Why is it that right wing people can not argue against actual policies and instead just invent lies to argue against?
Plenty of people want to scrap Trident. To pretend that this means that they want to scrap all defence measures and then argue against that is straight lies, and also stupid.
I am too middle of the road to vote Green, but I was fairly pleased when Cameron said that his would be the greenest government ever. Pity he dumped the pledge, like so many others, after about ten minutes, and switched to the green crap cutting policy.
They may be nutty but at least the Green's have policies. UKIP seem to simply deny ever having said anything if they calculate it's unpopular. Things previously posted on their website, written in their literature, stated by their elected representatives or said by their leader as policy are described as "never been policy" if they notice it's unpopular.
I think they're at the stage of having denied almost every policy they've ever had on anything.
I'd sooner a fringe party was honest with its crackpot ideas than pretending never to have had them in the first place.
Plenty of people want to scrap Trident. To pretend that this means that they want to scrap all defence measures and then argue against that is straight lies, and also stupid.
What do you understand this to mean:
"Britain will leave NATO, end the special relationship with the US, and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. A standing army, navy and airforce is “unnecessary”. Bases will be turned into nature reserves and the arms industry “converted” to producing windturbines."
Because to me that suggests we'd be left with no defence measures. No army, no navy, no airforce, no friends in NATO, no relationship with the US and no nuclear weapons or submarines.
"Britain will leave NATO, end the special relationship with the US, and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. A standing army, navy and airforce is “unnecessary”. Bases will be turned into nature reserves and the arms industry “converted” to producing windturbines."
Because to me that suggests we'd be left with no defence measures. No army, no navy, no airforce, no friends in NATO, no relationship with the US and no nuclear weapons or submarines.
What else would we be left with?
As they specifically (and you've bolded) say a "standing army..." I'd expect to see reserve forces.
"Britain will leave NATO, end the special relationship with the US, and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. A standing army, navy and airforce is “unnecessary”. Bases will be turned into nature reserves and the arms industry “converted” to producing windturbines."
Because to me that suggests we'd be left with no defence measures. No army, no navy, no airforce, no friends in NATO, no relationship with the US and no nuclear weapons or submarines.
What else would we be left with?
For a minute i thought that does sound a bad policy. But you've only gone and quoted the Telegraph journos work of fiction and not the actual Green Party policies. Here you go, cherry pick the 1 or 2 crazy ones out of this list of in the main very good policies, including:
In exchange for putting their lives on the line when necessary for the security of the country, or in the protection of civilians of other countries in pursuit of the UN
Responsibility to Protect, the State undertakes to respect and look after injured service
personnel giving them decent living standards, whether serving or not serving due to
their injury, and to their dependents in the event of their being killed."
As they specifically (and you've bolded) say a "standing army..." I'd expect to see reserve forces.
So what would this reserve force fight with? Guitars whilst singing kumbaya?
No bases.. they've all been converted into nature reserves. So no where to store any kit, weapons, vehicles, jets etc. And even if they did decide to keep a small amount some place.. any reserve force would lack vital front line training and be going into combat with kit and weapons that were badly maintained because we'd made redundant the standing army who keep it all in working order.
For a minute i thought that does sound a bad policy. But you've only gone and quoted the Telegraph journos work of fiction and not the actual Green Party policies.
Are you sure?
On inspection, there is little or no threat of direct invasion of the UK by any nation. Commitment to a large standing army, a navy of large warships around our coastline, squadrons of fighter planes and a cripplingly expensive missile defence system is therefore unnecessary. Any threat of invasion that might arise in the future is so remote that realignment of the UK military and defence preparations would be possible long before any invasion occurred.
Similarly, the unhelpful and aggressive concept of nuclear deterrence (with the inherent dangers of handling concentrated radioactive substances) is also redundant. As such, immediate nuclear disarmament would be a priority of a Green Government.
We would take the UK out of NATO unilaterally. We would also end the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US.
That sounds like a dismantling of the army, navy and air force to me. In fact it sounds exactly like the Telegraph "work of fiction" to me?
It's as if the Greens have decided that it's been a while since World War 2.. been a while since the Cold War and they feel there is no need what so ever to have a military force. Oh and they think every military engagement we've been involved in over seas was a mistake. And they seem to be under this bizarre impression that we'd have enough warning of a threat to acquire arms, train up an army and defend ourselves should we find we're under threat. Absolute insanity. Don't get me wrong.. I'm all for less war. But abandoning all of our defence measures, cutting our ties with NATO and the US is just madness.
So what would this reserve force fight with? Guitars whilst singing kumbaya?
No bases.. they've all been converted into nature reserves. So no where to store any kit, weapons, vehicles, jets etc. And even if they did decide to keep a small amount some place.. any reserve force would lack vital front line training and be going into combat with kit and weapons that were badly maintained because we'd made redundant the standing army who keep it all in working order.
Ho-ho-ho. I think you'll find most of the maintenance got outsourced some time ago.
"The policy will enable people to “choose their own types and patterns of work”, and will allow people to take up “personally satisfying and socially useful work”. It will cost somewhere between £240-280 billion a year – more than double the current health budget, and ten times the defence budget."
"Access to benefits, the right to vote and tax obligations will apply to everyone living on British soil, regardless of passport. The policy book states: “We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a ‘British national’ is irrelevant and outdated.”"
That sounds like a dismantling of the army, navy and air force to me. In fact it sounds exactly like the Telegraph "work of fiction" to me?
My apologies, i didn't properly read that para when reading the Green Party defence policy. But its poorly written when taken in the context of the other paras written around it that talk about minimum age of 18 to join the Army, a full-time military force, a territorial army, ex-forces still on standby and the granting of certain rights to forces people and ex-forces people.
I'm not sure what OSCE is, or how much influence it has in europe, as they seem to want to leave NATO immediately and sign up to that.
"Bases turned into nature reserves" has been misconstrued on purpose though. Actual policy "The Green Party is committed to the early conversion of economic, scientific and technological resources presently used to support the arms race, to socially useful and productive ends. Some military training areas should be decommissioned and used as nature reserves, with suitable provision for access by the public." Or is Salisbury Plain and other land cordoned off to the public a military base?
The most worrying aspect about all this is the Greens' apparent 'surge' in popularity in the opinion polls in recent weeks.
No one in their right mind who can read and who wants to live for more than another 2 or 3 years could seriously think about voting for this bunch of loons, surely?!
"Britain will leave NATO, end the special relationship with the US, and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. A standing army, navy and airforce is “unnecessary”. Bases will be turned into nature reserves and the arms industry “converted” to producing windturbines."
Because to me that suggests we'd be left with no defence measures. No army, no navy, no airforce, no friends in NATO, no relationship with the US and no nuclear weapons or submarines.
What else would we be left with?
What it says to me is that the Telegraph have deliberately misrepresented the Greens' policies as I pointed out on the first page of the thread after checking their website. Re the part that you put in bold type this is what they actually say:
Commitment to a large standing army, a navy of large warships around our coastline, squadrons of fighter planes and a cripplingly expensive missile defence system is therefore unnecessary.
What it says to me is that the Telegraph have deliberately misrepresented the Greens' policies as I pointed out on the first page of the thread after checking their website. Re the part that you put in bold type this is what they actually say:
Ah I see so are they effectively saying they don't want to get rid of those things just scale them back in such a way that we won't be pro-actively defending the country.. just on a stand by and mainly tailored for peace operations? If so then yes I suppose the Telegraph have left out some of the finer detail which to be fair is on the same page I linked to so I should have maybe looked too.
Ah I see so are they effectively saying they don't want to get rid of those things just scale them back in such a way that we won't be pro-actively defending the country.. just on a stand by and mainly tailored for peace operations? If so then yes I suppose the Telegraph have left out some of the finer detail which to be fair is on the same page I linked to so I should have maybe looked too.
Be interesting to see what the EU think of Britain effectively disarming.
I wouldn't believe what you read in the Telegraph. It used to be considered a serious newspaper, but nowadays it's more like the Mail. If you want to know what the Green party's policies are, I suggest a visit to their own website. You may still not agree with many of them, but at least you'll be getting the truth of the matter rather than the Telegraph's distorted version.
No one in their right mind who can read and who wants to live for more than another 2 or 3 years could seriously think about voting for this bunch of loons, surely?!
I found it quite surprising how many of those policies I agreed with. I mean they're all pretty much unworkable given the reliance the UK currently has on it's economic system and global trade - but I support many of the principles.
I do like that this thread is basically just:
"Shock as radical left wing party is found to have radical left wing policies" ;-)
The last time I checked no one was claiming that they were just a Green version of New Labour. . . . . .
I find this idea of benefit provision as a mean of alternative income, the most absurd. It's utterly impractical. I'm not sure how the Greens even think they will raise tax receipts if everyone is at home whether it be a PR executives, the long term benefit claimants etc.
It just makes no sense in addition to all the other taxes they want to introduce. Someone please explain the logic behind this idea?
I find this idea of benefit provision as a mean of alternative income, the most absurd. It's utterly impractical. I'm not sure how the Greens even think they will raise tax receipts if everyone is at home whether it be a PR executives, the long term benefit claimants etc.
It just makes no sense in addition to all the other taxes they want to introduce. Someone please explain the logic behind this idea?
Are you talking about the £71 a week guaranteed income policy? To be fair to the Greens that's one of their less 'out there' ideas. 'Basic Income' is an idea that's been around a long time and has a vast amount of economic analysis behind it. It's been implemented (for periods of time) in many different countries and is still in use today in some of them.
The concept is simple - by paying everyone a basic income you completely remove the need for any kind of welfare administration system and all the costs and problems associated with it. For those that are in full time, average paid work the value is simply taken back as tax.
Currently it's clearly unaffordable and has too many practical problems. However I am 100% certain (yes 100%) that at some point in the future it will be introduced.
I find this idea of benefit provision as a mean of alternative income, the most absurd. It's utterly impractical. I'm not sure how the Greens even think they will raise tax receipts if everyone is at home whether it be a PR executives, the long term benefit claimants etc.
It just makes no sense in addition to all the other taxes they want to introduce. Someone please explain the logic behind this idea?
Not everyone will be at home, for starters. People will have jobs which pay more than the standard amount. People who don't work, such as pensioners, the disabled and unemployed will get the standard amount, and anyone who works will get more than that, so it will always be better to have a job than not.
Comments
Nothing gets past you Steve.
i was thinking about ukip and green immigration policies are mad.
ukip will be too strict with immigration, greens will be to soft.
Plenty of people want to scrap Trident. To pretend that this means that they want to scrap all defence measures and then argue against that is straight lies, and also stupid.
I am too middle of the road to vote Green, but I was fairly pleased when Cameron said that his would be the greenest government ever. Pity he dumped the pledge, like so many others, after about ten minutes, and switched to the green crap cutting policy.
I think they're at the stage of having denied almost every policy they've ever had on anything.
I'd sooner a fringe party was honest with its crackpot ideas than pretending never to have had them in the first place.
Not nearly as shocking as Nude Mice
What do you understand this to mean:
"Britain will leave NATO, end the special relationship with the US, and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. A standing army, navy and airforce is “unnecessary”. Bases will be turned into nature reserves and the arms industry “converted” to producing windturbines."
Because to me that suggests we'd be left with no defence measures. No army, no navy, no airforce, no friends in NATO, no relationship with the US and no nuclear weapons or submarines.
What else would we be left with?
As they specifically (and you've bolded) say a "standing army..." I'd expect to see reserve forces.
For a minute i thought that does sound a bad policy. But you've only gone and quoted the Telegraph journos work of fiction and not the actual Green Party policies. Here you go, cherry pick the 1 or 2 crazy ones out of this list of in the main very good policies, including:
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/policy/pdfs/Peace.pdf
So what would this reserve force fight with? Guitars whilst singing kumbaya?
No bases.. they've all been converted into nature reserves. So no where to store any kit, weapons, vehicles, jets etc. And even if they did decide to keep a small amount some place.. any reserve force would lack vital front line training and be going into combat with kit and weapons that were badly maintained because we'd made redundant the standing army who keep it all in working order.
Are you sure?
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html
That sounds like a dismantling of the army, navy and air force to me. In fact it sounds exactly like the Telegraph "work of fiction" to me?
It's as if the Greens have decided that it's been a while since World War 2.. been a while since the Cold War and they feel there is no need what so ever to have a military force. Oh and they think every military engagement we've been involved in over seas was a mistake. And they seem to be under this bizarre impression that we'd have enough warning of a threat to acquire arms, train up an army and defend ourselves should we find we're under threat. Absolute insanity. Don't get me wrong.. I'm all for less war. But abandoning all of our defence measures, cutting our ties with NATO and the US is just madness.
How would we pay them? The defence budget is gone. Where would they be stored? The bases are gone.
"The policy will enable people to “choose their own types and patterns of work”, and will allow people to take up “personally satisfying and socially useful work”. It will cost somewhere between £240-280 billion a year – more than double the current health budget, and ten times the defence budget."
"Access to benefits, the right to vote and tax obligations will apply to everyone living on British soil, regardless of passport. The policy book states: “We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a ‘British national’ is irrelevant and outdated.”"
More: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/welcome-to-the-bonkers-world-of-the-green-party-manifesto/
I suppose in a way UKIP are probably glad the Greens are getting this much attention because at least it will take some of the heat off them.
My apologies, i didn't properly read that para when reading the Green Party defence policy. But its poorly written when taken in the context of the other paras written around it that talk about minimum age of 18 to join the Army, a full-time military force, a territorial army, ex-forces still on standby and the granting of certain rights to forces people and ex-forces people.
I'm not sure what OSCE is, or how much influence it has in europe, as they seem to want to leave NATO immediately and sign up to that.
"Bases turned into nature reserves" has been misconstrued on purpose though. Actual policy "The Green Party is committed to the early conversion of economic, scientific and technological resources presently used to support the arms race, to socially useful and productive ends. Some military training areas should be decommissioned and used as nature reserves, with suitable provision for access by the public." Or is Salisbury Plain and other land cordoned off to the public a military base?
No one in their right mind who can read and who wants to live for more than another 2 or 3 years could seriously think about voting for this bunch of loons, surely?!
What it says to me is that the Telegraph have deliberately misrepresented the Greens' policies as I pointed out on the first page of the thread after checking their website. Re the part that you put in bold type this is what they actually say:
If you want to win the argument, start by going to the actual source, not a biased second hand version.
There's plenty there to criticise.
Ah I see so are they effectively saying they don't want to get rid of those things just scale them back in such a way that we won't be pro-actively defending the country.. just on a stand by and mainly tailored for peace operations? If so then yes I suppose the Telegraph have left out some of the finer detail which to be fair is on the same page I linked to so I should have maybe looked too.
Be interesting to see what the EU think of Britain effectively disarming.
You could say that about UKIP. ;-)
I do like that this thread is basically just:
"Shock as radical left wing party is found to have radical left wing policies" ;-)
The last time I checked no one was claiming that they were just a Green version of New Labour. . . . . .
It just makes no sense in addition to all the other taxes they want to introduce. Someone please explain the logic behind this idea?
Are you talking about the £71 a week guaranteed income policy? To be fair to the Greens that's one of their less 'out there' ideas. 'Basic Income' is an idea that's been around a long time and has a vast amount of economic analysis behind it. It's been implemented (for periods of time) in many different countries and is still in use today in some of them.
Wikipedia article
The concept is simple - by paying everyone a basic income you completely remove the need for any kind of welfare administration system and all the costs and problems associated with it. For those that are in full time, average paid work the value is simply taken back as tax.
Currently it's clearly unaffordable and has too many practical problems. However I am 100% certain (yes 100%) that at some point in the future it will be introduced.