problem with them denouncing page 3 and calling for it to be removed from the Sun, so long as they aren't proposing a law to ban it. Andy Zarse said:
Advertising to kids. Probably tend to agree with that, but it's not a central policy and actually any of the parties could come out with that and nobody would really disagree.
The point is none of them are coming out with it and are unlikely to. It's a nice policy to illustrate the underlying philosophies other parties should be adopting. Serving people and not corporations. Andy Zarse said:
The arts. God help us. You're saying, in effect, put an end to the Royal Shakespear Company and spend the money on local amateur dramatics? No doubt with a Green/leftwing message. Imagine an a pro-UKIP arts troupe trying to get money for a play about the EU? Controlling the arts is simply state control of freedom of expression and thought.
75% ish of the Royal Shakespeare company's funding comes from outside of the State. I'd like yo see more local-level arts projects funded so that young people from less privileged backgrounds can much more easily get into, learn and display arts. I don't know that the Greens have the right policy for that but they're at least talking about it. Andy Zarse said:
The BBC? You want it to become reliant directly on the state. o it won't become Pravda then (even more than it is now)?
This part of their policy seems sensible in that regard:"Whilst the BBC remains a public service organisation it is vital to distance it from Government or State interference. The level of funding available and its distribution between the BBC and other organisations fulfilling public service obligations shall be removed from direct government control through a democratically appointed Public Service Media Council."
Andy Zarse said:
The Lib Dems stance on drugs is similar, to end prohibition, and some Tories would agree too. What you don't say is how drugs would be distributed or controlled. A free market? No taxes? Any regulation? Any quality control? Yet again, a big idea, no detail on how it would work. Total cop out.
Actually I have plenty of well thought out and researched ideas on how you end prohibition, this just wasn't the thread for a lengthy post on the topic. Some interesting stuff coming out of Colorado on the (lack of) impact legalisation of canabis has had. Scuffers said:
Andy Zarse said:
The Greens want to scrap ALL nuclear power immediately, not increase it which is the exact opposite of what you want. Wind power is useless, on yesterday morning it was freezing yet despite the tens of billions in subsidies spent on windymills, wind power was producing just over one percent of our electricity. Voting for this is a vote for energy poverty on an unimaginable scale; you can't honestly want that?
Yesterday we came pretty close to needing to fire up reserves (at ~6:30PM)
Greg66 said:
Woah, woah woah! It goes a bit further than just that. Your proposal is for more small schools - fine, a laudable objective in many ways.
But the Greens want to end existing schools over the 700 pupil limit. Not allow them to co-exist. So either close them, or have a really fun lottery to see which kids get thrown out.
What their policy actually says;But the Greens want to end existing schools over the 700 pupil limit. Not allow them to co-exist. So either close them, or have a really fun lottery to see which kids get thrown out.
Greens said:
ED100 In the long run we would work towards class sizes of 20 at both secondary and primary level.
ED101 We would also work towards having smaller schools with a maximum size of 700 for secondary schools. There is evidence that smaller schools have a more positive ethos which can reduce behavioural problems. It would also enhance a sense of community and encourage a greater proportion of people to be involved so that they are more democratically run as well as reducing the need for transport to school.
ED102 Existing large schools will be supported to reorganise internally into smaller communities ('mini-schools').
ED103 Existing small schools will be protected, and developed as community resources rather than closed. They will be encouraged to become partners with nearby schools where possible, to share resources and specialist staff. Small schools threatened with closure, particularly in rural areas, will be encouraged to merge with one or more other schools within the Local Authority area. Each school would remain in their individual locations and retain their own identities but be managed by a single headteacher working within one overall budget.
ED104 We would restore the right of Local Authorities to plan and build new primary schools of an appropriate size.
So, essentially, a plan to nominally split large schools into smaller units. The usual problem of not having an obvious way to pay for it all of course.ED101 We would also work towards having smaller schools with a maximum size of 700 for secondary schools. There is evidence that smaller schools have a more positive ethos which can reduce behavioural problems. It would also enhance a sense of community and encourage a greater proportion of people to be involved so that they are more democratically run as well as reducing the need for transport to school.
ED102 Existing large schools will be supported to reorganise internally into smaller communities ('mini-schools').
ED103 Existing small schools will be protected, and developed as community resources rather than closed. They will be encouraged to become partners with nearby schools where possible, to share resources and specialist staff. Small schools threatened with closure, particularly in rural areas, will be encouraged to merge with one or more other schools within the Local Authority area. Each school would remain in their individual locations and retain their own identities but be managed by a single headteacher working within one overall budget.
ED104 We would restore the right of Local Authorities to plan and build new primary schools of an appropriate size.
hairykrishna said:
Greg66 said:
Woah, woah woah! It goes a bit further than just that. Your proposal is for more small schools - fine, a laudable objective in many ways.
But the Greens want to end existing schools over the 700 pupil limit. Not allow them to co-exist. So either close them, or have a really fun lottery to see which kids get thrown out.
What their policy actually says;But the Greens want to end existing schools over the 700 pupil limit. Not allow them to co-exist. So either close them, or have a really fun lottery to see which kids get thrown out.
Greens said:
ED100 In the long run we would work towards class sizes of 20 at both secondary and primary level.
ED101 We would also work towards having smaller schools with a maximum size of 700 for secondary schools. There is evidence that smaller schools have a more positive ethos which can reduce behavioural problems. It would also enhance a sense of community and encourage a greater proportion of people to be involved so that they are more democratically run as well as reducing the need for transport to school.
ED102 Existing large schools will be supported to reorganise internally into smaller communities ('mini-schools').
ED103 Existing small schools will be protected, and developed as community resources rather than closed. They will be encouraged to become partners with nearby schools where possible, to share resources and specialist staff. Small schools threatened with closure, particularly in rural areas, will be encouraged to merge with one or more other schools within the Local Authority area. Each school would remain in their individual locations and retain their own identities but be managed by a single headteacher working within one overall budget.
ED104 We would restore the right of Local Authorities to plan and build new primary schools of an appropriate size.
So, essentially, a plan to nominally split large schools into smaller units. The usual problem of not having an obvious way to pay for it all of course.ED101 We would also work towards having smaller schools with a maximum size of 700 for secondary schools. There is evidence that smaller schools have a more positive ethos which can reduce behavioural problems. It would also enhance a sense of community and encourage a greater proportion of people to be involved so that they are more democratically run as well as reducing the need for transport to school.
ED102 Existing large schools will be supported to reorganise internally into smaller communities ('mini-schools').
ED103 Existing small schools will be protected, and developed as community resources rather than closed. They will be encouraged to become partners with nearby schools where possible, to share resources and specialist staff. Small schools threatened with closure, particularly in rural areas, will be encouraged to merge with one or more other schools within the Local Authority area. Each school would remain in their individual locations and retain their own identities but be managed by a single headteacher working within one overall budget.
ED104 We would restore the right of Local Authorities to plan and build new primary schools of an appropriate size.
Paying for it...yes let's see what they produce. The policy statements do come over as being thoroughly thought through (whether you agree with their standpoint or not). Compare with the paucity of information on the UKIP site, where policies are reduced to soundbites with no supporting rationale.
They are both small parties with limited resources (although only one funded by rich people). The Greens seem to have found a good method to develop and document their policy position. I hope that Labour will appropriate the 25% (and that's an estimate not a hard figure) of Green policies that make sense. I guess that's much the same as many Tories who want some elements of UKIP's platform but without the really daft bits.
nikaiyo2 said:
LMAO I thought the Telegraph article was a joke, then I followed the link to the GP website...
You have to think that the 11% who intend to vote green have no idea of their policies, if not god help us.
I might well vote Green next time. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what a lot of their policies are since they wont win the election or my constituency. But it's way of registering a vote for a particular general principle and against the other parties. I'm sure lots of people will vote UKIP on the same basis and I've no problem with that. You have to think that the 11% who intend to vote green have no idea of their policies, if not god help us.
Randy Winkman said:
I might well vote Green next time. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what a lot of their policies are since they wont win the election or my constituency. But it's way of registering a vote for a particular general principle and against the other parties. I'm sure lots of people will vote UKIP on the same basis and I've no problem with that.
Why not just cut to the chase ans vote for The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)? That is after all, the Green's particular general principle.The Don of Croy said:
Reading their nicely produced pamphlet (link on page 1) there's a casual commitment to 'reduce petrol and diesel consumption'.
No other info. Now how could they achieve that? I wonder if fuel duty (and VAT) would have to rise to 'price motorists onto public transport'? What a vote winner!
55 mph speed limit on the motorway, 20mph in towns, "car free town centres". No other info. Now how could they achieve that? I wonder if fuel duty (and VAT) would have to rise to 'price motorists onto public transport'? What a vote winner!
Not for me thanks.
TEKNOPUG said:
Why not just cut to the chase ans vote for The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)? That is after all, the Green's particular general principle.
No it isn't. It might be your overblown, silly interpretation of their policies and principles but they are not a communist party and they don't state that they are in any of their literature. The equivalent on the right of what you've said is to suggest voting for the Fascist party instead of UKIPTEKNOPUG said:
Randy Winkman said:
I might well vote Green next time. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what a lot of their policies are since they wont win the election or my constituency. But it's way of registering a vote for a particular general principle and against the other parties. I'm sure lots of people will vote UKIP on the same basis and I've no problem with that.
Why not just cut to the chase ans vote for The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)? That is after all, the Green's particular general principle.As the poster you quote alludes to, the Greens will never form a government, and I doubt anyone on here would want them to, but I'm happy for them to have some influence on the mainstream parties in a similar fashion to Ukip, as, despite being (generally) a Tory voter myself, I'm not happy with the current lurch to the right.
hairykrishna said:
Greg66 said:
Woah, woah woah! It goes a bit further than just that. Your proposal is for more small schools - fine, a laudable objective in many ways.
But the Greens want to end existing schools over the 700 pupil limit. Not allow them to co-exist. So either close them, or have a really fun lottery to see which kids get thrown out.
What their policy actually says;But the Greens want to end existing schools over the 700 pupil limit. Not allow them to co-exist. So either close them, or have a really fun lottery to see which kids get thrown out.
Greens said:
ED100 In the long run we would work towards class sizes of 20 at both secondary and primary level.
ED101 We would also work towards having smaller schools with a maximum size of 700 for secondary schools. There is evidence that smaller schools have a more positive ethos which can reduce behavioural problems. It would also enhance a sense of community and encourage a greater proportion of people to be involved so that they are more democratically run as well as reducing the need for transport to school.
ED102 Existing large schools will be supported to reorganise internally into smaller communities ('mini-schools').
ED103 Existing small schools will be protected, and developed as community resources rather than closed. They will be encouraged to become partners with nearby schools where possible, to share resources and specialist staff. Small schools threatened with closure, particularly in rural areas, will be encouraged to merge with one or more other schools within the Local Authority area. Each school would remain in their individual locations and retain their own identities but be managed by a single headteacher working within one overall budget.
ED104 We would restore the right of Local Authorities to plan and build new primary schools of an appropriate size.
So, essentially, a plan to nominally split large schools into smaller units. The usual problem of not having an obvious way to pay for it all of course.ED101 We would also work towards having smaller schools with a maximum size of 700 for secondary schools. There is evidence that smaller schools have a more positive ethos which can reduce behavioural problems. It would also enhance a sense of community and encourage a greater proportion of people to be involved so that they are more democratically run as well as reducing the need for transport to school.
ED102 Existing large schools will be supported to reorganise internally into smaller communities ('mini-schools').
ED103 Existing small schools will be protected, and developed as community resources rather than closed. They will be encouraged to become partners with nearby schools where possible, to share resources and specialist staff. Small schools threatened with closure, particularly in rural areas, will be encouraged to merge with one or more other schools within the Local Authority area. Each school would remain in their individual locations and retain their own identities but be managed by a single headteacher working within one overall budget.
ED104 We would restore the right of Local Authorities to plan and build new primary schools of an appropriate size.
If the idea is to take (say) an 1800 pupil secondary school and set up three 600 pupil schools side by side on the same site, dividing the premises and the teaching staff, that sounds like a cosmetic measure. If the plan is to change class sizes (say) from 30 to 20, then you need more classrooms, more facilities and more teachers. On the same site. How?
Also seems to be a rather large sledgehammer to crack the nuts of "behavioural problems" and the school run.
Overall (and not just with this policy) the theme seems to be a massive restructuring, and crucially scaling down of the economy allied to an equally massive spending spree to bring about ideological change. Where's the money coming from for this?
I assumed it just meant large schools will be supported in their efforts to become smaller schools - not going from 1,400 people to two schools of 700 on the same site but one school of 700 with the rest going to a 'new' school - which I guess you could part fund with the sale of land from large schools.
BJG1 said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Why not just cut to the chase ans vote for The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)? That is after all, the Green's particular general principle.
No it isn't. It might be your overblown, silly interpretation of their policies and principles but they are not a communist party and they don't state that they are in any of their literature. The equivalent on the right of what you've said is to suggest voting for the Fascist party instead of UKIPGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff