The Green Party

Tony Blair was already awarded Philanthropist of the Year, maybe the Establishment and the charidees will soon award him Climatwit of the Year too, who knows. It will impress the great and the good, but the people are not amused, they understand the Establishment's ruse.

"And there we see the very last line of defence for the modern business 'new money' - claim it's the people v the 'old money' aristocracy."

The Oxbridge PPE , Tony Blair, is about as "new money" as it gets.This is an article from the very Office of the great man.

"Tony Blair launches The Climate Group's Clean Revolution campaign at Climate Week NYC

During the Opening Ceremony of Climate Week NYC, Tony Blair, The Climate Group's International Leadership Council Chair, helped launch the Clean Revolution campaign."

www.tonyblairoffice.org/climatechange/

When you see Gordone Bennett, ex Labour leader, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, the "vote blue go green" modernising Tories , nearly every UN bigwig and goodwill ambassador and Labour luvvie and popstar charidee circuit crony singing from the same climate change hymn sheet as Etonian advisers, royalty and billionaires, you start to wonder if someone somewhere is having a laugh.

Then you see one party, the People's Party, who oppose it and you see the abuse that old money and new money and their media give them because they know their whole game is up.

Then you read that

''a Ukip government would immediately repeal the Climate Change Act '

then you understand why the Establishment is so panicked by the People's Party.

"The roots of this insecurity are not hard to fathom. Isolated and deracinated, today’s main political parties are terrified of one thing in particular: the people"

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13601#.VQ7hxOElfCB

The billionaires can fool all of Labour all of the time, some of the Tories some of the time, but they can never fool UKIP.

The people's revolution continues. The great and the good continue their spin. Their Oxbridge think tanks continue to have their media say, but with the emergence of the People's Party they will never get their way.

gibbering possibly the 90 odd % of people with no local resources, or the 100% of people with the wrong mix of local resources.

"They want no growth, zero growth and negative growth for the people. They want limits to growth and limits to polulation. They use scare tactics of the end of existence on the earth in order to frove through the agenda wished for by the elite - no growth, zero growth, negative growth for ordinary people."

And there we see the very last line of defence for the modern business 'new money' - claim it's the people v the 'old money' aristocracy. In fact the need for environmentalism is not documented by the 'Club of Rome', but by 97% of all science and scientists investigating the issue. And most of that documented damage comes from the oil and gas industry, which generates enormous wealth for a few private pockets by exploiting the vast majority of ordinary people, who want to continue doing so even when it means the seas rising and drowning the lands of the poorest.

So there is a load of misinformation out there about who exactly would benefit or not from more environmentally-responsible behaviour!

You also want to look up the more modern examples of people rejecting the capitalist agenda. Things like the number of german cities taking back control of their energy grids. The number of universities, and even some towns, under pressure from their students/ residents, divesting themselves of oil and gas stocks. These are the grassroots movements, from the ordinary people at the bottom, that will make the most, the only difference - people taking their local resources back under their own control. Now who would be objecting to that?

Yy to claig, nydj and Hermione.

VoyageOfDad please please stop and listen to yourself. You are saying that the only issue of any importance is the one you care about and anyone else should go away. That is bad enough.

Specifically you are telling women that the issues that affect them are not important.

I am also very concerned for the environment. That does not stop my concern about other issues. You say that nothing else is important beyond having a world to stand on, how about women not being allowed to stand on that world by people like you. What is the point of 'saving the world' if half of us are not permitted to live on it without daily degradation way beyond your experience. That is the issue Annie and other women have with the greens and you are doing nothing to help this concern.

I agree that ArcheryAnnie has been badly treated.

ArcheryAnnie is a fan of most Green policies, but she feels strongly about the policy on prostitution and stuggles to fit this policy in with the other policies that she supports. As far as I know, Caroline Lucas also disagress with the Green Party policy on prostitution and would like it changed. Everyone has different policy priorities and no one's opinions are more valid than any one else's.

Good grief, I have hardly even been on the FWR boards but do identify as a feminist and have to say that the responses that ArcheryAnnie has received by eileenrose1 and VoyageOfDad has been incredibly rude and off putting on this thread. This is not a good way to engage with voters!

Voyage, the evidence coming out of Germany about what legalisation of sex work has done to women turns my stomach. I don't know how any human being could hear the stories and not feel physically sick. Dismissing the concerns that I and many others have about what your party is proposing as "sour grapes" is extremely patronising.

In any event, OP started a thread asking us to support her party. I have explained why I can't. Obviously the party activists will decide whether the feedback from people is sufficient to influence them.

'Among the aristocrats there is a sense of noblesse oblige … a feeling of stewardship towards the land.’'

They care about land, but do they cae about people? They want to zone off land and not build homes for people. They want fewer people, less consumption, less economic growth, and zero growth for people. They want sustainabiity for people, while they are super rich. They are the 1%, we are the 99% and they grow richer while we grow poorer and they want "Limits to Growth" to prevent our prosperity and growth.

"The Secret of Global Warming - Posh Anti-Capitalism"

"It is more than ironic that the anti-consumption rant comes from people who are, by global standards, rolling in the stuff and from a superior social class. Take a look at Al Gore and Prince Charles, at Jonathon Porritt, the old Etonian friend of Prince Charles, son of Lord Porritt; or the old Etonian Baron Lord Peter Melchett, former head of Greenpeace, or Ecologist editor Zac Goldsmith, another old Etonian, son of the billionaire James Goldsmith, and nephew of yet another old Etonian the Green guru Edward Goldsmith; or ‘eco-warrior’ Mark Brown, who was acquitted of leading the ‘Carnival Against Capitalism’, who is a member of the fabulously wealthy Vestey family; or the founder of the Soil Association Lady Eve Balfour, daughter of the Earl of Balfour; or the author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook, David de Rothschild, and so on, and on. Charles Secrett, former executive director of Friends of the Earth helpfully explains, ‘Among the aristocrats there is a sense of noblesse oblige … a feeling of stewardship towards the land.’

Brendan O’Neill says in The Guardian, ‘It is remarkable how many leading environmentalists come from wealthy or aristocratic backgrounds.’ And adds, ‘There is something irritating - actually, let's not beat around the bush - there is something monumentally infuriating about rich people telling the masses that they should live more meekly.’

www.martindurkin.com/blogs/secret-global-warming-posh-anti-capitalism

You have to understand what the real billioaire elite want to happen to and for ordinary people.

'One of the things I like about the Greens is that they understand that there is little point in seeking ever more prosperity if you don't have a planet to live on.'

It's a lie, a trick. Don't you realise that the Green movements worldwide were created by elites and aided by Rockefeller funded think tanks like the Club of Rome who commissioned the seminal MIT report called "Limits to Growth" which is what they want to do to us, the people. They want no growth, zero growth and negative growth for the people. They want limits to growth and limits to polulation. They use scare tactics of the end of existence on the earth in order to frove through the agenda wished for by the elite - no growth, zero growth, negative growth for ordinary people.

I was interested in voting green (as a protest vote, don't really think they'all get any power), but have been put off by the actions of the equalities minister and their refusal to listen on the sex workers debate.

In addition, the actions of party activists towards Archery on this thread are disgusting

Didn't even know the latest nonsense about abortion.

I guess I'll be spoiling my ballot paper.

Hell will freeze over before I vote for them.

"In the short term, a Green administration would impose a string of new taxes, ramp up public spending to unprecedented levels and decriminalise drugs, brothels and membership of terrorist groups.

In the long term, they want to fundamentally change life as we know it.

ZERO GROWTH ECONOMY

Critics call the party’s adherents “watermelons” – green on the outside, deepest red on the inside.

It’s not quite right.

Karl Marx and his pupils championed economic growth and personal consumption: five year plans, tractor factories and fridges for all. The row, for them, was whether the planned economy was a stronger engine than the free market.

The Greens want something very different.

Caroline Lucas and colleagues regard economic growth as incompatible with protecting the planet and a fulfilling personal life."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11356354/Drugs-brothels-al-Qaeda-and-the-Beyonce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html

"The point about the Climate Change Act – which, according to the Government’s own figures, will cost us up to £18 billion every year until 2050 – is that it sets a target which cannot be achieved without our country committing economic suicide. "

It's no laughing mater. Luvvies from Labour passed it and the people will have to pay for it until UKIP repeals it.

"MPs have no idea what the Climate Change Act means

They passed it almost unanimously, but MPs still can't grasp the consequences of the most expensive legislation in British history
...
MPs have no idea what the Climate Change Act means

They passed it almost unanimously, but MPs still can't grasp the consequences of the most expensive legislation in British history"

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9416805/MPs-have-no-idea-what-the-Climate-Change-Act-means.html

Why, UKIP of course.

'a Ukip government would immediately repeal the Climate Change Act '

www.edie.net/news/6/UKIP-climate-change-act-roger-helmer/

You seem to think it is EDL, but as far as I know, they have disbanded. It's not EDL, they ae not even a party, they have no candidates.