I don't no much about the green party but I do live close to the sea
what does the green party stand for
- Thread starter Harbourwoodwork
- Start date
Sponsored Links
So does this mean that when sea levels rise you will wish you had learnt more about them earlier?
I'll buy a house on a hill then
Sponsored Links
Listening to many who class themselves as 'Greens', I reckon that definition number 10 (see link below) is a more fitting interpretation of the word 'green' -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Green
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Green
Far left-wing overbearing statist control. Don't be fooled by the nice-sounding, eco-fluffy labels. They want to control everyone's lives. They don't even have good reasons to oppose the freedoms they despise - they just don't like them.
so whats it going to be then change or drown
J
joinerjohn
The Green Party stand for , higher taxation (so they can invest?? in green energy (that will never work) They stand for "candles" and won't be satisfied until we're all sitting in the dark, of a night. They stand for power cuts on a massive, unprecedented scale (should they ever get into power, I'll emigrate to the USA/China/Russia/ Australia/Antarctica/Mars.)
If they do get into power, you can kiss the internet goodbye. You can kiss your car/motorcycle/moped goodbye. You can kiss your TV goodbye. In fact, you can kiss goodbye to almost anything that uses electricity/gas and oil.
They really want a return to medieval England, where we'll all be foraging, riding horses and probably living in caves/tents etc. Doctors will be encouraged to keep leeches (in case we come down with the dreaded lergy). Foreign holidays will mean, a 3 month voyage on something like the Golden Hind (complete with swabbing the decks and daily beatings from the Captain)
Yep, vote for them at your own peril. We'll all be part of some medieval re-enactment society, for real.
PS,, I particularly like definition No7
Why are Greenpeace, called that ???? They're not particularly peaceful with their protests.
If they do get into power, you can kiss the internet goodbye. You can kiss your car/motorcycle/moped goodbye. You can kiss your TV goodbye. In fact, you can kiss goodbye to almost anything that uses electricity/gas and oil.
They really want a return to medieval England, where we'll all be foraging, riding horses and probably living in caves/tents etc. Doctors will be encouraged to keep leeches (in case we come down with the dreaded lergy). Foreign holidays will mean, a 3 month voyage on something like the Golden Hind (complete with swabbing the decks and daily beatings from the Captain)
Yep, vote for them at your own peril. We'll all be part of some medieval re-enactment society, for real.
PS,, I particularly like definition No7
Why are Greenpeace, called that ???? They're not particularly peaceful with their protests.
Bloody cyclists will be ok though. B*stards.
seems like we're doomed then
current economic and political thinking are taking us down the same route.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100019812/saudi-oil-well-dries-up/
18 years that's yer lot
The following is a crtique of their policies I did on another forum some time ago (links might not work anymore):
1. Let's look at their policies then:
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/energy.html
"A massive investment in renewable sources to support development of both large-scale wind and tidal generation and domestic micro-generation - together these measures would create 80,000 jobs in the first year. "
Micro-generation is too often an expensive publicity stunt/feel good gesture.
The UK government has already pledged to build huge offshore wind farms. We don't want too many, as they will course grid instability, and will be a waste of money.
There is also no indication that they have considered the environmental impacts of these measures.
"Europe-wide renewable energy initiatives such as an under-sea grid for off-shore wind and marine power, concentrated solar power plants in Southern Europe and the North African deserts and the building of highly efficient long-distance High Voltage DC power lines. "
These always give me a laugh. The idea that we can use the Saharan areas to power our homes is a dream, but one that will require huge quantities of water, and carbon costs. And cannot be realised without nuclear, which brings us nicely onto their next point:
"• The phasing out of dangerous nuclear power. "
....I think I see a problem with this. Not only that, but we would be throwing away our best option for major carbon reduction in the UK, and it would be based upon fear and nothing else.
"The removal of incentives for damaging large scale bio-fuels. "
So Drax building biofuel plants is a bad thing? What about the huge energy potential that we are sitting on wrt all the wood waste we throw away? Or the organic residues that industry cannot burn owing to EU legislation?
"Removal of any EU rules that prevent direct government help to renewables. "
Do they not want renewables to be efficient?
Housing:
"Green Party | Housing and communities"
Not a peep about all the empty houses that could be renovated, or about conserving what we already have.
Waste:
Green Party | Waste and recycling
"Introduce a law banning new waste incinerators and setting the earliest practicable date for phasing out any existing incinerators. "
And we do what with all that non-recycleables? They do not have a viable alternative to incineration.
"Invest in new sustainable waste technology to create renewable energy. "
The only options for this are smaller scale plants (such as AD, gasification, plasma arc etc). All do not have the scope for large handling of municipal waste. Notice the vagueness of their statement, and how they seem naive as to the financial cost of such alternatives, or even how little incineration, gasification and plasma differ in terms of emissions.
Heading:
"Economic benefits of zero waste and recycling. "
Notice they neglect to mention that too much recycling actually costs more not less. After you've recycled a certain portion of your waste, you get to a point where the more you recycle, you end up paying a fortune.
Animals:
Green Party | Animal protection
"• End all animal experiments, replacing them with more reliable non-animal alternatives. "
Wow, just wow.
Transport:
"Bring the railway system back into public ownership and spend £2 billion on new track and rolling stock, and on urban tram schemes - together creating 20,000 jobs.
• Reduce UK rail fares by one third to bring them in line with the European average through a £3 billion subsidy. "
Wholey inadequate. We need a long term plan, and spend 10s of billions on our rail network. And a whole culture change as to how we approach the subject of railways.
Equalities:
Green Party | Equalities
"Seeks to increase the numbers of women in political life both at Westminster and the European Parliament as well as at local levels from tenants' and residents' associations and school governor posts, to our local councils. "
So concepts like - "best person for the job" are lost on them. Like all the major parties, they seek to undermine women by bulstering their numbers. Its immoral.
"Seeks to ensure that women do not face glass ceilings at work and that they are encouraged and permitted to stretch themselves in their career aspirations and achieve their full potential at work. The party calls for a requirement on major companies to have at least 40 per cent of their boards female (as is now the case in Norway). "
Glass ceiling myth? Are they from the Harriet Harperson school of equality? ie. we are all equal, but women are more equal. They clearly support affirmative action, and have a women's network (the sort of thing that would be frowned upon if men had).
"Green Party Women| Leader endorses Green Women Group's first campaign
Seeks to ensure that equal pay for work of equal value is a reality rather than simply a theoretical legal right (by legislating to ensure that large companies carry out equal pay audits, with the results publicly available, and allowing unions to take joint cases to court). "
More Harperson inspired nonesense. In this economic climate, businesses hardly need more bearuoracy.
Of course no mention of the inequalities that men suffer (eg. health, education, safety, domestic violence, family courts, media.....etc).
Canadian Green Party
http://greenparty.ca/vision-green
1. From it, we have:
"Ban the importation of toxic waste and their incineration. "
Greenpeace tried this one years ago in the UK. They completely missed the bit where such waste could, (and often would) get diverted to some third world or developing country with little or no environmental controls. Go team!
Countries like the UK and Canada (and many other OECD countries) have a responsibility to treat this waste. And the trade supports jobs, and raises taxes for further environmental protection. Basically, if we don't tackle such issues, poorer countries will take it, and their people and the environment will suffer.
And their waste policies (and others), while laudable, show no concern as to the costs of implementing them. Phasing out landfill sounds good, and I would love to see such a thing, but there are wastes that are non-recycleable (or at least very expensive to recycle).
They also make no mention of incineration or any other energy from waste technology, which should form an integral part of any waste management strategy.
http://greenparty.ca/files/attachmen...n_2011en_1.pdf
And the little gem:
"Prohibit the export of fissionable nuclear material."
Will increase carbon emissions worldwide. See Germany and their anti-nuke stance for details.
And:
"The least expensive energy alternative for Canada is investment in enhanced energy productivity through energy efficiency and conserving energy."
[cough]Jevons Paradox[/cough]
Its strong on environmentalism idealogy, and makes no mention of what actually needs to be done to acheive those goals.
2. Again from the link http://greenparty.ca/files/attachmen...n_2011en_1.pdf
Oh, I've found something good to say about them! (page 85):
"The best interests of the child are served through maximal ongoing parental involvement with the child, and that the presumption of equal parenting via joint responsibility and decision making is the starting point for judicial deliberations. Aside from joint responsibility and ongoing obligations to the child, separating partners should be free to arrange their own relationships under private law and, following dissolution, should be unencumbered in pursuing their own paths unless otherwise agreed beforehand.
To avoid children being treated like the spoils of war, the Greens believe the Divorce Act must be overhauled. We will launch a consultation with Canadians, with the legal community, family therapists and other experts to seek ways to reduce, and preferably eliminate, the adversarial nature of family law.
The Australian family law system provides a model for consideration."
Well, its a start anyway. Assumption of shared parenting, and reformation of the system is needed throughout the family law system.
But then it goes down hill on page 75-76 with women:
"4.9.1 Women's equality
Women make up over 50 % of Canada’s population, the majority of seniors, and a disproportionate share of the people living in poverty in Canada. Pay inequity is still the rule. Women earn, on average, only 71 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Women within visual minorities earn 64 cents and Aboriginal women earn only 46 cents. Lack of access to affordable housing, affordable post-secondary education, and affordable child care make the lives of women, who head the majority of single-parent households, much more difficult. Women under 30 earn less than women in that age group, when adjustments are made for inflation, than they did twenty years ago. Women make up only 22% of the MPs in Canada’s Parliament"
Gender pay gap myth (check) - They should speak to Warren Farrell about this. The Greens seem to oppose women making certain choices.
Affordable post-secondary education (check) - The fact that education as a whole is fem-centric doesn't seem to bother these people, that men are increasingly facing marginalisation throughout western society misses their radar.
And the old lack of women MPs (check) - This misses many points, but primarily, if there is a lack of women in parliament, it just might that less women want to do that, and to have quotas would undermine the women that become MPs. Also, quotas will lower the standard of MPs (see the UK for details). And there's also the fact the both men and women in power generally care far more for the common women than men anyway. This has always been the case.
In fact I couldn't even find men mentioned in the link. Like the UK Greens, they treat women as victims, and ignore men.
But back to energy (page 30):
"Nuclear energy is inevitably linked to nuclear weapons proliferation. India made its first bomb from spent fuel from a Canadian research reactor."
Oh dear. And this has what to do with nuclear energy? A research reactor is where one normally produces material for nuclear bombs. Not commercial reactors. And newer designs make it even harder to make bombs from the fuels. The proliferation argument is a tired one, and shows they lack the substance to their stance.
1. Let's look at their policies then:
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/energy.html
"A massive investment in renewable sources to support development of both large-scale wind and tidal generation and domestic micro-generation - together these measures would create 80,000 jobs in the first year. "
Micro-generation is too often an expensive publicity stunt/feel good gesture.
The UK government has already pledged to build huge offshore wind farms. We don't want too many, as they will course grid instability, and will be a waste of money.
There is also no indication that they have considered the environmental impacts of these measures.
"Europe-wide renewable energy initiatives such as an under-sea grid for off-shore wind and marine power, concentrated solar power plants in Southern Europe and the North African deserts and the building of highly efficient long-distance High Voltage DC power lines. "
These always give me a laugh. The idea that we can use the Saharan areas to power our homes is a dream, but one that will require huge quantities of water, and carbon costs. And cannot be realised without nuclear, which brings us nicely onto their next point:
"• The phasing out of dangerous nuclear power. "
....I think I see a problem with this. Not only that, but we would be throwing away our best option for major carbon reduction in the UK, and it would be based upon fear and nothing else.
"The removal of incentives for damaging large scale bio-fuels. "
So Drax building biofuel plants is a bad thing? What about the huge energy potential that we are sitting on wrt all the wood waste we throw away? Or the organic residues that industry cannot burn owing to EU legislation?
"Removal of any EU rules that prevent direct government help to renewables. "
Do they not want renewables to be efficient?
Housing:
"Green Party | Housing and communities"
Not a peep about all the empty houses that could be renovated, or about conserving what we already have.
Waste:
Green Party | Waste and recycling
"Introduce a law banning new waste incinerators and setting the earliest practicable date for phasing out any existing incinerators. "
And we do what with all that non-recycleables? They do not have a viable alternative to incineration.
"Invest in new sustainable waste technology to create renewable energy. "
The only options for this are smaller scale plants (such as AD, gasification, plasma arc etc). All do not have the scope for large handling of municipal waste. Notice the vagueness of their statement, and how they seem naive as to the financial cost of such alternatives, or even how little incineration, gasification and plasma differ in terms of emissions.
Heading:
"Economic benefits of zero waste and recycling. "
Notice they neglect to mention that too much recycling actually costs more not less. After you've recycled a certain portion of your waste, you get to a point where the more you recycle, you end up paying a fortune.
Animals:
Green Party | Animal protection
"• End all animal experiments, replacing them with more reliable non-animal alternatives. "
Wow, just wow.
Transport:
"Bring the railway system back into public ownership and spend £2 billion on new track and rolling stock, and on urban tram schemes - together creating 20,000 jobs.
• Reduce UK rail fares by one third to bring them in line with the European average through a £3 billion subsidy. "
Wholey inadequate. We need a long term plan, and spend 10s of billions on our rail network. And a whole culture change as to how we approach the subject of railways.
Equalities:
Green Party | Equalities
"Seeks to increase the numbers of women in political life both at Westminster and the European Parliament as well as at local levels from tenants' and residents' associations and school governor posts, to our local councils. "
So concepts like - "best person for the job" are lost on them. Like all the major parties, they seek to undermine women by bulstering their numbers. Its immoral.
"Seeks to ensure that women do not face glass ceilings at work and that they are encouraged and permitted to stretch themselves in their career aspirations and achieve their full potential at work. The party calls for a requirement on major companies to have at least 40 per cent of their boards female (as is now the case in Norway). "
Glass ceiling myth? Are they from the Harriet Harperson school of equality? ie. we are all equal, but women are more equal. They clearly support affirmative action, and have a women's network (the sort of thing that would be frowned upon if men had).
"Green Party Women| Leader endorses Green Women Group's first campaign
Seeks to ensure that equal pay for work of equal value is a reality rather than simply a theoretical legal right (by legislating to ensure that large companies carry out equal pay audits, with the results publicly available, and allowing unions to take joint cases to court). "
More Harperson inspired nonesense. In this economic climate, businesses hardly need more bearuoracy.
Of course no mention of the inequalities that men suffer (eg. health, education, safety, domestic violence, family courts, media.....etc).
Canadian Green Party
http://greenparty.ca/vision-green
1. From it, we have:
"Ban the importation of toxic waste and their incineration. "
Greenpeace tried this one years ago in the UK. They completely missed the bit where such waste could, (and often would) get diverted to some third world or developing country with little or no environmental controls. Go team!
Countries like the UK and Canada (and many other OECD countries) have a responsibility to treat this waste. And the trade supports jobs, and raises taxes for further environmental protection. Basically, if we don't tackle such issues, poorer countries will take it, and their people and the environment will suffer.
And their waste policies (and others), while laudable, show no concern as to the costs of implementing them. Phasing out landfill sounds good, and I would love to see such a thing, but there are wastes that are non-recycleable (or at least very expensive to recycle).
They also make no mention of incineration or any other energy from waste technology, which should form an integral part of any waste management strategy.
http://greenparty.ca/files/attachmen...n_2011en_1.pdf
And the little gem:
"Prohibit the export of fissionable nuclear material."
Will increase carbon emissions worldwide. See Germany and their anti-nuke stance for details.
And:
"The least expensive energy alternative for Canada is investment in enhanced energy productivity through energy efficiency and conserving energy."
[cough]Jevons Paradox[/cough]
Its strong on environmentalism idealogy, and makes no mention of what actually needs to be done to acheive those goals.
2. Again from the link http://greenparty.ca/files/attachmen...n_2011en_1.pdf
Oh, I've found something good to say about them! (page 85):
"The best interests of the child are served through maximal ongoing parental involvement with the child, and that the presumption of equal parenting via joint responsibility and decision making is the starting point for judicial deliberations. Aside from joint responsibility and ongoing obligations to the child, separating partners should be free to arrange their own relationships under private law and, following dissolution, should be unencumbered in pursuing their own paths unless otherwise agreed beforehand.
To avoid children being treated like the spoils of war, the Greens believe the Divorce Act must be overhauled. We will launch a consultation with Canadians, with the legal community, family therapists and other experts to seek ways to reduce, and preferably eliminate, the adversarial nature of family law.
The Australian family law system provides a model for consideration."
Well, its a start anyway. Assumption of shared parenting, and reformation of the system is needed throughout the family law system.
But then it goes down hill on page 75-76 with women:
"4.9.1 Women's equality
Women make up over 50 % of Canada’s population, the majority of seniors, and a disproportionate share of the people living in poverty in Canada. Pay inequity is still the rule. Women earn, on average, only 71 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Women within visual minorities earn 64 cents and Aboriginal women earn only 46 cents. Lack of access to affordable housing, affordable post-secondary education, and affordable child care make the lives of women, who head the majority of single-parent households, much more difficult. Women under 30 earn less than women in that age group, when adjustments are made for inflation, than they did twenty years ago. Women make up only 22% of the MPs in Canada’s Parliament"
Gender pay gap myth (check) - They should speak to Warren Farrell about this. The Greens seem to oppose women making certain choices.
Affordable post-secondary education (check) - The fact that education as a whole is fem-centric doesn't seem to bother these people, that men are increasingly facing marginalisation throughout western society misses their radar.
And the old lack of women MPs (check) - This misses many points, but primarily, if there is a lack of women in parliament, it just might that less women want to do that, and to have quotas would undermine the women that become MPs. Also, quotas will lower the standard of MPs (see the UK for details). And there's also the fact the both men and women in power generally care far more for the common women than men anyway. This has always been the case.
In fact I couldn't even find men mentioned in the link. Like the UK Greens, they treat women as victims, and ignore men.
But back to energy (page 30):
"Nuclear energy is inevitably linked to nuclear weapons proliferation. India made its first bomb from spent fuel from a Canadian research reactor."
Oh dear. And this has what to do with nuclear energy? A research reactor is where one normally produces material for nuclear bombs. Not commercial reactors. And newer designs make it even harder to make bombs from the fuels. The proliferation argument is a tired one, and shows they lack the substance to their stance.
It's just propoganda to extract your hard-earned from you. The powers that be know we need to have something to fear, so that they can excercise control. Also they will tell you that you have to stick with them, as they are the only ones that can save you. Bit like religion was used until recently - to keep the uneducated, simple masses down and in their place.
I like the way that the greens are hedging their bets. They used to call it global warming, but that was too specific. If we had a cold spell, people could use this to ridicule their theories. Now it's called 'climate change'. Very clever. If the earth heats up or cools, they can claim their propoganda was correct and man was to blame.
This kind of crap annoys me.
Why should I have to pay for someone else to have cheaper travel.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,929
- Reaction score
- 2,689
- Country
You already are.
The rail system in this country has cost taxpayers more, not less, than it was costing before privatisation.
The rail system in this country has cost taxpayers more, not less, than it was costing before privatisation.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
