Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
very hippy and flimsy. I'm strongly considering voting for them for the first time. But they definitely don't have a public perception of being the party to represent the disaffected. It all comes across as being very middle class and privileged. Whether that's true or not.
people love their cars!
Lets start with:
- They're not marketing themselves as an anti-politics party.
- They don't get the same level of publicity as other 'protest' parties have done (Lib Dems previously and now UKIP).
- They're perceived as a single policy party on an issue that doesn't have the same widespread appeal as the other current major 'protest' party's main policy area.
I'm sure you and others have other reasons to put forward.
are less likely to ‘protest vote’ for a genuinely left-wing alternative than Tories ‘protest voting’ for a genuinely racist party.
Possible case of Stockholm Syndrome?
they either write wankers on the ballot or just don't turn up (usually the latter)
I bet there's some brilliantly deranged shit gets written on them.
the lucky dip of opening the post was eventful.
some funny letters, lots of cock pics, photoshopped pics of gordon brown, and occasionally really really sinister stuff which we had to call the police for
so he has to rule on spoiled ballots etc. he says most of the time its really unimaginative though. like "liars" or something.
in my constituency.
Some of them are rubbish, but I was just holding out for the classic 'spunky cock'. The good people of Hackney North and Stoke Newington did not let me down.
in a very mixed area. I'll usually see about two spoilt ballots a year, and they never have anything written on them, just a scribble across the paper. So it's not really as exciting as you might think, sorry.
They could probably appropriate lebensraum and give it some sort of environmental angle though
Firstly, Labour are in opposition, so those who may be dissatisfied with them are still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if the alternative is the tories.
Secondly, unlike the Lib-dems, and even to an extent UKIP, they struggle to get votes from across the political spectrum. I'd definitely be tempted to vote for a more centrist Green Party in the Euros.
im gunna make a point and vote UKIP
They're still too small to be fielding candidates everywhere so that's a problem. I don't think there'll be a Green option where I live atm.
And yes they have an image problem, they appear to have far too many middle class students on their gap year among their ranks.
I also can't decide if they're actually anarchistic (and want to decentralize politics) or quite top-down - particularly when it comes to environmental policies etc. But I reckon they'd be far more liberal on a personal level than say the Lib Dems etc. There's a level of confusion over their positions that does put me off a bit.
but they put together a very comprehensive manifesto for the general election in 2010 which should cover all areas of actual policy, most of which is still valid:
The problem does seem to be one of perception, all granola and Whole Foods and middle class furrowed brows, and there certainly is some of that (OK, like 70% at least), but if you have an irrational hatred of largely middle class white folk meddling in your affairs then you may struggle to find any political party to get behind, especially at the local level. Weirdly the same doesn't seem to apply to privately schooled millionaires, but that's another matter.
Anyway, protest votes by their nature tend to be slightly destructive acts and considering that the Green platform is generally one of progressive action, it probably doesn't fit the bill. Plus it's annoying being told what to do, and most people get pissed of at environmentalists because they seem like that's all they do. Plus they tend to lump everyone in to the same group, one that reaches its logical conclusion with a stinky dreadlock guy squatting in a tree swearing at a bulldozer.
But I do have a hard time finding any political party to get fully behind.
See reading that, it's a bloody good manifesto. Some of their policies are right on and a breath of fresh air, I'm all for the left wing economics, environmentalism, what they say about the NHS is right, etc.
They have a nod towards decentralizing politics, aiming to give councils more powers, referendums are possible etc - it's good, it's more democratic, but I wonder how that would work if they tried to push some of their more controversial (though pretty much exactly correct) policies. I'm thinking NIMBYs and the like. People are shit and it would fuck up. But it's certainly a step in right direction, perhaps it's not usually a protest vote due to the left being divided between more parties, or even that it's too optimistic in and of itself.
By definition, any party is really a broad coalition of relatively diverse interests and, like any organisation, their representatives veer from the more to the less competent. Tribal politics, encouraged by FPTP, where voters are encouraged to give undying support for the red or the blue team regardless of how many horrors they commit is one of the worst things about British politics (and is presumably another reason behind UKIP’s apparent popularity).
I’ve voted green for years now and Caroline Lucas is probably the only working politician I trust, but the Greens have also made an absolute shambles of running Brighton Council. Still happy to vote for them in the Euro elections, but not blind to their failings.
With the second, that's to a certain extent a failing all parties have. It's probably worse for the Greens to have that in their only majority run council than other parties with good examples to point to as well, and certainly one reason to vote for another party in Brighton's local elections, but as you imply not necessarily something too relevant in other elections.
that strongly supporting a political party is "tribal" or that those people give "undying support" for the red or blue team (not least because I'm pretty sure this is something brusma says word for word). Without a doubt, you/we/they are never going to set British politics on a genuinely left wing trajectory without the support and the leadership of the Labour Party. Certainly not in the foreseeable future anyway (and even if we did away with the FPTP system - given that PR now would mostly benefit the Lib Dems).
It would be really great if we could all vote for a nice lefty lovely party but that's not a real option right now (and any argument along the lines of "well if everyone did it..." is a really pointless counterfactual). If you don't like the Labour Party then change the bloody Labour Party. It's a pragmatic position and to some extent a "better the devil you know" sort of argument, and even slightly Machiavellian, but it is not the result of an unthinking acceptance of the tenets the current Labour leadership. I'm well aware of the "horrors" committed by Labour under Tony Blair. But if I start voting Green, a party who are literally never going to win a general election, and have very little chance of a majority in 99% of seats, would anyone really give a fuck? More importantly, would the Labour Party pay the slightest bit of attention? What are you really voting for? Virtue?
Because their policies are too neoliberal and their politicians have too many rich careerists with no empathy for the working class.
But I fully agree it's almost impossible for a fringe party to be voted in. So am I meant to vote for them before they change, IF they change? It doesn't sit well with me.
but that's not gonna change the labour party or the prevailing neoliberal ideology in british politics.
if you vote labour either
and the Greens (depending on the exact system used and if they met the necessary thresholds).
At 9% currently, the Lib Dems wouldn't really gain/lose much at all.
With that said, no doubt voting intentions for quite a number of people would change under PR (little reason to vote to keep someone out any more), so it's difficult to discern what the actual impact would be.
who PR would benefit most (and I don't think current polling is a very good indictor either). Either way, Lib Dems or UKIP would be shit.
that it doesn't represent me, or what I believe. Nor are they likely to any time soon. So I can't support them any more, and I give my vote to the group that I believe does. It is naive to assume that suddenly a sizeable percentage of the electorate will simultaneously wake up and decide the same thing, but I don't see anything wrong with having a little optimism in a growing movement for the long term.
What if more parliaments in the future rely on coalitions, wouldn't it be beneficial to have smaller but substantial parties on the left who are willing to offer their seats in return for some genuine influence? Sure, the Lib Dems have pretty much fucked this one, but that's because they entered in to a lopsided agreement and betrayed a vast majority of their core principles to facilitate one of the most grindingly divisive governments.
An influential Green movement is not going to happen overnight, but for me that's no reason to abandon my personal beliefs. It's not about boasting and showing off how fuzzy and liberal I am, it's about voting for something, wholeheartedly, and believing that it genuinely is the best thing for the country.
and it's totally fine by me that you have this political analysis. I don't think it's effective from a pragmatic point of view though.
plus for the sort of progress I'd hope to happen both viewpoints would probably have to be pursued simultaneously anyway; a (massive) bolstering of support for the Greens and a drive from within Labour to make it more open to or aligned with their position. But to be fair having PMQs on in the background as I type this doesn't exactly fill me with the confidence that any current frontline politicians are capable of setting aside petty agendas and intra-party squabbles long enough to fathom the idea of cross-party unity.
I think if and when Labour win a general election on a minority they'll give Caroline a ring. not really sure how EM changing tact to take the high road at PMQs would help anything tbh. the right wing media would eat him alive.
(I actually think Miliband seems like a relatively decent guy on the whole) just a general, sad point about the nasty tone of debate as a whole and how it pretty much entirely precludes the idea of collaboration. Obviously that's nothing new though, and I guess it just has to be resignedly accepted as part of the process. Fewer bellend broadsheet opinion columnists would be a start.
And it’s one I’ve had with my parents for years now, so I don’t expect to be able to change your mind! For a start though, a green vote at the European elections is certainly not a wasted vote, so that argument is irrelevant in this particular instance. I’m also fortunate enough to have a Green MP who is principled and effective after years of people telling me it was a completely wasted vote, so apologies for feeling ever so slightly smug about that.
In terms of a general election though, I appreciate your points and am largely in sympathy, but increasingly (and very reluctantly) I think changing the electoral system is the only thing that’s going to change the Labour party (or any major party) now because it’s FPTP that’s the problem and its effects are ingrained. It’s structurally biased towards bland and, at its worst, disingenuous politics as it inevitably pushes parties towards the “middle” ground. Without the accountability of a genuine choice at the ballot box then that middle ground is defined by vested interests in terms of thinktanks, donors and the media and reinforced by identikit Oxbridge career politicians.
This isn’t a dig, but a genuine question, what do you expect to change in the current Labour party? Because if you answer along the lines of ‘nothing, until lots more people like me join’ then that’s the same pointless counterfactual you disagreed with above. My Dad was a trade unionist for his entire working life and he and millions of others tried to “change the bloody Labour party”. I haven’t seen much in the way of progress for the last two decades.
^ exactly, you're "fortunate".
On balance I would be for electoral reform too (I voted for it in that crappy referendum we had a few years ago). I don't think FPTP is the fundamental problem though. The problem is with neoliberalism itself (as a mode of governance and representation of reality - "there is no alternative" "beyond left and right", privitization, financialization etc.)
I'm from a family of trade unionists and Labour supporters too (I went to an employment tribunal when I was in my mum's womb, my da voted for Tony Benn etc.). Labour already has the history, democratic structure, mass membership and support that parties like the Greens haven't built up yet. I'm not trying to say you're doing the 'wrong' thing by voting/organizing Green (and if they can build up their membership and support then great). Totally fantastic if you spend your time building up support for a radical eco feminist socialist agenda. I just think a far better organizing strategy is to do that within the Labour Party. I'm sensing we would need to have a big discussion of the Labour Party to discuss the viability of change within the Party (I think it has changed - not always for the better - in the past and that it can change again. E.g. All Women Shortlists was a fairly important achievement and a pretty massive change internally. I know and respect a lot of people in the party and I do see a change in the right direction under Ed Miliband. It's not a bunch of Oxbridge careerists or whatever. no offence but have you actually ever been to a CLP meeting or anything?). Bottom line is Labour doesn't have to be perfect for me to support it because it's a democratic and changeable organisation and the only not shit party capable of getting a mandate to form a UK government.
Where you (as the voter, not the candidate) can literally buy yourself more votes if you have the money to do so?
Also, "a radical eco feminist socialist agenda"? You sound like the Daily Mail.
I suspect we share many of the same frustrations, but our assessment of the cause and cure are different and it might just be that I’m older and more cynical which is my loss. (Of course it’s also New Labour’s acceptance and indeed furthering of neoliberalism which has made it seem the status quo because before it was just a Reaganite/Thatcherite choice, not the only economic choice. It’s hardly surprising that’s led to many feeling further alienated from the party.)
In theory, I agree that the Labour party should be the movement best-placed to change things, but as a smart man once said the definition of insanity is trying the same things over and over and expecting different results. I’ve known a lot of people who thought the party was repeatedly on the brink of changing for the better and it didn’t. Labour party membership at the moment is, what, less than 200,000 and in steady decline? That’s not what I would necessarily call a mass movement (and the broad decline in memberships of all parties is actually pretty troubling for politics as a whole).
I really, really hope that those positive changes you’ve seen lead to improvements. I haven’t been to a CLP meeting – I’m sure those aren’t full of Oxbridge careerists. But I’ve met dozens and dozens of Labour cabinet members, MPs and Spads in the last decade and the ones that don’t fit that template stick out like a sore thumb (and most of those have since retired). Let’s hope that might change sooner rather than later.
Good for you. If I was in a marginal Labour/Tory seat I might well vote Labour. Sadly (and it really does sadden me) at present I don’t think there’s a “not shit” party capable of forming a UK government, just a shit one and a marginally less shit one.
(And yep, I’m pretty happy with my contribution to a radical eco feminist socialist agenda. Thanks for asking.)
I don't agree with that analysis either. it started way before them and is a far more intractable than something that one political party can just consciously decide to depart from or 'support'.
Labour membership is actually quite steady (and significantly larger than the tories) but it's around 180,000. don't really know what we're agreeing "mass" membership to be but as political parties go, it does the most campaigning, has the most meetings, organises the most events and has the most affiliated organisations.
what is it about the labour party that makes you think it's inherently incapable of change from within? sure you can base it on the past and previous attempts and what has come before. but what is actually making that impossible, the definition of insanity and so on?
But the extremes of neoliberalism economics were something which Labour could have been the alternative to in the UK and, under Blair and Brown, very much weren’t. Maybe things might have been different if John Smith hadn’t died? I don’t know. London was consciously made a sort of de facto world capital for deregulation and hedge funds though, which is certainly not the traditional Labour approach.
Yeah, that’s fair enough. I have different and perhaps unfair comparisons in mind, but the National Trust has 4 million members(!?). The RSPB over 1 million. Amnesty UK has three or four hundred thousand I think. All having grown rapidly as political party membership has declined almost universally. There’s something about those organisations which the wider public trusts and wants to invest in which they just don’t see in political parties any more.
I don’t think the Labour party is inherently incapable of change (and I hope it does change). As I said above, I think the system has contributed towards a race to a mythical “centre ground” which all three major parties have been guilty of and I don’t see anything in the current political landscape or decision-making processes which is likely to change that any time soon (bar a shake-up of the electoral system which I’ve always been against). I’ve already bored people on this subject in this thread: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4446962
all votes are pointless, if you want to be pragmatic then don't vote, the chance it will make a difference is 0.000000000000000001%
unless you just mean e.g. Labour win by one vote and you were the last person to cast a Labour vote at 21:59:59? Pretty sure all the other people who voted for them in that scenario would still have made "a difference" though - without them there would be no Labour majority.
so therefore if you're going to vote you might as well be idealistic about it. Fair enough if you believe that Labour are the best party, but I don't see the sense in the argument that a vote for the Greens is a 'wasted' vote when all votes are basically 'wasted' votes.
or use the word "wasted"/"waste".
"It would be really great if we could all vote for a nice lefty lovely party but that's not a real option right now"
"But if I start voting Green, a party who are literally never going to win a general election, and have very little chance of a majority in 99% of seats, would anyone really give a fuck? More importantly, would the Labour Party pay the slightest bit of attention? What are you really voting for? Virtue?"
I'd also say that a major party listening to your minority party vote is more likely than your vote swaying an election.
(in the mathematical way you were describing anyway)
what does "listening to" a vote mean? totally depends where you're voting and why. it might not be worth their while for labour to consider your minority party vote, from an electoral point of view. in some seats, it would be.
By "listening to" I mean if people desert Labour for Green because they prefer Green policies then Labour would want to try to attract back those votes. Which seat your vote is in isn't going to make a difference to that surely, as they're trying to attract people like you who could be anywhere in the country.
This is all just my assumption on how it works, not really looked into how votes/electoral systems affect policies due to my belief that voting is pointless apart from as a kind of duty as a citizen of a democracy.
"It would be really great if we could all vote for a nice lefty lovely party but that's not a real option right now (and any argument along the lines of "well if everyone did it..." is a really pointless counterfactual)."
You say it's 'not a real option' apparently on the basis that it would never lead to a representative being elected. Which is almost exactly the same as saying it would be wasted.
that if you're in a safe seat, best to vote for whichever candidate best matches your views rather than not at all; even though the chances of anyone paying attention to that tiny change in vote share, it's still worth boosting the share of those that share your beliefs to make them a little more credible.
If you're in a swing seat, then the pragmatic choice would surely be to vote based only on candidates with a serious chance of winning. Your candidate might not win or might win by x thousand, but at least you've done your bit to increase/decrease the size of the mandate of the winner. Unfortunately that leads to an awful style of democracy where often we vote for the least worst candidate rather than our preferred one and arguably inflates the larger parties' support beyond their real level, but to me it seems the most pragmatic approach based on where we are now.
you're not going to make a difference in that way
I agree. I don't agree that you won't make a difference though. Much as it pains me to say it, I'm going to end up voting Labour next time around because that's the only chance (probably no better than a 25% chance admittedly) of getting rid of an MP that I believe needs to be got rid of. I don't feel she makes any effort locally, she's taken the piss with her expenses in the past and made little to no effort to engage with the actual content of my letters on the couple occasions I wrote to her.
It won't show my support for the party I currently identify closest with (which happens to be the Greens at the moment) and as with some of the others on here I detest some of the things that Labour still stands for (although equally welcome some of Miliband's interventions), but I'd rather not be represented by someone with the characteristics of my current MP and pragmatically the only alternative I have is to vote in the red column.
even in that situation your vote isn't going to make any difference so i don't see the point of pragmatism, not sure what the solution is though.
Conceivably it's possible for two candidates to tie, or for one to win by a majority of one in a close race. In that case one vote effectively makes all the difference.
in Winchester in 1997 if your candidate lost by two votes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/05/0516/malone.shtml
Especially as he then disputed it, secured a by-election and lost by 20,000+ votes instead!
really unlikely things do occasionally happen to some people
But surely the whole idea of democracy is that everyone should vote for the party that best represents their views, and the candidate who represents the most people gets elected. All you have to do is vote for who best represents your values and opinions. If that's The Green Party, then vote for The Green Party. Forget about tactical voting, how likely a party is to win or anything like that. Just vote for who represents you best. Maybe The Green Party won't win an election in our lifetime. But if they make significant gains in the next few years, they'll start to get more of a voice, and be able to influence the public debate, and maybe in time become a force to be reckoned with. Getting elected in Brighton was a pretty incredible achievement. By your logic, it would have been pointless voting for them in Brighton fifteen years ago. It wasn't. They got in through incremental change, which is how all political change tends to happen.
Labour have signed off on some absolutely detestable things over the past couple of decades. Some people see voting for them the same way you would presumably see voting Conservative. I know a few, and they make a pretty solid case. I think if you feel like neither of the major parties represent their views or interests, or anything like it, and lots and lots of people feel like that. So the only way to form an alternative is to vote for an alternative party that better represents your views and interests. It's the only way to affect change. Even the kind of change you're talking about, ie an internal one in the Labour party. That's only going to happen if there is an incentive for them to try and win voters from the left. There will be lots up for grabs given what the Lib Dems have done.
It may well be that the only way Labour can get into power is by being centre-right. That's absolutely fine. But it means I have no interest in voting for them.
"But surely the whole idea of democracy is that everyone should vote for the party that best represents their views, and the candidate who represents the most people gets elected. "
I actually disagree if this is your definition of democracy. What you've described is an episodic and aggregative form of democracy. I think tactical voting and other, messier approaches to elections have just as much place in a democracy as people simply voting for the party who they most agree with. You seem to have privileged this very elections-centric heading-counting form of liberal democracy as a more purely democratic form, which I don't think it is.
"By your logic, it would have been pointless voting for them in Brighton fifteen years ago. It wasn't. They got in through incremental change, which is how all political change tends to happen."
This isn't my logic. I haven't argued for a straightforward Labour = always good, Green = always bad.
If you think that in another 15 years time, there might be two Green seats instead of one then fine. I think in 15 years more can be achieved by the Labour Party.
I'm sure there were lots of Labour members in Brighton when they were still a fringe party there telling people to vote for Labour instead as The Greens would never get anywhere. Like you're doing now. They were wrong. Maybe you are too. Either way, I think it's dodgy to be advising people not to vote in line with their actual values, as I think that's a pretty fast-track to people feeling disengaged and apathetic.
And yeah, I definitely do think politics and democracy works better when people vote for what they actually believe in, not for the lesser of two evils. I think that makes for a much healthier political system that actually genuinely reflects what the population wants.
for an awful lot of people, a slightly-further-left Labour party is still as unpalatable as UKIP or the Conservatives. So it's not a case of 'Well you can't have the Greens, so just vote for Labour' because lots of people really, quite passionately, don't want Labour. It's essential they have another option to represent them on the ballot.
Ideally everyone would get to just tick a box for their favourite candidates but I think it's a lot more complicated than that in reality. Totally fine if you wanna just vote 'in principle' rather than tactically or pragmatically. That's totally up to you. I just don't agree that it's necessarily ''more democratic" nor do I think it's always an effective strategy.
Also I haven't told people who to vote for http://dis11.herokuapp.com/community/boards/social/4447830#r8086426
yet is simultaneously totally out of step with basically the entirety of the current political institution. It highlights to me just how distant the political sphere and real life have become.
If they ever did manage to become a legitimate contender, even as a Lib Dem-esque distant third place, there would be all manner of difficult decisions and compromises which would sorely test the cohesion of the party. But, as things stand, they're the only party whose values align with my own, and I hope that this round of elections becomes a bit of a watershed moment where they start to be given a bit of a national platform. Why that prick Farage thinks he can get on the televised debate ahead of a party who actually has an MP I have no idea, but if he does batter his way in, the only potential positive is that the Greens would have to be granted the same privilege. The policies are relatively sound and very positive, and would hopefully strike a chord with people.
The only thing I disagree with them on is the blanket refusal to consider nuclear power; I tend to side with George Monbiot on that one, that it may be a necessary evil to wean us off fossil fuels
I can't find the article now, but if you ask people which policies they agree with, the Green Party's consistently come out as the most popular, followed by Labour, the Lib Dems, Conservatives and then UKIP.
Of course, that might in part be because it's easier to formulate progressive, positive policies when you're not in any danger of forming a government, but it's largely down to the completely skewed political debate in this country, dominated, as it is, my the interests of a very small, very wealthy number of politicians, businessmen and media owners.
I reckon any passionate orator from either left or right wings can sway large audiences over time. The only reason Farage gets more publicity is because his ideology fits with that of the established media so they force the rhetoric down people's throats and some end up believing him.
In fact although people are angry they're probably more sedated than ever. Major differences in our way of life seem unthinkable and populism is the main thrust of politics. Perhaps that's one factor in the lack of protest votes in general now. Revolution anyone?
Whereas UKIP, the other "protest" vote, appeals much more to the base instincts that right wing rhetoric offers. Even though it's the same people as the rest fo the parties with the same policies:
Pro banking, neo-liberal, public school bullshit. But they're "the alternative" apparently.
But what's the alternative to being `pro-banking`? Having no banks? :D
Maybe I'm just taking that a tad literally.
They're all for deregulation and financial freedom.
Hasn't turned out too well in the past.
they're a good shout, if anyone would actually look at their policies, and not write them off for reasons detailed above.
that is such a drownedinsound thing to say
maybe labour but I hate labour so... I dunno. not voting lib dem either.
That was always the big turn-off for me...
Not sure about the last - a quick skim doesn't bring anything up.
I appreciate the principle but I just cannot see a way around it if we're to avoid further fossil fuel exploitation. Renewables are slow moving and as yet not as efficient as they'd need to be. Of course, a lack of investment in them as a technology hasn't helped, and with time they will vastly improve no doubt, but in the interim there's no real alternative that I can see. There are new nuclear technologies which can help alleviate some of its (very serious) drawbacks though
Why are all these Europhobes voting for UKIP when they can vote for the left wing NO2EU party?
puts me off the greens. but that's not a legitimate reason not to vote for them. it's not like south east northumberland is ever gonna be some sort of haven for middle aged people who eat quinoa and dye their hair green. and I agree with all their policies.
But I'm also conflicted in my approach to fossil fuels.. well basically I'm against them, but the issue is that a company wants to open a new open cast mine in SE northumberland, it's a hugely deprived area with a lot of skilled industrial workers who are recently out of jobs (i'm not talking about mines closing etc, i'm talking about stuff like the mothballing of Alcan a few year back)- this mine would provide so much work to the community, and when it closed it would be turned into a nature reserve which would become part of an adjoining reserve and create a huge natural area near to Druridge Bay, on what is currently farming and wasteland. Obviously the Greens are campaigning against it on principle, and I understand that, but this isn't fracking in Sussex or something- the area really needs employment, and I feel like the benefits to the local area should come first, but is that a really bad thing to think? I don't support fossil fuels in any way.
for their tasty planet killing fossil fuels.
but the campaigning on principle thing is, where do you make exceptions? and where don't you?
the way to get an economy from underdeveloped to developing to developed tends to be through the more polluting industries. it's pretty much what the industrial revolution was, and if you look at the BRIC countries there's been more than their fair share of that. in a global context, they're large communities that really needed the employment and development. would be interesting to see what effect it's had on quality of life via several metrics.
if you're the Greens having exceptions like that would leave the awkward question, how much unemployment does an area need to justify something like that? we both get that that's why campaigning against it.
the Greens do require a bit of...emotional disassociation to get behind in this respect, i guess. you've got to say "this'd do wonders for my area, but if it weren't my area would i feel the same, and if i wouldn't, then should i feel this way about my area?" tricky, isn't it.
can someone who is better at expressing themselves/not talking gibberish more eloquently explain what i'm on about?
2nd today. Crazy.
and to be honest I think you've hit the nail on the head with the emotional disassociation thing. It's difficult because my region has been fucked over by successive governments, but such unemployment exists in other regions of the country too, and you're right, I don't suppose I could condone sudden expansion of mining in all of those other places. I'm like the opposite of a NIMBY.
In the long term, more mining (and fossil fuel usage) probably isn't good for the area or the country as a whole- taking that step back is quite difficult for me, but it's necessary to have some perspective I suppose.
it's a very thin line between being there and generally being a callous bastard (one i suspect i fall on the wrong side of!). it's also a heck of a challenge to persuade people of something when you can't, or specifically need not to, emotionally connect with them.
I reckon a lot of the perceived improvement in UKIPs chances are obviously media based, but they're social media based too.
I think a large scale popular left-wing social movement (something akin to the Occupy Movement) is needed to actually spark a sizeable protest vote and unite disparate left wing voters.
I don't buy tactical voting, it's not an alternative and at worst it's building illusions in a largely negative movement. I also don't think constantly badgering grassroots involvement would help. I think to become a successful 'protest vote' or even a real threat to the current establishment we need a left wing party that taps into a lot of disaffection and anti-politics - this might've been why Russell Brand hit such a cord all those months ago. I dunno, I think it's doable though.
"But as well as boldness, economic and fiscal credibility tends to help a party's election chances.
So I asked Natalie Bennett how her policy wish list would be funded.
She told me that the party's last general election manifesto had been fully costed and the next one would be too but not this one, though".
Just offering the moon on a stick then. Jokers.
If there's one thing the popularity of UKIP has taught us all it's that voters forensically examine every party manifesto.