"Four-fifths of public want Green party in TV leaders’ debates"

[WhistlingPot]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/poll-green-party-leaders-election-debates

Seems reasonable to me!

I quite like the Independents take on why they shouldn't be allowed though.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/let-me-list-the-reasons-that-the-green-party-should-definitely-not-be-allowed-into-the-tv-election-debates-9873964.html

We may or may not have a Leader Debate, but this a debate I would love to be a studio audience member here with my own questions.

“Ed Balls in talks with broadcasters over televised election debate with George Osborne”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-balls-in-talks-with-broadcasters-over-televised-election-debate-with-george-osborne-9983410.html

For get for a moment that after 13-years in government, in 2010 Labour refused to give firm tax, spending, or deficit reduction plans – and are disingenuously refusing to do the same for the 2015 General Election, so what on Dave's green earth CAN Mr Balls debate?

However in 1997 when Labour came to power, Mr Balls was Mr Brown’s advisor when as soon as elected, began raised revenue by taxing/selling assets, WITHOUT mentioning it in their general election manifesto.

Private Pensions: took away a tax relief, that is estimated to have raised around £118 billion but cost Private Pensions £250 billion to date, killing many company Final Salary Pension schemes and reducing personal schemes.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10698432/Final-salary-pensions-10-times-more-common-in-public-sector.html

Home Stamp Tax; raised the rate from a Flat 1% as an ideological raid on the rich, but has dragged so many families without’ broad shoulders’ into a government penal tax for the right to buy a home.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/11004647/Stamp-duty-millions-more-being-dragged-into-trap.html

UK Reserve Gold Sales; despite the UK have far lower gold reserves for a rainy day than other major economies, Brown sold close to half our reserves at a 20-year low price (average under $300 an ounce) – and to this day I have no idea where that money went.

So Mr Balls, answer me this, based on your party’s record, what other secret ideological taxes affecting the masses do YOU have for when you get elected in 2015, and WHERE DID THAT GOLD MONEY GO???

Ha! I have just become a Green member! If only to help keep environmental issues on the agenda.

Their website is down due to the recent surge in membership. Lol

good website here, tells you which parties policies most strongly match your own beliefs : voteforpolicies.org.uk

Thanks Merguez. I seem to remember being quite a mix at the last election.

Surprised to see I am 77% Green 23% Lib Dem!

Very surprised to see though that in my constituency, which I thought was a Tory stronghold, that the Greens are leading with Conservatives in 4th place.

Very, very surprised and heartened to see that there seems to be a majority of left-middle minded out of the 800 or so who have completed the survey so far.

My faith in humanity is slowly being restored!

I'd be very scared if the Greens big in as they will

Unilaterally disarm the UK of its nuclear capability
Destroy the British identity
Make prisons more comfortable places
Increase immigration
Introduce a Land Tax on the ground your home is built on

Being Green sounds very noble and something that we should all aspire to but Ibdonwish people would read their manifesto before giving the Green party their support.

In reality it would make the UK defenceless at an uncertain time globally

I think those are all good things and I support them (other than number 2 which I dont understand in the slightest)

At least the Greens are serious about an EU Referendum, the anti democratic United Kingdom Independence Party campaigning against EU immigration, would rather another 5-years of higher net immigration and economic ruin under Labour, rather than try win an EU Referendum through two-way debate.

“Farage backs Miliband for PM; UKIP wants Labour to win the next General Election because it fears Cameron could win an EU Referendum.”
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793688/farage-backs-miliband-ukip-want-labour-win-election-fear-cameron-win-eu-referendum.html

Don't worry. As you liked the Greens other proposals I expect you'd like number 2 as well.

WetAugust …. On the subject of Green policies and my opinions, you are clearly talking “No 2”, based on my comments on this very thread on some I’d heard of, but I DID however lump them in with the possible 2015 Labour, SNP, Lib Dem PRO (at any cost) EU coalition, so in some way I’m making amends. Lol

Re UKIP, what angers me greatly is the sheer hypocrisy of being for over 20-years a one-policy-pony anti EU/immigration party, but UKIP fully knowing the 13-year bad planning damage to the UK’s housing and services of Labour’s pro EU/immigration policies (including the secret ones) – they will willingly WISH & ALLOW LABOUR BACK as the largest party, than stand behind the Conservatives and a EU Referendum – on the hope for more Westminster seats now and in the future.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

For any Leadership Debate and the quality of information this ‘democratic event’ would ‘dump’ on the electorate, imo the Lib Dems who have worked in coalition with the Conservative to turn ‘No 2’s’ around at least has work experience running a sustainable government – and what possibly be gained in 2015 by an unrepentant Labour, or tricksy UKIP leader, waffling on about the economy, when still trying to work out what needed to be done in 2010?

Don't flatter yourself Isitmebut, I read 'no 2' in the Green Party Policies published on their website

NY203. In the long term the Green Party wishes to see the concept of legal nationality abolished.

NY204 While it remains, British nationality must be based predominantly on residence rather than inheritance

I know it's not fashionable to say do, but I do wonder if the sacrifices my ancestors made in fighting for Britain were actually worthwhile when the Australian born and educated, unelected leader of the Green Party has decided that British should be conferred on any transitory inhabitant - until the term is finally abolished.

I'd like to think our ancestors fought for freedom, justice and against prejudice. I'll stand by any with the same principles.

I think you've quoted out of context WetAugust and your statement about British Identity misses the point that "legal nationality is a different concept from cultural or ethnic identity."

"While recognising that the concept of nationality is inherently racially discriminatory, we will ensure that the system of conferring British nationality on those not in receipt of it at birth does not discriminate on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation..."

policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html

Now the Greens are in, Cameron has NOW said he will only debate if the Monster raving Looney's are in.

Joshing.

The now proposed 7 party debating party, has now upset the Irish political parties, who arguably have a case once the Leaders Debate was to include the SNP & Plaid Cymru, who do not field candidates across England.

Maybe a political party has to be joined to England via the mainland, as while no one ever says Ireland is overseas, you try walking there.

The way things are going, similar to other badly organized party piss ups in a brewery, we will get to hear what they have to say AFTER the General Election.

God help us, George Galloway of 'Respect' with his 1 seat has piped up now, yet in a debate of two the other party can't get a word in, with 7 others?

Re the SNP and Plaid, I'm clearer why they are invited and not the Irish; you can vote for Conservatives (pandas and sheep?) there, but not in Ireland.

"While recognising that the concept of nationality is inherently racially discriminatory,

The stupidity and bigotry of that statement makes me want to boak. Absolute rubbish.

Here's some more Green policy:

The trade and cultivation of cannabis will be decriminalised under Green policy, along with possession of Class A and B drugs for personal use. Anti-rave laws would be scrapped.

An open invitation to drug dealers to target the next gneration of addicts - your kids.

All elements of the sex industry will be decriminalised, and prostitutes could no longer be discriminated against in child custody cases.

So if they don't have an issue with any sex work nobody will bother policing it. Welcome to an increase in the trafficking of young women for sexual abuse. great policies for women - very feminist. Dont forget that these hypocrites are also campaigning for the banning of page 3.

The Greens also want to see significantly reduced levels of imprisonment, with jail only used when there is a substantial risk of a further grave crime or in cases where offences are so horrific that offenders would be at risk of vigilantes. Prisoners will be given the vote.

Welcome to murderers walking our streets because their crime was not 'so horrofic' that they are in danger from vigilantes.

I would absolutely despair to have to live in a country run by greens. Let's face it It wouldn't be run at all. It would just be anarchy with drug lords and violent murderers imposing their own rule.

And on the face of it being 'green' sounds very worthy indeed - save the planet, be nice to kittens etc

That is one huge deceptive misconception that will lure the feeble-minded to vote for them

WetAugust ..... I was going to say why don't you show a direct comparison between UKIPs policies and the Greens, and then I remembered, ooops.

Its like 'the kettle calling the whistlingpot, flat'. lol

Welcome to murderers walking our streets because their crime was not 'so horrofic' that they are in danger from vigilantes.

I would absolutely despair to have to live in a country run by greens. Let's face it It wouldn't be run at all. It would just be anarchy with drug lords and violent murderers imposing their own rule.

What utter tosh. Argument by emotion is not an argument at all. Wet I thought better of you.

Dawndonna

So you don't have an issue with that?

I do.

I simply cannot believe that anyone would find the Green polices anything but totally loopy.

And your constant cheap digs at me Isitmebut are bordering on trolling. Syop playing the man and start playing the ball

So I definitely want the Greens in a TV debate to

1. expose their stupidity
2. split the wet Labour vote, making it more likely they will vote Ukip or possibly even Tory

And do try to keep up Isitmebut - I've already told you i won't be voting Ukip.

The trade and cultivation of cannabis will be decriminalised under Green policy, along with possession of Class A and B drugs for personal use.

If drugs were legalised you wouldnt need to have drug dealers you could get at chemist and be sure of what you are getting. Would massively cut down on organised crime.

All elements of the sex industry will be decriminalised, and prostitutes could no longer be discriminated against in child custody cases.

Criminalise those paying for rather than the prostitutes, seems sensible?

The Greens also want to see significantly reduced levels of imprisonment, with jail only used when there is a substantial risk of a further grave crime or in cases where offences are so horrific that offenders would be at risk of vigilantes. Prisoners will be given the vote.

Imprisonment is far far less effective in terms of reoffending than rehabilitation. It is also ridiculously expensive. Far better to spend less money on quality rehabilitation.

I cannot imagine Boots the Chemist enetering into a trade agreement with the Taliban for Afghan drugs

No, it's not a case of crimminalising men who pay for sex - the policy means that brothels would be legal. No crimminal behaviour on either side, the men who buy or the women who sell. Once you legitimise something so condone it and that will lead to an increase in activity.

I think you need to read the section on prisons again. There would be very very few people in prison under thise Green rules. Who determines 'horrific' and how on earth do you measure whther the murderer is likley to be subject to vigilantism?

They are stupid policies for people with very little experience of developing or implementing policyand an almost child-like believe in the goodness of humankind. .

The Vote for Policies website suggested the Greens for me, they would be my second choice if they didn't support leaving the EU. I could totally tell which were the UKIP statements, scary stuff.

And your constant cheap digs at me Isitmebut are bordering on trolling. I think you may have me confused with somebody else, I have not been having constant digs at anyone.
And no, I don't have a problem with fewer people in prison, there are many people who really don't need to be there, but nonsense about murderers walking the streets is just that, nonsense. Of course that isn't going to happen.

Dawndonna

I think you've got the wrong end if the stick here. If you reread the post the last sentence was me asking Usitmebut yo stop the constant digs. So I wasn't asking you to do anything and neither was Isitmebut.

Dawndonna
I agree that there should be fewer people in prison. TV licence dodgers, white collar crime, drug addicts thieving to buy drugs etc could all be dealt with much more effectively outside prison by restorative justice, detoxification programmes, community service etc. But who/what determines whether a crime is "horrific" which is part of the Greens test for imprisonment and likely to attract vigilantes, which is the other test?

when you take the potential for vigilantism into determine the correct sentence for a crime you gave moved away from making the punishment fit the crime and you are punishing someone based on the views of a less than jaw abiding group ( i.e potential vigilantes)

a man was sentenced today for the rape if a 6 month old child, which he broadcast live online. That is horrific. That would pass the test. I'd have given him life instead of the 14 years he got (before reductions).

You need to consider why we send people to prison. One us deterrence, to stop others doing the same. Another is public protection. In both cases murderers need to face an automatic prison sentence not based on whether the murder was horrific enough to warrant it or whether vigilantes were sufficiently aroused to action

So Sorry WetAugust the brain is malfunctioning, rotten week. Not an excuse, sincere apologies meant. I shall come back tomorrow to discuss this further, I'm obviously overtired!