Monday 20th October 2014

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 5:49 pm

In the late 80s many professional groups working within the NHS were encouraged to set up their own private agencies and take up contracts with the NHS. Few of these groups had the skills to manage the contracts, they were told it would be a formality, rather than a whole lot of additional work. Many of the agencies went under and were snapped up by businesses seeking a large profit, rather than a living. In this way many areas were hollowed out in the NHS, and a window was made for those companies to bid for ever bigger contracts.

I heard plenty of discussion about this as I had a very close relative who took this route. He was a lead operating theatre technician and lecturer, and came to bitterly regret what happened then. People tend to think it only happened to cleaning and catering services, but it was a lot bigger than that and came with management structures that couldn't be easily eliminated.

A lot of this was a fait accompli by the time Labour took over, as was UNUM elsewhere.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 5:54 pm

Rebecca wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Rebecca wrote: You sound like the snps.Please do not tell me what I am voting for,as you don't know a thing about me.I am voting for what I think will realistically be best for the country in the real 2015 world,and would not waste my vote on a party who have no chance whatsoever of even getting 10 mps.
Why do you think you are better than other people btw?And know why they vote for a party you 'hate'?Patronising bullshit from the comfort of your high horse.

When you vote for a party you vote for those policies, it's not a difficult concept to comprehend is it?
Jesus,will you get over yourself?I know what I am voting for.And I also know that you are voting for a party which will never have a chance to put its policies into action,so you are voting for a dream which obviously makes you feel infinitely superior to me.

Hmm, now you are telling me what I am voting for? Your argument is intellectually incoherent as well as insulting. Well done you! Who I vote for doesn't make me feel superior; perhaps listening to your argument does though.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 5:54 pm

ExaroNews ‏@ExaroNews 30m30 minutes ago
Statement from Home Office that we had expected this afternoon on #CSAinquiry has been scheduled for 9.30am tomorrow (Tuesday).

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 5:55 pm

Temulkar wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:@Tizme&Temulkar

I hate the fact millions died in Iraq,
I hate the privatisation introduced into the NHS and Education,
I hate the malignant influence of UNUM on our social security,
I hate the fact not a single anti-union law was repealed in 13 years,
I hate the bash a scrounger rhetoric,
I hate the energy policy,
I hate HS2, Fracking, Trident.
I hate their enviromental policy,

Forgive me because I am sure you are too very committed decent human beings....
But with the vicious cuts and sheer nastiness that we've had to endure over the last four and a half years this is how I [and I suspect many others] will look at your list.

Millions died in Iraq. Yes they did. But that was then and they volunteered. Sorry if that sounds callous, because I'm very pro our armed forces and proud of them but thousands are dying in despair now due to the Coalition, and they didn't volunteer for it.
I also hate the privatisation. We are looking to EM to do something about it, given that terrible inroads have been made.
UNUM. So do we.
Anti Union Law So do I but I believe Ed is gradually doing something about it. There are a great many people that remember some of the Union's antics. It makes them a little wary. Even my father said that at times the unions were going too far. People have long memories.
Hate the scrounger rhetoric. Well I don't think I need to answer that do I?
The energy policy? We'd all like to be greener. In the meantime we have humongous bills to pay. I for one can't afford more [I really can't]

Environment including Fracking and Trident? I think we should give Ed a chance to get his feet under the table before we condemn him for that. Quite frankly when Mr Ohso and I are having to sell our home to see us into our old age, two of my grandchildren's futures are bleak and the others are going to struggle, my sons physical health and standard of living such as it is is dropping fast and will worsen as disabled benefits are cut [he's supporting his 25 years old son still and there'll be a daughter next year [he isn't on tax credits and the benefits don't cover] and with all the cruelty I'm sorry but don't give a bugger about what might be way further down the road because there's many aren't even getting the chance to peacefully see out their next few months or years.
1 million+ dead and 3 million+ displaced did not volunteer for it, ohso. It was inflicted upon them.

I had parents, grandparents in the military. I have a son who in other times would have been called up. They all knew the risks and millions died in the two World Wars. WW2 was to fight the extreme right wing. Would you encourage people to take up arms against this extreme right wing government? As you get older there are so many shades of right and wrong.

Nevertheless, it's the past. I am old and I like history, but I don't believe in looking back. It's pointless.
Please don't tell me we learn from history because we don't and despite all the information out there now there's damn all chance we ever will. We survive as best we can. The only way forward is to drop the past.

I used to really care about what I ate, how it was farmed and all the rest, but now I dare not read the labels to check. All I can do is check the price. I hate it. I hate that we are destroying our environment, but although I'd love to switch to the greener energy alternative I can't afford it. We are down to one bar of an electric fire this winter. For many it's about surviving and coming from a generation that wrote the manual we shall, but good intentions have to take a back burner whilst you're living the nightmare.

We need idealists we need perfectionists, but don't be bitter that the bulk of us aren't.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:10 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:By the way - just thought I ought to add that I'm not generally inclined to be nearly as polite and peaceful as the lady patrollers in the film insist they are ...

But I suppose some of you might have guessed that anyway!

And this isn't my particular wing of the badger army as it is known now.

Is that the Provisional Badger Army?

Seriously though, each and every person fighting this obscenity has my best wishes.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:10 pm

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... ether.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No surprise here, how thick do they think people are?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:11 pm

@Temulkar

So, from where I stand I am voting for your grandchildren's future too.

But don't you understand I'm voting for their present because it's getting that bad. Bless their hearts anyone who is ill, disabled or disadvantaged deserves kindness and empathy now.

I really do apologise if this sounds aggressive, but why should I watch him [my grandson] getting beat up for being different and comfort him by saying it'll all be better for his grandchildren if I vote Green right now. It doesn't work that way when you or your family are living it.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:11 pm

Wow some lively discussion here today!

I was thinking about the Greens Labour thing just the other day and noted this piece in the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ts-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the Greens have gained more media attention, Bennett has thought seriously about post-election possibilities, and what role her party might play in supporting a Tory- or Labour-led government. “I can’t imagine circumstances in which we would prop up a Tory government,” she says. “Our first inclination would be a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement, rather than a coalition, because it means you provide stable government – you don’t get the ministerial cars but you keep your conscience and you don’t have to vote for tuition fees, for example.”

She is marginally warmer about an alliance with Labour, again probably not in a formal coalition. “We are not enthusiastic about Labour but the choice between [Labour and Tory] is obvious.”

It seems to me that Natalie Bennett sees a clear difference between the Tories and Labour. Of course that doesn't mean other Green Party members have to share that view. But it does seem to me that those of us who see a more natural affinity between green and red than green and other colours are at least consistent with the leadership of the Greens.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:12 pm

Tizme1 wrote:
I am opposed to fracking. The Labour party are supportive of the idea though with more 'checks' seemingly than the Tories. And there is the nub of it. Labour frequently are a watered down version of the Tories.

The Green party isn't just about the environment. It's about social justice too. Are Labour going to do away with workfare? Work capability assessments? Why have they started joining in with the bash the immigrants rhetoric?

As I said previously, many Labour party supporters and Green party supporters are in agreement on a lot of these issues. But the Labour leadership don't appear to be.

The Green Party supported in 2010 spending £40bn more on pensions, a universal £170 a week. Many of those pensioners have excellent private pensions.

Not much social justice spending left after that.

I think Labour should work with them at local level, but at a national level, but nationally I can't take them seriously.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:13 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:@Tizme&Temulkar

I hate the fact millions died in Iraq,
I hate the privatisation introduced into the NHS and Education,
I hate the malignant influence of UNUM on our social security,
I hate the fact not a single anti-union law was repealed in 13 years,
I hate the bash a scrounger rhetoric,
I hate the energy policy,
I hate HS2, Fracking, Trident.
I hate their enviromental policy,

Forgive me because I am sure you are too very committed decent human beings....
But with the vicious cuts and sheer nastiness that we've had to endure over the last four and a half years this is how I [and I suspect many others] will look at your list.

Millions died in Iraq. Yes they did. But that was then and they volunteered. Sorry if that sounds callous, because I'm very pro our armed forces and proud of them but thousands are dying in despair now due to the Coalition, and they didn't volunteer for it.
I also hate the privatisation. We are looking to EM to do something about it, given that terrible inroads have been made.
UNUM. So do we.
Anti Union Law So do I but I believe Ed is gradually doing something about it. There are a great many people that remember some of the Union's antics. It makes them a little wary. Even my father said that at times the unions were going too far. People have long memories.
Hate the scrounger rhetoric. Well I don't think I need to answer that do I?
The energy policy? We'd all like to be greener. In the meantime we have humongous bills to pay. I for one can't afford more [I really can't]

Environment including Fracking and Trident? I think we should give Ed a chance to get his feet under the table before we condemn him for that. Quite frankly when Mr Ohso and I are having to sell our home to see us into our old age, two of my grandchildren's futures are bleak and the others are going to struggle, my sons physical health and standard of living such as it is is dropping fast and will worsen as disabled benefits are cut [he's supporting his 25 years old son still and there'll be a daughter next year [he isn't on tax credits and the benefits don't cover] and with all the cruelty I'm sorry but don't give a bugger about what might be way further down the road because there's many aren't even getting the chance to peacefully see out their next few months or years.
1 million+ dead and 3 million+ displaced did not volunteer for it, ohso. It was inflicted upon them.
I had parents, grandparents in the military. I have a son who in other times would have been called up. They all knew the risks and millions died in the two World Wars. WW2 was to fight the extreme right wing. Would you encourage people to take up arms against this extreme right wing government? As you get older there are so many shades of right and wrong.

Nevertheless, it's the past. I old and I like history, but I don't believe in looking back. It's pointless.
Please don't tell me we learn from history because we don't and despite all the information out there now there's damn all chance we ever will. We survive as best we can. The only way forward is to drop the past.

I used to really care about what I ate, how it was farmed and all the rest, but now I dare not read the labels to check. All I can do is check the price. I hate it. I hate that we are destroying our environment, but although I'd love to switch to the greener energy alternative I can't afford it. We are down to one bar of an electric fire this winter. For many it's about surviving and coming from a generation that wrote the manual we shall, but good intentions have to take a back burner whilst you're living the nightmare.

We need idealists we need perfectionists, but don't be bitter that the bulk of us aren't.

Honestly I'm not bitter that people want to vote labour, Im not complaining that people vote labour, Im not the one swearing at people because of who they want to vote for, Im not the one casting betrayal or your fault or Godzilla articles around because people want to vote labour.

All I am doing is stating why I vote Green and why I will not vote Labour. In a discussion site I am entitled to do that, espescially when the discussion is about the two parties (funnily enough not instigated by one of the greens on here was it). So if this is a labour site and only labour opinions are allowed then say so. If it is a site where all are welcome, then don't throw out godzilla articles and expect non labour supporters to keep quiet.

And if people are going to swear and be aggressive from now on they are going to be ridiculed by me, because they are being ridiculous.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:16 pm

As for me I'd quite like to see a Red-Green coalition, as I've said before even if it isn't needed arithmetically. Specifically, I'd be delighted to see Caroline Lucas given a prominent role on the environment in any government.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:17 pm

I'm sitting here feeling very guilty as it was me who replied to OneButton this morning with the "well don't blame me" quote that seems to have exploded into a bit of a row.
People will vote how they see fit, its up to them, and I think the problems we all have at the moment is "our" country is being destroyed along with all the "standard issue" civilities we have all taken for granted over previous years. No matter what anyone thinks of the last Labour government we were a lot more kind, understanding and civilised during their 13 years.
Anyway........
This is a quick note to say sorry for inadvertently kicking it off (and can we all be a bit more understanding of each others views ? I vote Labour, as green voters do the greens, because of the policies not because I don't understand them)

Fracking - Labour are not in agreement on this - yet.
HS2 there is no consensus on this in any party (and even a real life green friend supports it!) personally I hope it's ditched. (Queue Tuby to tell me off -grins)
Trident - don't like it but if this gork takes us out of EU, will USA let us keep it, that is renew it ? (there's a thought)

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:21 pm

ohsocynical wrote:@Temulkar

So, from where I stand I am voting for your grandchildren's future too.

But don't you understand I'm voting for their present because it's getting that bad. Bless their hearts anyone who is ill, disabled or disadvantaged deserves kindness and empathy now.

I really do apologise if this sounds aggressive, but why should I watch him [my grandson] getting beat up for being different and comfort him by saying it'll all be better for his grandchildren if I vote Green right now. It doesn't work that way when you or your family are living it.

No offence, but we all have family and friends in similar or worse situation, I have a brother ex forces with PTSD, severe diabetes who has been hit with the bedroom tax, ATOS WCA, appeal process etc. I have a mother with breast cancer and COPD that I have had to give up teaching full time to look after.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:22 pm

Simlarly to Education, had the Acadamy scheme not been there in the first place, even Gove would not have dared be a tory minister introducing privatisation into state education.

Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:29 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Simlarly to Education, had the Acadamy scheme not been there in the first place, even Gove would not have dared be a tory minister introducing privatisation into state education.
Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.

Yes, Gove is very smart in saying that he's just following Adonis...unfortunately Adonis is on record as saying that a wholesale move towards academization isn't following him.

Some of the early academies used to be grant-maintained so the idea isn't new. And, it shouldn't be forgotten, LAs didn't ever control voluntary-aided schools.

We have, I'm afraid, to take what we have now and work within it. The Cameron announcement about regional commissioners overseeing all schools and not just academies means that they now accept the need for a middle tier. You won't get them to admit they were wrong though or that it should have been thought about 4 years ago.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:29 pm

Great
Islamic radicals 'infiltrate' the Labour Party
A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... Party.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:29 pm

Temulkar wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:@Temulkar

So, from where I stand I am voting for your grandchildren's future too.

But don't you understand I'm voting for their present because it's getting that bad. Bless their hearts anyone who is ill, disabled or disadvantaged deserves kindness and empathy now.

I really do apologise if this sounds aggressive, but why should I watch him [my grandson] getting beat up for being different and comfort him by saying it'll all be better for his grandchildren if I vote Green right now. It doesn't work that way when you or your family are living it.
No offence, but we all have family and friends in similar or worse situation, I have a brother ex forces with PTSD, severe diabetes who has been hit with the bedroom tax, ATOS WCA, appeal process etc. I have a mother with breast cancer and COPD that I have had to give up teaching full time to look after.

I'm sorry you have so much illness in your family. But do you have a young boy who's come home bleeding and bruised? Who is jeered at?
We're even damaging the technically 'fit'. Mess up this generation and we are looking at more than a couple of generations that will be damaged.
You must have read about how undersized and undernourished our troops were compared with the Canadians and Americans. And undernourished bodies means undernourished brains. My own uncle had to be sent to a special camp to achieve weight gain before he could serve.
We were kinder under Labour. I don't think you can ague with that.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:29 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Wow some lively discussion here today!

I was thinking about the Greens Labour thing just the other day and noted this piece in the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ts-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As the Greens have gained more media attention, Bennett has thought seriously about post-election possibilities, and what role her party might play in supporting a Tory- or Labour-led government. “I can’t imagine circumstances in which we would prop up a Tory government,” she says. “Our first inclination would be a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement, rather than a coalition, because it means you provide stable government – you don’t get the ministerial cars but you keep your conscience and you don’t have to vote for tuition fees, for example.”

She is marginally warmer about an alliance with Labour, again probably not in a formal coalition. “We are not enthusiastic about Labour but the choice between [Labour and Tory] is obvious.”
It seems to me that Natalie Bennett sees a clear difference between the Tories and Labour. Of course that doesn't mean other Green Party members have to share that view. But it does seem to me that those of us who see a more natural affinity between green and red than green and other colours are at least consistent with the leadership of the Greens.

I was wondering about that in the kitchen just now.If the Greens were offered a coalition with Labour,would they say,' oh no,we hate Labour' or jump at the chance of being in govt?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:29 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:I'm sitting here feeling very guilty as it was me who replied to OneButton this morning with the "well don't blame me" quote that seems to have exploded into a bit of a row.

100 lines for you - not the *alleged* Osborne kind !

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:32 pm

pk1 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:I'm sitting here feeling very guilty as it was me who replied to OneButton this morning with the "well don't blame me" quote that seems to have exploded into a bit of a row.
100 lines for you - not the *alleged* Osborne kind !

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:35 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Simlarly to Education, had the Acadamy scheme not been there in the first place, even Gove would not have dared be a tory minister introducing privatisation into state education.
Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.

As the NHS policy showed and as pointed out above changing one sentence of Labours NHS Act allowed the privatisation of the NHS,

Admittedly section 6 of the 2011 education act brought in substantial changes but it built upon a privatisation principle that labour had introduced.

I certainly dont think the tories would have dared to do it in health and am pretty sure even Gove wouldnt have expanded the acadamy programme without labour introducing it.

You know a lot of people blame Stalin for the purges, mass show trials, gulags etc. They conveniently forget that the structures of the soviet state used by Stalin were all implemented by Lenin. Yet, it's Stalin's statues that tend to get torn down or whose body is removed from display. Blair was Cameron's Lenin.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:35 pm

ITV news leading with Oscar fucking Pistorious!

He's been a god send for this coalition, months and months news coverage while they sneak away doing their worst!

Rant Over!

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:39 pm

Rebecca wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Wow some lively discussion here today!

I was thinking about the Greens Labour thing just the other day and noted this piece in the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ts-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As the Greens have gained more media attention, Bennett has thought seriously about post-election possibilities, and what role her party might play in supporting a Tory- or Labour-led government. “I can’t imagine circumstances in which we would prop up a Tory government,” she says. “Our first inclination would be a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement, rather than a coalition, because it means you provide stable government – you don’t get the ministerial cars but you keep your conscience and you don’t have to vote for tuition fees, for example.”

She is marginally warmer about an alliance with Labour, again probably not in a formal coalition. “We are not enthusiastic about Labour but the choice between [Labour and Tory] is obvious.”
It seems to me that Natalie Bennett sees a clear difference between the Tories and Labour. Of course that doesn't mean other Green Party members have to share that view. But it does seem to me that those of us who see a more natural affinity between green and red than green and other colours are at least consistent with the leadership of the Greens.
I was wondering about that in the kitchen just now.If the Greens were offered a coalition with Labour,would they say,' oh no,we hate Labour' or jump at the chance of being in govt?

Natalie has pointed out quite clearly it would be on a confidence and supply agreement not a formal coalition, so we wouldnt be jumping into government with Labour.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:40 pm

Temulkar wrote:Honestly I'm not bitter that people want to vote labour, Im not complaining that people vote labour, Im not the one swearing at people because of who they want to vote for, Im not the one casting betrayal or your fault or Godzilla articles around because people want to vote labour.

All I am doing is stating why I vote Green and why I will not vote Labour. In a discussion site I am entitled to do that, espescially when the discussion is about the two parties (funnily enough not instigated by one of the greens on here was it). So if this is a labour site and only labour opinions are allowed then say so. If it is a site where all are welcome, then don't throw out godzilla articles and expect non labour supporters to keep quiet.

And if people are going to swear and be aggressive from now on they are going to be ridiculed by me, because they are being ridiculous.

It may have escaped you attention but it was OneButtonMonkey who posted the 'Godzilla' article and Michael is, of course, not noted for being slavishly partisan in his support of Ed Miliband's Labour Party.

And, please, give it a rest with the "if this is a labour site and only labour opinions are allowed then say so" routine, it is getting very tired; what that looks like, from where I'm sat, is an attempt to shut up any of us who do support Labour - "oh, you're stifling my right to free speech with your partisanship and your bullying and your nasty swearing" ..... I'd expect that from the thick Kippers on the Graun, but I hoped for better from you.

I was going to stay clear of this, to keep the peace, but looks like Tizme and yourself were spoiling for the fight, so fair enough. I've tried to keep my posting on here civil, albeit slightly off colour humour-wise; I've tried to be conciliatory, to stay away (in the main) from contentious issues such as Scottish independence, to walk away when I've been insulted. That ends today. A number of you will have seen at the Graun that I can be .... erm .... robust in defence of my position; anybody talks down to me again or suggests that I am a "Red Tory" and you'll find out just how damned robust I can be!!

I'm not telling anybody how to vote, that is for our own individual consciences. But that doesn't mean I have to be quiet about the consequences of a Labour defeat next year because, for some of us, those consequences are potentially catastrophic; that isn't me attempting to make anybody feel guilty, just apprising some of the realities of my situation. Any guilt you may, or may not, feel is entirely up to you.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:40 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Simlarly to Education, had the Acadamy scheme not been there in the first place, even Gove would not have dared be a tory minister introducing privatisation into state education.
Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.

There are countries out there, where private education has taken over from state education, as part of the restructuring penalties imposed on countries in debt. Parents are paying for education by the day, no money, no lessons. Not enough money; which of your children gets the days schooling? Watched a Hard Talk edition with one of Pearsons top executives, it was amazing how easily he justified it.

We are latecomers to restructuring, and thought we would be exempt, not being under-developed or South European. I think the Tories would dare anything. They try anyway, and only u-turn when confidence in Dave drops enough to make him turn puce.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:43 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Wow some lively discussion here today!

I was thinking about the Greens Labour thing just the other day and noted this piece in the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ts-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It seems to me that Natalie Bennett sees a clear difference between the Tories and Labour. Of course that doesn't mean other Green Party members have to share that view. But it does seem to me that those of us who see a more natural affinity between green and red than green and other colours are at least consistent with the leadership of the Greens.
I was wondering about that in the kitchen just now.If the Greens were offered a coalition with Labour,would they say,' oh no,we hate Labour' or jump at the chance of being in govt?
Natalie has pointed out quite clearly it would be on a confidence and supply agreement not a formal coalition, so we wouldnt be jumping into government with Labour.

Which was what we who foolishly voted LibDem hoped/thought would happen only to be shot down once they got a sniff of power.

Sorry but I wouldn't believe any MP's promises on that issue.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:44 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Rebecca wrote: I was wondering about that in the kitchen just now.If the Greens were offered a coalition with Labour,would they say,' oh no,we hate Labour' or jump at the chance of being in govt?
Natalie has pointed out quite clearly it would be on a confidence and supply agreement not a formal coalition, so we wouldnt be jumping into government with Labour.
Which was what we who foolishly voted LibDem hoped/thought would happen only to be shot down once they got a sniff of power.

Sorry but I wouldn't believe any MP's promises on that issue.

Exactly.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:46 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:I'm sitting here feeling very guilty as it was me who replied to OneButton this morning with the "well don't blame me" quote that seems to have exploded into a bit of a row.
People will vote how they see fit, its up to them, and I think the problems we all have at the moment is "our" country is being destroyed along with all the "standard issue" civilities we have all taken for granted over previous years. No matter what anyone thinks of the last Labour government we were a lot more kind, understanding and civilised during their 13 years.
Anyway........
This is a quick note to say sorry for inadvertently kicking it off (and can we all be a bit more understanding of each others views ? I vote Labour, as green voters do the greens, because of the policies not because I don't understand them)

Fracking - Labour are not in agreement on this - yet.
HS2 there is no consensus on this in any party (and even a real life green friend supports it!) personally I hope it's ditched. (Queue Tuby to tell me off -grins)
Trident - don't like it but if this gork takes us out of EU, will USA let us keep it, that is renew it ? (there's a thought)

I don't think you should be feeling guilty AngryAsWell. My initial comment was more likely the 'kick off' though it wasn't my intention to cause an argument. I wanted to try and get across how it feels when Labour supporters seem almost to demand my vote and the dilemma I feel I'm in.

Also, there has been an element of ridicule and dismissing of Green views. It's that kind of reaction to UKIP which has helped fuel their growth. If Labour want Green supporters to lend their votes, they should at least engage with our concerns.

Can I ask if you can direct me to anything saying Labour oppose fracking because everything I've read says they support it though much more cautiously than the Tories? If you can I'd be grateful. I'm off to a meeting now so if you do post anything I won't be able to reply until later.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:47 pm

Brilliant!

http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/healthands ... l/?lang=en&&&&&&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:53 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote:Honestly I'm not bitter that people want to vote labour, Im not complaining that people vote labour, Im not the one swearing at people because of who they want to vote for, Im not the one casting betrayal or your fault or Godzilla articles around because people want to vote labour.

All I am doing is stating why I vote Green and why I will not vote Labour. In a discussion site I am entitled to do that, espescially when the discussion is about the two parties (funnily enough not instigated by one of the greens on here was it). So if this is a labour site and only labour opinions are allowed then say so. If it is a site where all are welcome, then don't throw out godzilla articles and expect non labour supporters to keep quiet.

And if people are going to swear and be aggressive from now on they are going to be ridiculed by me, because they are being ridiculous.
It may have escaped you attention but it was OneButtonMonkey who posted the 'Godzilla' article and Michael is, of course, not noted for being slavishly partisan in his support of Ed Miliband's Labour Party.

And, please, give it a rest with the "if this is a labour site and only labour opinions are allowed then say so" routine, it is getting very tired; what that looks like, from where I'm sat, is an attempt to shut up any of us who do support Labour - "oh, you're stifling my right to free speech with your partisanship and your bullying and your nasty swearing" ..... I'd expect that from the thick Kippers on the Graun, but I hoped for better from you.

I was going to stay clear of this, to keep the peace, but looks like Tizme and yourself were spoiling for the fight, so fair enough. I've tried to keep my posting on here civil, albeit slightly off colour humour-wise; I've tried to be conciliatory, to stay away (in the main) from contentious issues such as Scottish independence, to walk away when I've been insulted. That ends today. A number of you will have seen at the Graun that I can be .... erm .... robust in defence of my position; anybody talks down to me again or suggests that I am a "Red Tory" and you'll find out just how damned robust I can be!!

I'm not telling anybody how to vote, that is for our own individual consciences. But that doesn't mean I have to be quiet about the consequences of a Labour defeat next year because, for some of us, those consequences are potentially catastrophic; that isn't me attempting to make anybody feel guilty, just apprising some of the realities of my situation. Any guilt you may, or may not, feel is entirely up to you.

As I said I am not complaining about people voting Labour you are complaining about people voting green. I am not the one swearing or being aggressive nor are the other greens on here.

So complain about people voting green all you want, but do not expect me/us to be silent on it. You see that's what grown up debate is about. Stamping your feet and having a little temper tantrum because people disagree with you isn't.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:54 pm

Tizme1 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:I'm sitting here feeling very guilty as it was me who replied to OneButton this morning with the "well don't blame me" quote that seems to have exploded into a bit of a row.
People will vote how they see fit, its up to them, and I think the problems we all have at the moment is "our" country is being destroyed along with all the "standard issue" civilities we have all taken for granted over previous years. No matter what anyone thinks of the last Labour government we were a lot more kind, understanding and civilised during their 13 years.
Anyway........
This is a quick note to say sorry for inadvertently kicking it off (and can we all be a bit more understanding of each others views ? I vote Labour, as green voters do the greens, because of the policies not because I don't understand them)

Fracking - Labour are not in agreement on this - yet.
HS2 there is no consensus on this in any party (and even a real life green friend supports it!) personally I hope it's ditched. (Queue Tuby to tell me off -grins)
Trident - don't like it but if this gork takes us out of EU, will USA let us keep it, that is renew it ? (there's a thought)

I don't think you should be feeling guilty AngryAsWell. My initial comment was more likely the 'kick off' though it wasn't my intention to cause an argument. I wanted to try and get across how it feels when Labour supporters seem almost to demand my vote and the dilemma I feel I'm in.

Also, there has been an element of ridicule and dismissing of Green views. It's that kind of reaction to UKIP which has helped fuel their growth. If Labour want Green supporters to lend their votes, they should at least engage with our concerns.

Can I ask if you can direct me to anything saying Labour oppose fracking because everything I've read says they support it though much more cautiously than the Tories? If you can I'd be grateful. I'm off to a meeting now so if you do post anything I won't be able to reply until later.

Labour at odds over fracking
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/poli ... 241354.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is much internal campaigning against it, we will have to see what goes in the manifesto.

not very well supported but..
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ ... d-fracking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:57 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Simlarly to Education, had the Acadamy scheme not been there in the first place, even Gove would not have dared be a tory minister introducing privatisation into state education.
Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.
As the NHS policy showed and as pointed out above changing one sentence of Labours NHS Act allowed the privatisation of the NHS,

Admittedly section 6 of the 2011 education act brought in substantial changes but it built upon a privatisation principle that labour had introduced.

I certainly dont think the tories would have dared to do it in health and am pretty sure even Gove wouldnt have expanded the acadamy programme without labour introducing it.

You know a lot of people blame Stalin for the purges, mass show trials, gulags etc. They conveniently forget that the structures of the soviet state used by Stalin were all implemented by Lenin. Yet, it's Stalin's statues that tend to get torn down or whose body is removed from display. Blair was Cameron's Lenin.

I think you're making the same mistake with health as you did with education. There's no need for cover from Labour. There are wholesale plans sitting around international rightwing think tanks (or indeed the Lib Dem Orange Book), and a ready made supply of private health companies.

Politics isn't the art of the possible for this lot. They're fundamentally different.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 6:59 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Simlarly to Education, had the Acadamy scheme not been there in the first place, even Gove would not have dared be a tory minister introducing privatisation into state education.
Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.
As the NHS policy showed and as pointed out above changing one sentence of Labours NHS Act allowed the privatisation of the NHS,

Admittedly section 6 of the 2011 education act brought in substantial changes but it built upon a privatisation principle that labour had introduced.

I certainly dont think the tories would have dared to do it in health and am pretty sure even Gove wouldnt have expanded the acadamy programme without labour introducing it.

You know a lot of people blame Stalin for the purges, mass show trials, gulags etc. They conveniently forget that the structures of the soviet state used by Stalin were all implemented by Lenin. Yet, it's Stalin's statues that tend to get torn down or whose body is removed from display. Blair was Cameron's Lenin.

What on earth has the line about changing one sentence got to do with anything? The change was fundamental, it was irrelevant how many words it took.

I could radically change most laws by changing just one word, but it doesn't make the change any less radical (like the difference between an AND gate and a NAND gate, just one letter that).

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:00 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.
As the NHS policy showed and as pointed out above changing one sentence of Labours NHS Act allowed the privatisation of the NHS,

Admittedly section 6 of the 2011 education act brought in substantial changes but it built upon a privatisation principle that labour had introduced.

I certainly dont think the tories would have dared to do it in health and am pretty sure even Gove wouldnt have expanded the acadamy programme without labour introducing it.

You know a lot of people blame Stalin for the purges, mass show trials, gulags etc. They conveniently forget that the structures of the soviet state used by Stalin were all implemented by Lenin. Yet, it's Stalin's statues that tend to get torn down or whose body is removed from display. Blair was Cameron's Lenin.
I think you're making the same mistake with health as you did with education. There's no need for cover from Labour. There are wholesale plans sitting around international rightwing think tanks (or indeed the Lib Dem Orange Book), and a ready made supply of private health companies.

Politics isn't the art of the possible for this lot. They're fundamentally different.

They would have had to introduce the principle as well as the practice. The introduction of Acadamies and privatisation i the NHS were major changes to our system. Once that principle had been introduced it was obvious the ddirection of travel. Indeed there were many on the labour benches who said so at the time whose predictions have been proven correct.

It would have been impossible for a tory party to introduce a privatisation principle into the NHS. The only reason Labour got away with it was because they were trusted on the NHS. It is really up there in Tony's most awful acts.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:02 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Rebecca wrote: I was wondering about that in the kitchen just now.If the Greens were offered a coalition with Labour,would they say,' oh no,we hate Labour' or jump at the chance of being in govt?
Natalie has pointed out quite clearly it would be on a confidence and supply agreement not a formal coalition, so we wouldnt be jumping into government with Labour.
Which was what we who foolishly voted LibDem hoped/thought would happen only to be shot down once they got a sniff of power.

Sorry but I wouldn't believe any MP's promises on that issue.

Yes that's the result of Clegg's behaviour isn't it? But Bennett is speaking much more intelligently on what coalition looks like in my view.

I've argued many times that Clegg should have done the confidence and supply thing and eschewed the ministerial car, as Bennett says. It's the same this time. Clegg says he'll jump in bed with the party that gets most votes. How unprincipled is that? If you want to be a full part of government you should present your coalition plans to the electorate before the election in my view.

But I'm prepared to give Bennett the benefit of the doubt on this. This nuance is in my view exactly what she should be saying and I admire her for articulating it.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:02 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Don't agree. As the NHS policy showed, they don't care about cover from anyone else. They just lie and do it anyway. There's a worldwide supply of edubusiness ideas.

We could have got whole LAs prizatized instead.
As the NHS policy showed and as pointed out above changing one sentence of Labours NHS Act allowed the privatisation of the NHS,

Admittedly section 6 of the 2011 education act brought in substantial changes but it built upon a privatisation principle that labour had introduced.

I certainly dont think the tories would have dared to do it in health and am pretty sure even Gove wouldnt have expanded the acadamy programme without labour introducing it.

You know a lot of people blame Stalin for the purges, mass show trials, gulags etc. They conveniently forget that the structures of the soviet state used by Stalin were all implemented by Lenin. Yet, it's Stalin's statues that tend to get torn down or whose body is removed from display. Blair was Cameron's Lenin.
What on earth has the line about changing one sentence got to do with anything? The change was fundamental, it was irrelevant how many words it took.

I could radically change most laws by changing just one word, but it doesn't make the change any less radical (like the difference between an AND gate and a NAND gate, just one letter that).

Had the act not been introduced in the first place it would have taken a whole lot more than the change of one sentence.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:02 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Brilliant!

http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/healthands ... l/?lang=en&&&&&&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll post that up at AS tomorrow morning...no point in it now since no-one would see it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:03 pm

Crikey. I haven't seen any posts where we've actively ridiculed or dismissed The Green Parties views and I pretty much read all the posts every day. In fact most of us are in broad agreement with many of their policies.
What we have had is a view from the majority of posters on here that no matter how much we might be uncomfortable with some Labour policies we feel our vote would be wasted if we voted Green in 2015.

Tactical voting is always going to be a sticky subject.
Should we be braver? Yes probably, but can we risk it in 2015?
The answer from me is a resounding no!

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:03 pm

Temulkar wrote:As I said I am not complaining about people voting Labour you are complaining about people voting green. I am not the one swearing or being aggressive nor are the other greens on here.

Quite happy for you to point out where I have complained about people voting Green, or where I have sworn or acted aggressively toward yourself or any other Green Party supporter. I have expressed doubts about the value of such a vote, and also commented on Brighton council's less than stellar performance under Green Party leadership; was that too 'partisan' of me?

Temulkar wrote:So complain about people voting green all you want, but do not expect me/us to be silent on it. You see that's what grown up debate is about. Stamping your feet and having a little temper tantrum because people disagree with you isn't.

Bless. Nobody is asking you to be silent and, lets be frank, there is as much chance of that happening as me flying to the moon. Quite happy to engage in a bit of grown up debate, please let me know when you're ready to start.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:05 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote: As the NHS policy showed and as pointed out above changing one sentence of Labours NHS Act allowed the privatisation of the NHS,

Admittedly section 6 of the 2011 education act brought in substantial changes but it built upon a privatisation principle that labour had introduced.

I certainly dont think the tories would have dared to do it in health and am pretty sure even Gove wouldnt have expanded the acadamy programme without labour introducing it.

You know a lot of people blame Stalin for the purges, mass show trials, gulags etc. They conveniently forget that the structures of the soviet state used by Stalin were all implemented by Lenin. Yet, it's Stalin's statues that tend to get torn down or whose body is removed from display. Blair was Cameron's Lenin.
I think you're making the same mistake with health as you did with education. There's no need for cover from Labour. There are wholesale plans sitting around international rightwing think tanks (or indeed the Lib Dem Orange Book), and a ready made supply of private health companies.

Politics isn't the art of the possible for this lot. They're fundamentally different.
They would have had to introduce the principle as well as the practice. The introduction of Acadamies and privatisation i the NHS were major changes to our system. Once that principle had been introduced it was obvious the ddirection of travel. Indeed there were many on the labour benches who said so at the time whose predictions have been proven correct.

It would have been impossible for a tory party to introduce a privatisation principle into the NHS. The only reason Labour got away with it was because they were trusted on the NHS. It is really up there in Tony's most awful acts.

Possibly true, but it's seven years since Blair stepped down now and we can perhaps judge Miliband and his team on their achievements in opposition and on what they say. Some people here are disappointed with Miliband. I still have hope that he's substantially better than Blair with respect to the things I feel are important.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:05 pm

Oh My God. That's plumbing the depths...From big wig in the HofC to Rush what's his name....Oh I don't know though....

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:06 pm

I'm not really worried about fracking, I can't see it going very far because of local opposition and being too expensive.

It's worth recalling that scientific opinion on it is by no means all opposed, unlike climate change. I wouldn't expect my party to say it should never happen.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:06 pm

Before it disappears

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:07 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Temulkar wrote:Honestly I'm not bitter that people want to vote labour, Im not complaining that people vote labour, Im not the one swearing at people because of who they want to vote for, Im not the one casting betrayal or your fault or Godzilla articles around because people want to vote labour.

All I am doing is stating why I vote Green and why I will not vote Labour. In a discussion site I am entitled to do that, espescially when the discussion is about the two parties (funnily enough not instigated by one of the greens on here was it). So if this is a labour site and only labour opinions are allowed then say so. If it is a site where all are welcome, then don't throw out godzilla articles and expect non labour supporters to keep quiet.

And if people are going to swear and be aggressive from now on they are going to be ridiculed by me, because they are being ridiculous.
It may have escaped you attention but it was OneButtonMonkey who posted the 'Godzilla' article and Michael is, of course, not noted for being slavishly partisan in his support of Ed Miliband's Labour Party.

And, please, give it a rest with the "if this is a labour site and only labour opinions are allowed then say so" routine, it is getting very tired; what that looks like, from where I'm sat, is an attempt to shut up any of us who do support Labour - "oh, you're stifling my right to free speech with your partisanship and your bullying and your nasty swearing" ..... I'd expect that from the thick Kippers on the Graun, but I hoped for better from you.

I was going to stay clear of this, to keep the peace, but looks like Tizme and yourself were spoiling for the fight, so fair enough. I've tried to keep my posting on here civil, albeit slightly off colour humour-wise; I've tried to be conciliatory, to stay away (in the main) from contentious issues such as Scottish independence, to walk away when I've been insulted. That ends today. A number of you will have seen at the Graun that I can be .... erm .... robust in defence of my position; anybody talks down to me again or suggests that I am a "Red Tory" and you'll find out just how damned robust I can be!!

I'm not telling anybody how to vote, that is for our own individual consciences. But that doesn't mean I have to be quiet about the consequences of a Labour defeat next year because, for some of us, those consequences are potentially catastrophic; that isn't me attempting to make anybody feel guilty, just apprising some of the realities of my situation. Any guilt you may, or may not, feel is entirely up to you.

Er,being dim here,but is the hamster thing like the 'style of thing'thing that guy in the guardian always signs off with?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:07 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:As for me I'd quite like to see a Red-Green coalition, as I've said before even if it isn't needed arithmetically. Specifically, I'd be delighted to see Caroline Lucas given a prominent role on the environment in any government.

As a friend and neighbour puts it ... I'm probably a natural Green. A lot of their policies fit and resonate with me. I've never had the opportunity to test out voting Green (other than in a Euro election) as they don't really have a presence around here - or in the London constituencies I've previously lived in - and certainly don't put up any candidates.

There are many things about the recent and current Labour set up that I'm not satisfied with ........... but at present I'm with the we just can't take another 5 years of the Tories mindset which I believe would destroy the remaining shreds of a society able to care for those who most need it and provide some opportunities and support for those outside the privileged elites. It would be beyond repair. I'll vote and campaign for Labour around here - and my hope will be that the many like me can push Labour further in the right direction (which is left) as we do so.

I am pleased that the Greens are building support and profile - and hope it will be sufficiently focused to achieve an improved outcome in 2015. I think it was Anatoly who said that the Greens would help to keep Labour honest (sorry if any Greens here find that perspective offensive). I really hope so. If the Greens present radical and progressive policies they will ensure there is a full left to right spectrum on show and there'll be more of a pull from that left boundary exerted on Labour.

Yes, Caroline Lucas or, who knows, another Green MP if more are elected come 2015 - would be a great collaboration / input to Labour environmental policy - but I respect that that might be seen as, and be, rather pigeon holing / reductive re the scope and reach of Green policies. and vision.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:10 pm

Temulkar wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Temulkar wrote: As the NHS policy showed and as pointed out above changing one sentence of Labours NHS Act allowed the privatisation of the NHS,

Admittedly section 6 of the 2011 education act brought in substantial changes but it built upon a privatisation principle that labour had introduced.

I certainly dont think the tories would have dared to do it in health and am pretty sure even Gove wouldnt have expanded the acadamy programme without labour introducing it.

You know a lot of people blame Stalin for the purges, mass show trials, gulags etc. They conveniently forget that the structures of the soviet state used by Stalin were all implemented by Lenin. Yet, it's Stalin's statues that tend to get torn down or whose body is removed from display. Blair was Cameron's Lenin.
What on earth has the line about changing one sentence got to do with anything? The change was fundamental, it was irrelevant how many words it took.

I could radically change most laws by changing just one word, but it doesn't make the change any less radical (like the difference between an AND gate and a NAND gate, just one letter that).
Had the act not been introduced in the first place it would have taken a whole lot more than the change of one sentence.

So what?

The lobbyists and think tanks write whole acts and send them to US state governments ready for them to pass.

You're saying they couldn't have done the same for the NHS even if it hadn't changed since Bevan?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:10 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Crikey. I haven't seen any posts where we've actively ridiculed or dismissed The Green Parties views and I pretty much read all the posts every day. In fact most of us are in broad agreement with many of their policies.
What we have had is a view from the majority of posters on here that no matter how much we might be uncomfortable with some Labour policies we feel our vote would be wasted if we voted Green in 2015.

Tactical voting is always going to be a sticky subject.
Should we be braver? Yes probably, but can we risk it in 2015?
The answer from me is a resounding no!

Yes indeed. And those who don't want to vote tactically have my blessing too. It's good to discuss it, but let's stick to our ground rule that individual voting decisions are not to be targeted here. The leaders of both Greens and Labour voted for a change to the electoral system when offered it. They didn't get it. We're stuck with FPTP and these difficult decisions about whether to vote for our first choice or tactically.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:11 pm

There is commonality between crucial Green and Labour policies. Only one party will be able to implement them come May.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:12 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:As for me I'd quite like to see a Red-Green coalition, as I've said before even if it isn't needed arithmetically. Specifically, I'd be delighted to see Caroline Lucas given a prominent role on the environment in any government.

As a friend and neighbour puts it ... I'm probably a natural Green. A lot of their policies fit and resonate with me. I've never had the opportunity to test out voting Green (other than in a Euro election) as they don't really have a presence around here - or in the London constituencies I've previously lived in - and certainly don't put up any candidates.

There are many things about the recent and current Labour set up that I'm not satisfied with ........... but at present I'm with the we just can't take another 5 years of the Tories mindset which I believe would destroy the remaining shreds of a society able to care for those who most need it and provide some opportunities and support for those outside the privileged elites. It would be beyond repair. I'll vote and campaign for Labour around here - and my hope will be that the many like me can push Labour further in the right direction (which is left) as we do so.

I am pleased that the Greens are building support and profile - and hope it will be sufficiently focused to achieve an improved outcome in 2015. I think it was Anatoly who said that the Greens would help to keep Labour honest (sorry if any Greens here find that perspective offensive). I really hope so. If the Greens present radical and progressive policies they will ensure there is a full left to right spectrum on show and there'll be more of a pull from that left boundary exerted on Labour.

Yes, Caroline Lucas or, who knows, another Green MP if more are elected come 2015 - would be a great collaboration / input to Labour environmental policy - but I respect that that might be seen as, and be, rather pigeon holing / reductive re the scope and reach of Green policies. and vision.

Thanks for the reply. And yes I don't want to pigeonhole the Greens too much. Nevertheless, environment is clearly one area where their thinking is much more clearly developed than any of the other parties and where Lucas has made some dramatic interventions. I'd like to see more of that.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 20 Oct, 2014 7:13 pm

Labour Party mini shuffle for those interested.

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/labours-mini-reshuffle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;