Green party call for 'Progressive alliance'

[Mackenzie]

I think it would work if the Corbynites walked away from Labour. I think he could work with the Greens. The Lib Dems would have to ditch their leader though. He is certainly to the right.

Kirsty Williams would be a good choice for leader of the Lib Dems.

 

[Was not Was]

Well it didn't take long for you to go full moonbat. Economic growth isn't about "goballing raw resources" thats why we have a service sector for starters. Economic growth also lifts people out of poverty, again I pointed out the poor angle in my post.

Oh and I'm pretty sure the stem cell bit still holds. They are are a neo-Amish party, all they need is the Dungarees and the funny beards,eh Brother Caleb?

<sigh> I was trying to help.

If reducing our footprint is the reason we have a service sector, policy-makers have sure kept that quiet. Someone tell the climate deniers!

Like I said, I disagree with the Green Party (and agree with you) on GM, but employing the precautionary principle isn't an extreme position.

As for fracking, the science tells us we can't burn any more than a third of the fossil fuel reserves we know about. Why go looking for more?

Link here if you're interested: http://www.nature.com/news/uk-election-political-parties-respond-on-science-1.17256

 

[Seagull27]

Scotland will not vote for independence IMO. Brent Oil is much lower than at the time of the previous referendum and the Spanish and French have already told the Scottish that they will not be able to join the EU as an independent nation. And just how left-leaning are the SNP? They talk a good fight but they still act like a protest party in opposition. They have had the legal right to vary income tax for Scots by up to +/- 3p since 1999 yet they have never done this - why not? Surely any 'left-wing' party would be a great believer in higher taxes and increased public spending. They are frauds.

PR also won't happen. We had a referendum about it and it was rejected quite emphatically.

I'm not so sure about Scotland. You make the intellectual points, but we've just seen that a strong sense of nationalism and a focal issue that people feel strongly about (immigration in this referendum; EU membership in a future Scottish ref.) will override the sensible thought processes for many people. You may well be right about the SNP, but they clearly have a lot of support in Scotland so it hasn't affected them so far.

Can't agree on the second statement though; we had a referendum on AV (not PR), at a time when people didn't really understand the point of it and both major parties campaigned against it. If Labour were to reverse their stance on this (a big if, but might happen if they continue to lose out to the Tories) then PR would garner support from pretty much every party except the Tories. You'd imagine that UKIP would certainly be in favour.

 

[looney]

<sigh> I was trying to help.

If reducing our footprint is the reason we have a service sector, policy-makers have sure kept that quiet. Someone tell the climate deniers!

Like I said, I disagree with the Green Party (and agree with you) on GM, but employing the precautionary principle isn't an extreme position.

As for fracking, the science tells us we can't burn any more than a third of the fossil fuel reserves we know about. Why go looking for more?

Link here if you're interested: http://www.nature.com/news/uk-election-political-parties-respond-on-science-1.17256

<sigh> we can both be patronising but Greens seem experts at it.

Why dont you apply the carbon footprint to polewards migration? Winter fuel etc needed,i s it just a political tool for convenience, like the bit of propaganda, "precautionary principle", why wasn't this wheeled out for social change etc etc, another convenient political too?.

 

[Seagull27]

OK good to say they now beleive homeopathy should be tested. Sad that they dont acknowledge its already been tested 1000s of times and is absolute quackery.

Then theres this.."Haldane principle".

The idea that researchers choose what gets funded, this will syphon of more money into abstract research rather than applied It ignores aspects like the social good and self selection biases. Its an amishesque retreat into the past. I haven't even seen greens pay lip service to mass production of energy.

Fracking posses no scientific greater risk than traditional mining.

Again Anthropological Global Warming however valid, the effort needed to mitigate impacts is futile, its just a vessel for scare mongering.

I had no idea the Amish even conducted scientific research. How interesting. Joking aside though, the Haldane principle is that researchers get to decide on what they research more than politicians. If managed well, I don't see this as a bad thing; I'd rather science funding was independent from politics to be honest.

With your last point, are you trying to suggest that we shouldn't do anything about climate change, or even that you doubt that humans cause it? How unscientific and pre-industrial of you.

 

[BrickTamland]

<sigh> we can both be patronising but Greens seem experts at it.

Why dont you apply the carbon footprint to polewards migration? Winter fuel etc needed,i s it just a political tool for convenience, like the bit of propaganda, "precautionary principle", why wasn't this wheeled out for social change etc etc, another convenient political too?.

So you don't like the Greens because you think they don't support STEM (although obviously false) and then go all anti-scientific yourself and talk rubbish about fracking and saying 'because it's so hard to stop environmental damage we might as well not try at all'.

 

[Machiavelli]

Scotland will not vote for independence IMO. Brent Oil is much lower than at the time of the previous referendum and the Spanish and French have already told the Scottish that they will not be able to join the EU as an independent nation. And just how left-leaning are the SNP? They talk a good fight but they still act like a protest party in opposition. They have had the legal right to vary income tax for Scots by up to +/- 3p since 1999 yet they have never done this - why not? Surely any 'left-wing' party would be a great believer in higher taxes and increased public spending. They are frauds.

PR also won't happen. We had a referendum about it and it was rejected quite emphatically.

-- we'll see about Scotland; I'm not committing myself to either a further referendum or its result
-- oil prices have been rising slowly and steadily; again, I've no idea where they'll be in the future and, more importantly, in the run-up to any future Scottish independence vote
-- the SNP have been in government for a good while now, so I'd not rush to call them a protest party in opposition
-- higher taxes and public spending is probably what the left should be advocating, but all options should be open including alternatives/amelioratives such as (Ed Miliband's very poorly communicated) predistribution
-- suspect you're right about PR not happening, although the referendum that we actually had had nothing to do with PR, merely some anaemic alternative pup that Cameron and Osborne sold to Clegg, and contributed to his party's precipitate decline
-- suspect you're also right about Teresa May being next PM

 

[beorhthelm]

-- oil prices have been rising slowly and steadily; again, I've no idea where they'll be in the future and, more importantly, in the run-up to any future Scottish independence vote
-- the SNP have been in government for a good while now, so I'd not rush to call them a protest party in opposition

firstly fracking is a game changer, Saudi is no longer the swing producer it was and OPEC have lost their power. prices wont rise to the previous levels, except prehaps short speculative bubbles. the sums didnt add up when price was $120 anyway. Secondly SNP are still a protest party in spirit, though with broader policies than others, because their answer to any difficult issue is the same: blame it on Westminster, even when the powers have been devolved.

 

[looney]

So you don't like the Greens because you think they don't support STEM (although obviously false) and then go all anti-scientific yourself and talk rubbish about fracking and saying 'because it's so hard to stop environmental damage we might as well not try at all'.

Thats not what I said.

 

[Don Quixote]

Any progressive alliance of the left will be doomed to failure. The battle ground for winning British elections is fought in the centre ground.

This. People seem to forget that. This country is really quite right wing, so left wing parties will never do well.

 

[looney]

I had no idea the Amish even conducted scientific research. How interesting. Joking aside though, the Haldane principle is that researchers get to decide on what they research more than politicians. If managed well, I don't see this as a bad thing; I'd rather science funding was independent from politics to be honest.

With your last point, are you trying to suggest that we shouldn't do anything about climate change, or even that you doubt that humans cause it? How unscientific and pre-industrial of you.

The haldane principle has been around for over 100 years, its been modified because it needed to, we do not need tons of money pouring into research into gender studies foe example at the expense of hard science.

As for Global warming it would take to long for me to explain here.

 

[Brovion]

...

Can't agree on the second statement though; we had a referendum on AV (not PR), at a time when people didn't really understand the point of it and both major parties campaigned against it. If Labour were to reverse their stance on this (a big if, but might happen if they continue to lose out to the Tories) then PR would garner support from pretty much every party except the Tories. You'd imagine that UKIP would certainly be in favour.

Technically you're correct. However I'm going to say .... I told you so! When we had that referendum people who wanted full PR were saying they were going to vote against the change as it was a dog's dinner of a compromise and not what they wanted. I was actually a fan of the proposed system (still am), but I urged the 'full PR' people to vote FOR the change, and at least that way they could get the electoral change ball rolling. If they voted against and the change was rejected then in a few years all that would be remembered was that "we had a referendum on changing the voting system but people didn't want to". The actual mechanics of the voting change would be forgotten (as has proved to be the case) and as Buzzer has proved even the very brightest are now saying it was a 'rejection of PR'.

Not saying we'd have won even with the support of the 'full PR' lobby, but the aftermath has panned out how I predicted.