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

  • scrchngwsl@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Green policies really don’t make sense. You have Green councillors opposing wind farms.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I think it was said best on JOE politics, one of the guys was saying that they are basically “militant nimbyists”. They’re all in favor of wind turbines just not anywhere near where they can see them. And since they’re quite big they’re basically against them everywhere.

      I live near wind farm and they’re going to expand it five times the size, there was somebody going around the other day saying they were against it and collecting names for a petition, and I just don’t care. They look an awful lot better than a coal fire power station would that is certainly true.

  • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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?

    • AngusTheNerd@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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?

        • AngusTheNerd@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.