Where did it all go wrong for the Greens

[DynamicSpirit]

On the identity politics point, what would you define as "extreme"? That's a genuine question as I'm not aware what is or isn't in their manifesto.

@Chew-chew's post reminded me I hadn't replied to this. Being pedantic, 'extreme' a tricky word to pin down because, in a political context, the dictionary definition doesn't really match the connotations that most people would associate with the word. But personally, I would say that the characteristics that would make me consider a viewpoint 'extreme' are if that viewpoint lies far from the usual mainstream consensus, is associated with an intolerant or violent attitude towards those who disagree with it, seems to be motivated by ideology rather than reason, and seems to engender promotion of hatred. I certainly perceive all those things in much of identity politics.

To try and keep this discussion on-topic for the Green party, I'd cite things like their response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities' report last year, (Report here, Greens' response here), in which the Greens basically rubbished the report without any consideration of the evidence or reasoning contained in the report, apparently because the report contradicted what the Greens had already decided. Even more ridiculously, I'd cite the way that the Greens's response claims that the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill "seeks to block people of colour from expressing their rightful outrage at injustice" - which seems to be not only an outright falsehood, but also a classic identity-politics-style attempt to bring racial politics into issues that really don't have anything directly to do with race: Whatever you think about the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill, that Bill was specifically about issues related to crime and law and order. That's not a reasoned or reasonable response by the Greens: Trying to make everything about race seems to me more like, the kind of behaviour you associate with extremism.

More damning would be the actions of the minority-Green-controlled council in Brighton, which attempted to introduce a so-called anti-racist education system that would have apparently involved teaching 7-year-olds critical race theory as if it was fact - effectively telling 7-year-old white children that they are privileged. I mean, what kind of mainstream party in the UK tries to use schools to indoctrinate 7-year-olds into their politics? (Telegraph link)

Children as young as seven are to be told they are not "racially innocent" because they view "white at the top of the hierarchy" as part of diversity training for teachers.

Brighton and Hove City Council has been accused of "indoctrinating" children through its five-year plan for an anti-racist education system, which endorses critical race theory and white privilege – contentious ideologies that have sparked protests.

The council states that all teachers require the training, which will inform "specific racial literacy-focused lessons" for pupils. The Green-controlled authority is in a row with parents opposed to the classes and one has launched a petition to have the training scrapped, which has attracted 4,000 signatures.

Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, has previously told the Commons that schools teaching white privilege as an uncontested fact are breaking the law.

The Telegraph has obtained recordings, PowerPoint slides and reading lists that form the "Racial Literacy 101" sessions. Teachers began the training in the autumn term, and 300 have undertaken it so far.

(I'm not quite sure what the current situation is, but I seem to recall reading that the council subsequently rowed back somewhat after protests by the other parties, with even the Labour group on the council expressing concern)

 

[coppercapped]

The problem with this is that it's undeniable that capitalism is one of the main drivers of environmental destruction. It certainly doesn't hold the monopoly on that, but by definition other political systems do so less, because they don't rely on (and encourage) overconsumption to the same extent. Whether or not you reach the same conclusion, I can definitely see a rational argument against capitalism in its current form if environmentalism is your main focus.

On the identity politics point, what would you define as "extreme"? That's a genuine question as I'm not aware what is or isn't in their manifesto.

This is very debatable, certainly the part "by definition other political systems do so less" as there are many examples where this can be shown to be untrue.

For example in the late 1950s/early 1960s the Soviet government decided it wanted to grow cotton and other crops in Kazakstan and Uzbekistan. To this end it diverted waters from the rivers feeding the Aral Sea and so caused the greatest environmental disaster in history.

Formerly the fourth largest lake in the world the Aral Sea began shrinking. By 1997 it had declined to about 10% of its original size and had split into four lakes.

By 2009 the southeastern lake had disappeared and the southwestern lake had shrunk to a thin strip. Satellite images in 2014 showed that for the first time in modern history the eastern basin of the Aral Sea had completely dried up - it is now the Aralkum Desert.

This all happened in a centrally planned, socialist, society, Soviet engineers expected the result of the irrigation programme would be that the Aral Sea would dry up - but they didn't care. The region's fishing industry has been devastated and the whole area is heavily polluted, with consequent serious public health problems.

On the other hand one of the earliest environmental protection groups, the Sierra Club, was founded in 1892 in the USA - the centre of unbridled capitalism. The home of 'capitalism' being one of the first to be concerned about the environment - how does that compute?

 

[Phil56]

Well in our area, the Greens are too extreme. They stand for a complete ban on private cars throughout the wider city centre. Just outside the area to the South is the big hospital, several schools, industrial estates etc. Within the prohibition area would be city centre shopping, dentists/GP surgeries/vets, train and railway station! The only alternative to get from one side of the city to another if cars are banned from the centre is to use narrow country roads or the motorway. They actually expect people to do a 10 mile detour via the motorway if you live just South of the "exclusion" zone, but want to go somewhere just North of it such as the supermarket and vice versa for the hospital! And absolutely no contingency for motorway traffic if the motorway is blocked due to an accident or road works, so there'd be gridlock as no way for motorway traffic to progress past/through the city. And this is a city with poor public transport systems.

If they were more moderate/reasonable, then they'd be taken more seriously.

 

[Pinza-C55]

The Greens are a niche party similar to the Tooting Popular Front. They would be better off amalgamating with Labour where they may at least have some chance of furthering their agenda.

 

[duncanp]

Well in our area, the Greens are too extreme. They stand for a complete ban on private cars throughout the wider city centre. Just outside the area to the South is the big hospital, several schools, industrial estates etc. Within the prohibition area would be city centre shopping, dentists/GP surgeries/vets, train and railway station! The only alternative to get from one side of the city to another if cars are banned from the centre is to use narrow country roads or the motorway. They actually expect people to do a 10 mile detour via the motorway if you live just South of the "exclusion" zone, but want to go somewhere just North of it such as the supermarket and vice versa for the hospital! And absolutely no contingency for motorway traffic if the motorway is blocked due to an accident or road works, so there'd be gridlock as no way for motorway traffic to progress past/through the city. And this is a city with poor public transport systems.

If they were more moderate/reasonable, then they'd be taken more seriously.

So if people have to do a journey of 10 miles instead of one of 3 miles that is, er, 3 times the amount of fossil fuel burnt, and three times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.

A bit like the post I saw on Facebook criticising Greta Doomberg and her climate change preaching at Glastonbury....on a stage that was powered with large diesel generators.

If you are going to ban traffic from a town centre you need to provide adequate public transport alternatives, such as park and ride facilities, and frequent bus services that serve the places where people want to go.

 

[Phil56]

So if people have to do a journey of 10 miles instead of one of 3 miles that is, er, 3 times the amount of fossil fuel burnt, and three times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.

A bit like the post I saw on Facebook criticising Greta Doomberg and her climate change preaching at Glastonbury....on a stage that was powered with large diesel generators.

If you are going to ban traffic from a town centre you need to provide adequate public transport alternatives, such as park and ride facilities, and frequent bus services that serve the places where people want to go.

Yes, that's exactly their proposal, a huge detour! They're crazy. And they expect people to vote for them. Yes, to public transport first, then once it's in place, start the restrictions for cars. We have a PNR but it's on the East side where few people live. They actually expect people from the West and North to do the 10 mile motorway detour to get to the PNR site to get the bus back to about a couple of miles from where they started! It will clear the centre of traffic/fumes etc but will cause bigger problems with fumes from longer journeys and more congestion on the routes to/from the motorway!

 

[Gostav]

I think a problem is that those activists have a contradictory demeanor and generally are children of (white) middle class who spend their parents money. Here are examples of their journey hsistory of two activists.
Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain activist Cameron Ford

He first went on a 10,000-mile, four-month trip across the Atlantic and around Canada, and then made a 2,000-mile trek across much of Europe in an old, gas-guzzling diesel van.

The fossil fuels burned during Mr Ford’s trip and the resulting carbon emissions are equal to more than double the entire annual carbon footprint a person in the West generates in an entire year.

Yet no sooner had he returned from the second trip than he was lecturing others.

Mr Ford’s mammoth holiday began in the autumn of 2019 as he embarked on a four-month jaunt across Canada, which resulted in a round trip of 8,500 air miles alone.

The activist then travelled extensively across Canada for 120 days, posting updates of the fun activities he got up to in Edmonton, Alberta and British Columbia which included ice swimming and sledging.

While enjoying his trip of a lifetime, Mr Ford seemed apparently oblivious to his hypocrisy, and continued posting online content promoting Extinction Rebellion and its twin pressure group Insulate Britain.

Mr Ford returned to the UK in January 2020 before embarking on his second international trip in August, and posted 25 images showing himself and a female companion gallivanting around exotic locations in an album entitled From Whittlesford to Warsaw.

Insulate Britain activist Cameron Ford clocked up 12,000 miles in trips across Canada and Europe

www.mailplus.co.uk

And Just Stop Oil co-founder Hannah Hunt

MailOnline can reveal that Miss Hunt, 23, is the co-founder of Just Stop Oil whose social media pages are adorned with exotic holiday pictures from locations including south-east Asia, Australia and the Canary Islands. Earlier this year she glued herself to the red carpet at the Bafta awards, and she has broken into an ExxonMobil oil refinery in Hampshire.

The former XR supporter even used the long haul trips to try to bolster her environmental credentials, telling social media followers from Bali: ‘Can we look back in another 50 years and say we did everything to protect our pretty cool planet?’

If Miss Hunt flew to every destination she would have clocked up 49,404 air miles over five years and been responsible for the emissions of 13 tons of carbon dioxide. The European average – per person – is 8.4 tons in a whole year, according to the My Climate website.

Just Stop Oil protesters damaged The Hay Wain in gluing stunt

Brighton students Hannah Hunt, 23, and Eben Lazarus, 22, were held after sticking large sheets of paper over the 200-year-old painting's Suffolk landscape and then gluing their hands to the frame.

www.dailymail.co.uk

These hypocritical climate activists have a very dubious position and l belive that such people can do nothing for environmental movement but will further intensify social conflicts.

 

[GusB]

I think a problem is that those activists have a contradictory demeanor and generally are children of (white) middle class who spend their parents money. Here are examples of their journey hsistory of two activists.
Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain activist Cameron Ford

Insulate Britain activist Cameron Ford clocked up 12,000 miles in trips across Canada and Europe

www.mailplus.co.uk

And Just Stop Oil co-founder Hannah Hunt

Just Stop Oil protesters damaged The Hay Wain in gluing stunt

Brighton students Hannah Hunt, 23, and Eben Lazarus, 22, were held after sticking large sheets of paper over the 200-year-old painting's Suffolk landscape and then gluing their hands to the frame.

www.dailymail.co.uk

These hypocritical climate activists have a very dubious position and l belive that such people can do nothing for environmental movement but will further intensify social conflicts.

The sources you've quoted aren't exactly renowned for their unbiased journalism.

Over the years I've met quite a few "children of (white) middle class who spend their parents money". It would be fair to say that some have outgrown their rebellious teenage years and have adopted more "mainstream" lifestyles but, by and large, those who were were "climate activists" continue to live their lives in a more sustainable way, and are also bringing their children up to do so.

For balance, I've also met children of brown middle class who spend their parents(') money.

Most environmentalists that I've encountered over the years are fairly pragmatic and realise that it's not always possible to do every single thing in life in a way that doesn't affect the environment. It's about minimising one's impact on the world, really.

Your posts on this forum are clearly either anti-Green or anti-activist; I'm not quite sure which, but none of them are very helpful.

 

[TwoYellas]

I think a problem is that those activists have a contradictory demeanor and generally are children of (white) middle class who spend their parents money.

Never understood this negative mentality towards middle class people. So say if someone's children want to become doctors or scientists and they then will become middle class as will their children - are you going to discourage them and explain that it is more noble to be true to your working class roots and consider brick laying or painting and decorating instead?

Surely if you want to 'punch up' have a look at further up the wealth scale and see the kind of people making money here and their dubious activities - the 'news' you quoted from won't generally hold a magnifying glass to them. In fact it's just typical, they will try to discredit anyone doing anything good - it's entirely predictable and the same has happened throughout history. If you look carefully enough they'll always find something.

I blame the governments for not doing enough and forcing the activists to take direct action. I'm not going to be swayed by propaganda rags.

 

[Falcon1200]

The sources you've quoted aren't exactly renowned for their unbiased journalism.

So are the two stories quoted untrue, and did those individuals not in fact make any of the journeys detailed in their own social media ? Calling out such people when they demonstrate utter hypocrisy is not anti-activist, they are basically telling us (the ordinary folk) to give up things such as long-distance travel that they themselves are entitled to enjoy.

I blame the governments for not doing enough and forcing the activists to take direct action.

I would like to see real direct action by activists in the form of a commitment to practice what they preach: Promise never to travel by air ever again, anywhere, to own only one home just large enough to accommodate them, and in general to consume as few of the earth's resources as possible. I look forward to such commitments from other eco-hypocrites such as Prince and Mrs Harry, Emma Thompson, etc. Then I might have more sympathy with their cause.

 

[TwoYellas]

So are the two stories quoted untrue, and did those individuals not in fact make any of the journeys detailed in their own social media ? Calling out such people when they demonstrate utter hypocrisy is not anti-activist, they are basically telling us (the ordinary folk) to give up things such as long-distance travel that they themselves are entitled to enjoy.

With respect you're missing the point and are falling for the propaganda hook, line and sinker. If you look closely enough you are going to find something that's hypocritical anywhere - these activists still live in the real world. If you went by that standard no one in history would have protested and fought for anything good.

"Breaking news: someone went on holiday!" Now let's just carry on and destroy half the planet.

Classic case of "people look over here" while the serious wrong doers get away with it. Really interesting to see how people get brainwashed and led by these blagging right wing propaganda outlets.

 

[deltic]

People change their opinions over time and a couple of examples don't necessarily reflect the behaviour of a majority of environmental activists. I have known people who got arrested for activities related to Extinction Rebellion campaigns who gave up flying and a car over 10 years ago.

 

[Falcon1200]

"Breaking news: someone went on holiday!" Now let's just carry on and destroy half the planet.

No, someone went on a holiday which contributed to destroying the planet while telling other people to sacrifice such pleasures to save the planet; Which would lead people to think if the activists care so little for the planet they're telling me to save, why should I ?

 

[TwoYellas]

No, someone went on a holiday which contributed to destroying the planet while telling other people to sacrifice such pleasures to save the planet; Which would lead people to think if the activists care so little for the planet they're telling me to save, why should I ?

Your argument would stand if these 'news' outlets didn't have an agenda to slander protest movements they don't like. It's common worldwide, powerful entities will try to discredit movements they don't agree with such as worker unions (this has happened here very recently as well - but I don't want to go off topic too much). They then investigate very carefully the history of people involved in the movements - for anything that they can use. Then once they've found something it is spun, told in half-truths in an unbalanced way.

For example the cases of activists who are doing their bit (and even being locked up) are not presented. Such as deltic mentions below.

People change their opinions over time and a couple of examples don't necessarily reflect the behaviour of a majority of environmental activists. I have known people who got arrested for activities related to Extinction Rebellion campaigns who gave up flying and a car over 10 years ago.

This gives people a distorted view and leads some to say "why should I care" like you have done.

A more truthful headline would be - I suggest:

"The Real Sacrifices Made By Climate Activists to Set An Example"

My headline sounds strange, buts that's indicative of the unbalanced propaganda we are conditioned to.

 

[deltic]

The fact that the environment and climate change has not surfaced in the PM election debate so far despite heading into one of the worst heatwaves we have ever experienced and we even have candidates proposing dropping the 2050 net zero target highlights far how the Greens have to go in raising what should be there USP.

 

[TwoYellas]

The fact that the environment and climate change has not surfaced in the PM election debate so far despite heading into one of the worst heatwaves we have ever experienced and we even have candidates proposing dropping the 2050 net zero target highlights far how the Greens have to go in raising what should be there USP.

In my opinion many in the general public just don't think the issues are serious. Certainly many I speak to think it's just a 'cycle' or as one old colleague said to me "we used to just call it pool weather in the old days".

But I think there are warning signs all over the world of man made climate change. If it starts getting a bit too toasty in the coming years - it's might become a hot topic (pardon the pun) for the majority of people in this country.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

To me, I consider there to be an element of tyranny to the greens. They seem to think that they should be able to dictate what I can and can't eat (50% of members wanting all meat and dairy banned) and when I can and can't go out (Jenny Jones...enough said). My life is mine to live, not theirs to control.

 

[deltic]

To me, I consider there to be an element of tyranny to the greens. They seem to think that they should be able to dictate what I can and can't eat (50% of members wanting all meat and dairy banned) and when I can and can't go out (Jenny Jones...enough said). My life is mine to live, not theirs to control.

Interested to know what your views are on all the other parties who are happy to ban us from doing lots of things that we might like to do for either our or society's greater good.

 

[Gostav]

Interested to know what your views are on all the other parties who are happy to ban us from doing lots of things that we might like to do for either our or society's greater good.

The problem is that if the Green Party wants to to realize these environmental protection agendas, it needs this nation to develop in the direction of a big government, and the government must have more decision-making power and legislative power. The environmental groups seem to be quite large, but they are too fragmented, and even have completely conflicting purposes with each other (for example, in the view of HS2).

In order to cater to the general public, the Green Party even promotes itself against police, army and (big) government, catering to minorities, which itself has no direct connection to environmental protection.

 

[GusB]

The problem is that if the Green Party wants to to realize these environmental protection agendas, it needs this nation to develop in the direction of a big government, and the government must have more decision-making power and legislative power.

What's wrong with wanting to have a central government in charge of things that affect a nation as a whole? Besides, there's no need for all "environmental protection agendas" to be dealt with at a national level; local communities are well placed to decide what works in their area.

The environmental groups seem to be quite large, but they are too fragmented, and even have completely conflicting purposes with each other (for example, in the view of HS2).

Not every member of a political party holds exactly the same views. As an example, I refer you to the mess that the Conservative party is currently in. I'm not aware of any political party where every member thinks in exactly the same way, and I don't think it would be very good if that was the case. Dissenting voices are allowed in any democracy, and that includes within political parties.

You seem to be assuming that Green Party = Extinction Rebellion = Insulate Britain which is most definitely not the case. You've made it clear on many occasions on this forum that you have an intense dislike for anyone who advocates for environmental issues, so it comes as no surprise to me that your post is so ill-informed.

In order to cater to the general public, the Green Party even promotes itself against police, army and (big) government, catering to minorities, which itself has no direct connection to environmental protection.

Do you have a source for this nonsense? I suspect not, because:

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/Elections/Green%20Party%20Manifesto%202019.pdf

A safer, fairer future for all will only be delivered with effective central government. Yet right now we have an out of control executive attacking the independence of the courts, undermining the rule of law and ignoring the great challenges of our time.

We have a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a feudal barony from the 14th century, but no Cabinet Minister responsible for combatting the Climate Emergency that threatens the future of every UK citizen.

It’s time to make government fit for purpose today and fit to face the future. We will also transform how Parliament works, to improve accountability at the same time as encouraging greater co-operation and long-term decision making.

We will restore central government to its democratic purpose and core function
of making the lives of UK citizens better.

On the subject of policing:

Everyone has the right to feel safe - on the street, in their home or online. Simple things like more police on the beat and enforceable laws against malicious trolling can make a huge difference.

However, not all crime can be tackled by being tough. Punishment for its own sake is ineffective. It might make us feel better, but it doesn’t change very much.

The Green Party thinks it’s time to transform our justice system.

We want to tackle the underlying causes of crime more effectively than CCTV cameras, stop and search or draconian sentencing can ever do. So we will focus on the prevention of crime with community-based policing, alongside investment in education and employment.

Overall, we aim to halve the prison population, as has successfully been achieved in the Netherlands, breaking the vicious cycle of reoffending. 60% of newly released short-term prisoners reoffend in the year after their release, often graduating to more serious crimes than the one for which they were originally imprisoned.

We will expand restorative justice when crimes do take place, both to give victims a voice and to help offenders see the effects of what they have done and take responsibility.

That doesn't say to me that they want to do away with the police - merely that they would change the way that policing works.

On the Army:

Replace the Ministry of Defence with a Ministry for Security and Peace, making the promotion of peace a key foreign policy objective and linking the role of the defence services more closely to the world we now live in – a central part of their responsibilities will become defending environments around the world from the effects of climate chaos and dealing with the humanitarian and environmental impacts of climate-related disasters.

Again, it makes no mention of scrapping the army - merely that the role of the defence services will change.

On "government":

Across the country, hardworking councillors and council workers strive to improve the lives of people and communities.

They do this at a time of staggering and unprecedented cuts to local government budgets. Over £50 billion has been slashed from council budgets over the past decade because of central government decisions. Councils have been forced to close libraries, sell off public land, abandon meals on wheels for older people, close children’s centres, stop repairing roads or no longer collect litter.

We will choose to devolve real power from central to local government, giving councils the tools needed to deliver public services. Properly resourced and led councils are in the unique position of being able to make real and effective change, bring people together and lead the services people need where they live. We will reverse spending cuts and restore local government budgets so local councils can afford to serve their communities.

It’s time to transform local government. In this age of climate chaos, action to secure the future of people and the places they love, led by democratically elected local representatives, is needed more than ever. We want local councils to lead the delivery of the Green New Green Party Manifesto 2019 Growing Democracy 41 Deal and the transition to a resilient, zero carbon economy. We believe this is how to make life better today and create a future where local people and businesses can thrive.

Looking to devolve the day-to-day decisions to local government isn't exactly a bad thing, is it? I seem to recall a recent prime minister going on about "localism" too, so it's hardly something that's purely a Green view.

Central government for the big issues that affect the whole country; local government for the issues that should be dealt with by communities who know best what's right for them.

As far as "catering for minorities" is concerned, I'm quite glad that they do want to cater for minorities, as should every other single political party. Everyone deserves to be represented by their elected politicians and everyone should have a voice.

Note that the manifesto I've quoted from is that of the Green Party of England and Wales. The Scottish Greens and the Green Party of Ireland will have different policies and that's fine; after all, Greens aren't all the tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, lentil-munching, layabouts that you imagine them to be.

 

[AlterEgo]

What's wrong with wanting to have a central government in charge of things that affect a nation as a whole? Besides, there's no need for all "environmental protection agendas" to be dealt with at a national level; local communities are well placed to decide what works in their area.

Make no mistake, the climate change agenda can only be seriously combatted at a macro level. This means having a huge state and massively increasing state capacity. Nordic style social democracy will not cut the mustard in that respect.

The Greens are very wary of large state apparatus and do not champion a large state, which is a big problem.