Greens keep it short and sweet to avoid the don’t-want-to-knows
Greens keep it short and sweet to avoid the don’t-want-to-knows
The more people find out about the Green party’s policies, the more they tend to switch off. So today’s campaign launch was over in 15 minutes
The more people find out about the Green party’s policies, the more they tend to switch off. So today’s campaign launch was over in 15 minutes
You're viewing a single thread.
Thing with the Greens is that even they say they want a Labour government. But voting Green makes that less likely. So. What are they doing?
People who vote green know they won't win an election, but do so anyway to pressure the larger parties to do more about climate change. The Greens themselves achnowledge this.
However, the pressure won't have much effect until they start actually taking seats from them. Standing down to give Labour a clear shot would destroy their steady gain in momentum and spoil the best chance they've ever had to get more seats.
Which would make perfect sense if there was some way of adding '... but don't count my vote if it makes electing the Labour candidate less likely' to your ballot. As it is, the effect of voting Green is to make a Labour government, and therefore any effective action on climate change, less likely. So, your real choice is: A Labour government, that does something (even if it's less than you'd like) or voting Green and handing government back to the Tories, and getting nothing (which is definitely less than you'd like).
And right now, when Labour are promising to decarbonise the grid by 2030, which may well be impossible, it's especially absurd to insist they do 'more'. 'More' than borderline impossible?
Which would make perfect sense if there was some way of adding '... but don't count my vote if it makes electing the Labour candidate less likely' to your ballot. As it is, the effect of voting Green is to make a Labour government, and therefore any effective action on climate change, less likely. So, your real choice is: A Labour government, that does something (even if it's less than you'd like) or voting Green and handing government back to the Tories, and getting nothing (which is definitely less than you'd like).
I agree, which is why I'm voting Labour in a Conservative stronghold. Granted they would still be the largest party after losing those 4 seats, even if they don't reach majority they'd still be able to make a coalition, most likely with the Lib Dems.
And right now, when Labour are promising to decarbonise the grid by 2030, which may well be impossible, it's especially absurd to insist they do 'more'. 'More' than borderline impossible?
That claim by Labour probably has about 10 caveats that would further delay proper decarbonisation.
We also need to decarbonizing everything, not just the grid. Get people out of cars and onto bikes/transit, switch vehicles to renewables, reduce plastic use and meat consumption etc. Pledges for these would require action that would antagonize the majority of Labours voter base so they'll never make any of substance.
That claim by Labour probably has about 10 caveats that would further delay proper decarbonisation.
It doesn't. It's all well and good being sceptical but not about information that is freely available!
We do need to decarbonise everything, but the grid is the main thing. For example, there's no point putting everyone in new electric vehicles if they're powered by a carbon intensive grid, so it's absolutely right to prioritise fixing that first.
Labour is investing in public transport and cycling everywhere it's in power, which is exactly what we want. You are right about the difficulties of the voter coalition, but the voter coalition that would back green policies even better than these already very good policies is too small for any party to win power with their backing alone. Labour is doing as much as it possibly can given those constraints.
I want a hung parliament. If you've seen how Kier treats anyone who disagrees with him in his own party, you'd be wise to not let him have a significant control over the state apparatus. Labour has virtually won. More green and Lib Dem seats would be a great thing.
This has the exact same problem, though: a hung parliament is not something you can actually vote for.
Labour are polling for an absolute landslide. Any seat moving away from Labour works to that goal as there is no chance in hell of Tories winning.
Not sure when the American presidential logic applied to the UK. Each parliamentary seat makes a difference to the majority.
Do you think Kier is honest and treats those that disagree with him fairly?
You cannot vote for a hung parliament because you have one ballot in one seat. US presidential logic doesn't come into it.
We cannot assume Labour is going to win. That is not an attitude with a great track record. If you want a Labour government strongly influenced by the green movement, there's one way to get that with your one ballot. You should vote for the party with green policies so ambitious as to be borderline unrealistic. You should vote Labour.
I think Starmer's someone trying to do something notoriously hard (winning from Opposition for Labour) in order to do something even harder (being an effective, reforming prime minister) in a system where the more loyalists you have, the more you get done. If you want to do something very difficult (like, say, a globally unprecedented and ambitious climate policy of decarbonising the grid in six years), you need people on your side in parliament. I think at times he could have been a little more open about that, but that's not the same as dishonesty.
Incidentally, if you're going to call the man by his first name, you could at least spell it correctly: Keir. Not to be rude, but how much can you authoritatively say about the guy when you've not got the basics right?
Correcting a dyslexic on spelling. Classy.
I almost vomited reading your reply. Naive if you think he'll make any difference. I'm not sure if you saw the regular backtrack on pledges. If someone keeps going back on their word, they do not have integrity and cannot be trusted. If it ain't in the manifesto, it will not get past the lords. Keir is going to get in power and do very little differently from the Tories. Reeves stated as much in regards to the NHS.
You won't believe me though and when you see it yourself, you'll go through all sorts of logical contortions as if you already knew and expected it. It'll take a long time before you ever ask yourself if you haven't got anything perfectly right.
As for voting for a hung parliament, yes. If liberals or greens or SNP or Plaid have a chance in the seat, ensure that we have a diversity of views in Parliament and Keir cannot ram any poor legislation through leaning on a generous majority.
Correcting a dyslexic on spelling. Classy.
I don't know how I was supposed to know you're dyslexic, given that, oddly enough, you've spelled every other word correctly. In any case, you're sitting in front of a computer (or holding one), which would allow you easily to check the spelling, dyslexic or not.
I almost vomited reading your reply
You should probably find something else to do if you have this strong an over-reaction to a person answering a question that you asked.
Naive if you think he’ll make any difference
Every other Labour government - in fact, every social democratic government anywhere in the world - has come to power in the face of this kind of rhetoric. Yet, they generally do make a positive difference. Indeed, you must think they do, otherwise you wouldn't be left wing.
I’m not sure if you saw the regular backtrack on pledges
I saw a politician adjusting their platform to take into account a changing situation and to try and make it more appealling to voters, which is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. The alternative is politicians not listening to voters, which is not something you can want. Regardless of the changes Starmer's made and whether they were necessary (obviously I think some of them were and some of them weren't, but we'll never know who was right), he's retained the overall commitment towards greater economic and social justice which he started with and which every Labour government has both promised and delivered. I can't say for sure if his plans will work out, of course, but the track record of Labour governments is basically good.
If it ain’t in the manifesto, it will not get past the lords. Keir is going to get in power and do very little differently from the Tories. Reeves stated as much in regards to the NHS.
Three sentences, none of them true. We've already discussed one way Labour will be very different (decarbonising the grid) which was in the original pledges and is also in the manifesto. Regarding the NHS specifically, Labour's first step is 'Cut NHS waiting times with 40,000 more evening and weekend appointments each week, paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and non-doms.'. You can see their longer-term mission here. These are not the same as the Tories' policies, obviously.
You won’t believe me though and when you see it yourself, you’ll go through all sorts of logical contortions as if you already knew and expected it. It’ll take a long time before you ever ask yourself if you haven’t got anything perfectly right.
Hypothetically, if you heard two people having a conversation and one of them kept saying they could accurately predict the future, while the other argued that there was too much uncertainty to do so, and acknowledging that what they thought was going to happen might well not happen, which of the two would you think was more likely to ask themselves if they'd got everything right?
hung parliament
A Labour party with a hung parliament would find it harder, not easier, to pass legislation of any kind, including the things we both want for the NHS and green energy. The track record of the SNP on delivering green policies is poor and the track record of Lib Dems and Greens on the same is just NIMBYism or impossibilism (both, in the case of the Greens).
In elections where people have followed your advice and voted Lib Dem, Green, SNP or Plaid in large numbers, the result has not been a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party. This is what happened in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019. All very different elections, yes, but all elections where the left-leaning vote was split. My suggestion is that instead of trying your tactic, which has failed four times in a row, we try a tactic which has, at least at some points in history, actually delivered something other than a Tory government.
It is in any case impossible to reconcile your argument that Labour are going to win a landslide anyway, so it's safe not to vote for them, with your argument that you can take lots of seats off Labour by voting for another party. The fact remains that if your ideal situation is 'Labour are the largest party [with or without a majority]' the only sensible course of action is to vote Labour.
"I don’t know how I was supposed to know you’re dyslexic, given that, oddly enough, you’ve spelled every other word correctly. In any case, you’re sitting in front of a computer (or holding one), which would allow you easily to check the spelling, dyslexic or not."
So you expect me to spend hours longer on my posts, to pretend I'm neurotypical because you don't feel neurodiverse people deserve to be imperfect. I think that is not the solution to the problem where folks like you who like to feel superior correcting spelling, is not that everyone should work around and accommodate you. Maybe, just maybe, picking up on errors, rather than the points is more than a little rude, and you need to work on yourself a bit.
"Every other Labour government - in fact, every social democratic government anywhere in the world - has come to power in the face of this kind of rhetoric. Yet, they generally do make a positive difference. Indeed, you must think they do, otherwise you wouldn’t be left wing."
Social democrat isn't left wing, when you're picking and choosing what bits that can be possible under common ownership, it's hard to distinguish from half-hearted liberalism.
"Three sentences, none of them true." Reeves actually said that there would be no increase in NHS funding without economic growth. I think it was a year ago. I'm assuming there has been a u-turn on that now election has kicked off, but just because they change their positions, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Nothing you have said will persuade anyone to vote Labour, and gaslighting people in to believing Labour won't win is simply dishonest.
I think we'll wrap this one up, as you're preaching gospel according to New New Labour and I ain't buying it. I hope you are ok when your unwavering faith in a dishonest man is tested.
I will thank you though. You helped me remember why I avoid political discussion online. It's just folk spouting rhetoric without any interest in what others are saying. It's the biggest waste of time, and it's impact it's miniscule.
Checking one word = hours of work? Stop bullshitting, man. The problem here is that you can't get your facts or your argument straight, and your inability to do the bare minimum research is indicative of the broader problem you have.
Again, acknowledging the possibility that we can't accurately predict the future is not 'gaslighting' and it also makes it very clear that I don't have unwavering faith in Starmer or Labour to deliver. If I did, I would have assumed that they're going to win, because that's a precondition for delivering anything. I have also repeatedly made it clear that I am not confident they'll be able to deliver on one of their key policies. The fact that you feel able to gloss this as 'unwavering faith' is yet another indication that you are not rooting your argument in anything resembling the facts.
If your definition of leftwing doesn't include social democrats, that means it doesn't include, e.g., Clement Attlee or FDR, and thereby excludes historic achievements like the NHS or the New Deal from being considered left wing victories. This is yet another idea you have introduced that is impossible to reconcile with the rest of your argument. Again, man, the slightest bit of thought, rather than screaming over-reactions, would be really helpful and might even make conversations like this a productive use of your time.
If you could refrain from constantly introducing irrelevancies, that might also be helpful. This started as a conversation about whether you could vote for hung parliaments and is now a conversation about the history and nature of left wing politics. This is because you kept asking more questions, which anyone can see that I have answered, despite your insistence that I haven't. Indeed, it's difficult to see how I could have made you sick with my answers while also not answering you.
If I can suggest another hypothetical conversation: one person is screaming 'You make me sick! Nobody's really left wing apart from me!' and another is saying things like, 'We cannot predict the future, so I might be wrong, but here's what I think based on X, Y, Z' -- would you really find the first person more persuasive?