Chris Loynes was most impressive to my way of thinking.
He is willing to grapple with issues that desperately need addressing by our society.
However, unsurprisingly, they were unacceptable to most of the few people at the meeting.
They concerned the need to carry major shifts in the values of our society and a move away from consumerism with its implications on future jobs and the values we support.
These are changes that do need to be addressed and the Greens are the people to raise awareness of these issues.
However I do not believe that running for election is the most pragmatic way of dealing with the issues.
Better to unite with the Liberals whose policies are the closest of the three main parties to the Greens and get them into power than to split the Environmentalist between Liberals and Greens.
Tactical voting is needed at this time.
12 comments:
Unfortunately the Liberals have not convinced me as to where they are getting the money from to be so liberal. AND to be able to get down the trillions of which the country is in debt.
Sugar and spice and all things nice might make good flavouring but is lacking in substance.
We need REALITY not pie in the sky!
Aren't they the only one of the three main parties that offer a detail analysis of their financial plan for the country?
The others are ducking giving details because it will scare off potential voters. Both spokesmen refuse to spell out where the massive cuts will have to take place. All they will say is what they will protect.
In my view this is totally dishonest.
They know that they will frighten people when the public realise just how tough the cuts are going to be.
The Conservatives are the vaguest when they state that billions will be saved by "efficiencies". Now in my book that is "pie in the sky". I'm not saying that it's not possible but no government has ever been effective in making efficiency savings.
To be credible they need to be more specific and name the Departments where these savings will take place.
By contrast Vince Cable is very persuasive and for me doesn't duck difficult questions. He is the only one that is realistically tough on the scandalous banker's behavior.
I would trust him to majke hard decisions when I wouldn't trust the other treasurers.
Look at the Liberal team as a whole they have some very impressive MPs and leaders starting with Shirley Williams who always talks straight.
Finding equally impressive people in the main parties is extremely difficult. If you think otherwise, give us some names of people you admire!
Tell us what's wrong with Liberal costings!
Okay, they intend to scrap the Trident replacement but have not given likely costs for the alternatives, nor for the massive number of people involved (directly and indirectly) who will be put out of work. I do believe they say no benefits would come for a few years anyway. Are they intending taxing the rich so heavy that they move elsewhere?
What I would like to see is all lower paid people come out of the tax bracket (more so than proposed by the Liberals). I would keep VAT as it is (essentials vat free) and impose a luxury tax on non-essential items. (That would include cars other than the smaller efficient ones, high fashion - that is clothes over a certain price, jewellery, in fact stuff only the rich can afford. Most would not buy 'cheap' stuff so paying extra would likely give then kudos!) Definitely have two extra levels for local taxes. The division between rich and poor has been increasing - it is time for this to be addressed. Not by giving hand-outs but by fairer taxation. Those who have made the most out of the monetary system should pay the most. All the money that 'disappeared' when the banks went bust must have gone into pockets somewhere, but it is the ordinary workers and pensioners (who rely on their savings) that are having to make up that loss. Hence a luxury tax.
Just a few things...
On the basis of their policies and personnel, I would probably vote for the Lib Dems, but our local (Lancaster & Fleetwood) Lib Dem candidate is atrociously, appallingly bad and I couldn't countenance being represented by him.
At the moment I'm leaning strongly towards voting for the Greens - they are doing an excellent job representing Lancaster at City and County council level, and their parliamentary candidate, Gina Dowding, knocks the Labour, Conservative & Lib Dem candidates into a cocked hat.
Even if she's unlikely to get in, I feel it's important we show our support & help close the gap so that voters won't feel quite so much like it's hobson's choice between the major parties come the next election.
Oh and another issue. I do believe that Liberals oppose nuclear energy. If that is correct then before long this country will be at the mercy of suppliers from abroad. France gets most of its energy from nuclear and they could be laughing while we pay up. Likewise providers of gas.
Britain needs to get back to being self-sufficient or we will end up the poor man of Europe.
I like Shirley Williams but I doubt she is going to influence the younger eager-beavers. Funny enough, I was thinking of voting Liberal — until I heard their leader. Oh so simple, everything worked out. And what a nice guy. So reasonable, so seductive, so relaxed in the presence of 'fighters'. Yep, that's what I like — sweet simplicity and quietly confident. Remove Trident and improve efficiency and, with a few monetary adjustments, all will be well.
Of course, unless they get overall majority they can do nothing about Trident. Hence what are they left with, except to go along with Labour?
That is Brown, who sold our gold reserves and effectively put a tax on pension funds. Money flowing in all directions of which a large chunk is paid to those 'managing' it. And this throughout the whole government structures.
Well, yes, the Liberals can improve things there BUT the others promise to do the same. So again, I see no reason to vote Liberal, even if they have some really nice 'guys' standing.
It is easy to go with the flow, but sometimes we have to make hard decisions in life!
Lancastrian,
I sympathise strongly with your reasoning and would co the same in similar circumstances.
Making decisions like this is never that easy.
In this case I'm reasonably happy with our candidate though i don't know him as well as I'd like to. I admire his stance on Nuclear Subs though I realise that he doesn't have a choice.
This blind adherence to a party policy is not what I believe democracy should be like. I would much rather vote for the person, hoping that he/she would have the discretion to vote with reference to views of those that he represents.
Nice thought but when push comes to shove there is only one direction they can go.
Essentially, at the heart of all the debate each wants the same thing - fairness and jobs for all, freedom from debt, successful businesses that can keep the country afloat, health care, good schools and further education, child welfare, security of home and land, care for the elderly, care of the environment etc.
You would not think it would be difficult for all to pull together in a coalition of fair-minded people. But how to achieve results from splendid aims? Different routes and priorities surely make it highly unlikely.
The expenses scandal brought to light how politicians minds work. If money is available grab it. (I would like to think we would behave different BUT if tempted would we?) Some members were not tempted but all knew it was going on.
Frankly, I look at the leaders and am not impressed. So I try to look at which policies are likely to work. I know which local candidate I really like but in the end I have to consider the whole.
It is 'our' children and grandchildren's future that most concerns me.
Nuclear power is a very, very expensive Cul-de-Sac and is one very, very good reason to back the Lib Debs. Throw in a move to PR so that we wind up with a governance in this country that actually reflects the will of the people and it's an absolute winner for me.
My heart lies with the Greens, but I think going Lib Dem offers them a better chance next time around of getting MPs and influencing policy.
Not only my heart but my brain is thoroughly with The Greens.
But as you say, not this time.
We need to get there in stages.
Sadly I doubt that many Greens are this far seeing.
This for me is the problem with party politics.
People find a party that they approve of and they then become blinkered. I becomes like a religion.
Members have absolute faith in their leaders. They stop thinking rationally.
It's a sign that they haven't the moral strength to always think for themselves.
Whilst agreeing ith other people we always need to hold a little bit of our rational being back to stand back; examine our objectives: then consider the strategy for achieving these.
If the argument against nuclear energy is one of cost. This is not good enough for me. Neither is the danger of pollution or even massive explosion. It was the accidental or terrorist exolosion that was my main argument against nuclear power. But now in my view the criteria have changed.
We need the fastest largest alternative to energy from fossil fuels. If nuclear is part of the answer then we need to go for it no matter what the cost.
The alternative is human extinction.
But then few people don't believe the matter is this urgent and that we have time to make safe solutions.
Knowledgeable scientists like Lovelock tell us that we need action Now or even that it's already too late.
I'm sad that people don't have enough background to even understand the Lovelock is right.
Too many people arrogantly believe they understand things better.
In my view these people don't understand science well enough to be able to judge.
My friends who are scientifically trained all agree that Lovelock is right and that we have very little chance of aoiding the consequences of run away global warning.
Even I have said this probably one time too many so that by credibility is streched.
What I ask is that people come back in five years time and decide again when they have witnessed five more years of weather disruption from global warming.
In the mean time please don't stop those who are urging urgent action. Just hold back the criticism and agree to wait to be proved right; you may found you're wrong but at least the future then will be more optimistic that it is now!
It's a little like the grounding of planes because of volcanic ash. This at least was the safe option though we could have been more adventurous but we needed some test flights to be done first.
Did you listen to the Election debate from Barrow on Radio Cumbria
On bbc iplayer, last 1/2hr of Liz Rhodes show
Westmorland debate is on Thursday
So ,what did you think Dave, or would you rather not comment!
Thanks for alerting us.
Very interesting!
Entertaining listen, Lib Dem would of lost alot of votes by saying he can't guarantee any jobs to the local ship/sub industry.
Bit of a confused picture on the Trident jobs front from the Lib Dems. Tim Farron wants trident to go and replaced with green energy jobs. Ming wants trident to go but doesn't see any job loses as he sees the local industries being given other ship building contracts. And the Lib Dem candidate who wants to represent the area doesn't want trident and can't guarantee any job loses would be replaced.
The other two candidate did to much bickering
Mike Parr was good at keeping order
Post a Comment