Webchat with Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, Weds March 4th, at 1pm

[JustineMumsnet]

I'm very pleased to say that the leader of the Green Party England and Wales, Natalie Bennett, will be joining us for a webchat this Wednesday, March 4, at 1pm.

The Greens have been under the spotlight over the last few months, with a surge in membership, and controversy about whether they should be included in the pre-election TV debates.

Now's your chance to ask Natalie about leadership structures, the record of the Green council in Brighton and Hove and Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas, whether there's a long-term movement towards smaller parties in national politics, Green policies on housing, benefits, health, the economy and the environment - and what it's like to be at the eye of a media storm. Plus anything else that takes your fancy of course.

Natalie was born in Australia and worked as a journalist there and in Thailand before settling in the UK in 1999. She worked for The Guardian, among other UK newspapers, before becoming Green Party leader in 2012. She's standing for Parliament in the 2015 General Election in the constituency of Holborn and St Pancras.

one of my questions was answered by the link to the housing policy document, thank you.

100,000 new social rent homes per year for five years, plus all the power, water, roads, transport infrastructure. (assuming we don't need more schools because these people are already here).

PLUS other half a million plus homes needed.

that is a LOT of building.

the background to the cost of £60k per house would be interesting.

I note that the policy also says that landlords will be incentivised to improve the energy efficiency of their rental properties, but there is nothing about how that will be done. There is mention of rent control though.

(makes no difference to me, my rental is thoroughly insulated and has a modern efficient boiler. And because it isn't in London, rent is already controlled by common sense.)

of course it would be good if everyone got help and incentives to insulate their homes, not just those nasty landlords who are responsible for everything. How about home owners too?

There is the green deal for cost of £99 survey some improvements can be made and paid through bill savings.

Though again con-dems capitulated to the foreign energy companies and let them give up efficiency schemes, so they can preserve there massive profits. Hey gotta have that board seat warmed in advance some how.

Another who won't be voting green because of their prostitution stance.

Such a shame, because I really wanted to.

God knows who I'm voting for now!

I find the term "terf" offensive and wouldn't even think of using it myself. I'm disappointed this has happened, but ensuring that there's full awareness and understanding of LGBTIQ issues among all candidates and representatives is something we're working on in the party.

This is kind of encouraging - but the main offender isn't some rando candidate who hasn't got to their training session yet, he's the equality spokesperson. I think when your equalities spokesperson is a raging misogynist, then you've got quite a long way to go.

Thank you for the links Voyageofdad Pollution is a big thing for me as my dd2 has asthma and since BoJo abolished the congestion zone extension in our area the amount of traffic has increased - can't wait for driverless electric cars to hit the roads

Catching up with this - fascinating. I'd missed the whole TERF debacle with the Equalities Officer - how has he not been sacked?!

I'm a floating voter but that's a big red flag for me.

I think the Greens have really messed up with their position on prostitution (as did Amnesty) esp their unwillingness to criminalise pimps and traffickers.

Also I agree their Equality Spokesperson sounds misogynistic.

I agree with others that their preference of the NZ model over the Nordic takes women back another century or so in terms of progress.

She references support from probation officers and nurses who deal with the symptoms but the Nordic model is the only one that deals with the causes of prostitution (punters).

If we end up like Germany and Holland with megabrothels and the like I'm emigrating. House prices are very low in Sweden.

Do they not see that allowing men to pay for sex completely undermines all women?

Just adding my voice, that whilst I have voted Green in the past, there is no way I would vote for a party that that supported the right of men to buy the bodies of women to ejaculate into. The evidence as i understand it, is that decriminalising punters increases demand which increases the number of girls and women coerced into the 'industry' and consequently leads to an increase in women and children trafficked into sexual slavery. It also promotes the attitude that when money changes hands it's ok to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you.

Going back up a bit, Isitmebut, you really seem to be thinking in 2D - Labour v. Tories, specifically New Labour v. Tories. The truth is Blair's New Labour was as neoliberalist as the Tories. We've had nothing but neoliberalism for almost 40 years. It is that whole model that is the problem, not some squabble over whether New Labour or Tories can implement it to worse effect than the other. Can you try to back away from the party squabbles a little? We need better solutions for the whole country. I think the greens are thinking outside the box.

Interesting to hear the views on prostitution. I wonder how the party found the speakers that they listened to when deciding on the NZ model. It sounds a little as if they got the idea from a highly biased couple of speakers, rather than having a mix and a debate to come to a more balanced view. That is very worrying as it goes against the very foundations of the party.

I also can't stand the idea of that equalities minister. Better politicians than him have died because of ignorant twitter posts, some of them not even relating directly to their job descriptions - unlike this guy, who frankly should have known better as this is his area of 'expertise'.

Having said all of that, I don't find any of the other parties appealing or think they are saying anything that makes me feel they have listened to the population. They seem to be hell bent on re-hashing the same policies over and over with the hope of getting a different outcome. I think we are all a bit bored of that.

It also makes a lot of difference when this prostitution amendment was decided (she said it was some years ago) as trafficking has become so widespread with the internet that it may well be time for them to review this as relevant information on slavery/trafficking and related deaths becomes more available. I had the idea that the party was always looking at ways to keep abreast of issues and was not as rigid as other parties, meaning that change was really possible. Saying that one major policy was decided years ago and not being re-visited, despite being told many women will not vote for you because of that one policy, seems absurd.

There's another thread all about the Greens and prostitution issue over here

Hi Natalie,
Lots of good questions here so I shall confine mine to something a bit different. Given that experts expect a lethal viral pandemic to affect us at any time is the Green Party prepared to address the huge issue of why every elected government to date has succumbed to the Sir Humphrey advice to leave emergency planning 'in the hands of civil service as it probably won't happen 'on their watch'?
Arguably the Greens are uniquely positioned to campaign on this and get it on the national agenda by challenging this policy towards Emergency Planning. In the USA President Bush signed into being their Ready.gov plan and, OK, over there they do get every disaster known to the planet - whereas we only get weather and, er, viruses.
My worry is that democracy may not survive the sense of betrayal and anger people will feel when more people die from the lack of preparedness than from the virus itself; from other diseases like cholera, from starvation, lack of heart meds and dialysis, in childbirth, locked up in prisons and from violence. Paedophiles will no doubt take advantage of the chaos too...
The priority needs to be educating people to be 'Flu Fighters' - there are no vaccines for six months remember and it is not currently possible to make vaccines for some viruses incl SARS and H7 influenzas. We need to redesign our public spaces so that we do not touch any surfaces with our fingers (which are regularly touching our faces). It isn't rocket science as Virology has made huge strides since 1918. It is worrying how the NHS Choices Website still uses a film made back then rather than informing people about how viruses use us to infect ourselves and each other!

We had Foot & Mouth Disease in 2001 to demonstrate what a highly infectious virus can do - and the year before the Farmer Fuel Blockade should surely have warned us how vulnerable we all are to anything which interferes with our 48 hour resupply by road society. In Australia people are far more aware of the need to be prepared so perhaps you can appreciate how vulnerable we are in the UK?

The party that does this will be remembered in the 'New World' post pandemic.

Thank you Basil. It really is a game changer, isn't it? I would hate my daughter to grow up thinking super brothels are just 'normal' and that men are justified in buying women like cattle. I do understand the safety aspect explained by the NZ model, however the main point of that is that MEN are abusing women. Not tackling that by telling men it is now fine to be in the situation where you have power over a woman because you paid, simply says to me there will be higher incidences of violence against women. Also we are setting up another problem for the future with men struggling to have meaningful relationships with women, as porn has now been shown to have a similar effect (making women dehumanised and all that comes with that).

The trouble with the Greens is that they are ideologically allied with the Liberals, not quite sure why but it seems to be that way. You'd think that they would choose to protect women as a precious resource rather than farm them out to be abused.

Summary of the webchat in the newstatesman article...

www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2015/03/natalie-bennett-i-m-rum-and-raisin-candidate-and-my-favourite-biscuit-macaroon

I'm more concerned that they are proposing a revolutionary change to education and Early Years, yet appear unable to give any details about how they intend to implement it.

Oh sorry about getting arsey about the human rights and human status of 50% of the world's population VoyageofDad, I know for some men the human rights of women are a side issue, but for some of us, hey, our status as human beings is a central political issue and one which stands in the way of voting for a party that in all other respects lines up with our political values.

I know it's hard for some men not to feel that women's humanity is a side issue. For us, it's not a side issue.

And actually, I did point people to another thread where they could discuss this issue in more depth if they want. But given that actually, it's bloody important, people have got the right to discuss it here is well.

No you don't get it voyagedad.

I do want to vote green.

Unfortunately I find it morally incomprehensible to vote for a party that will actively pursue policy that will not only continue the status quo of women being receptacles for some mans pleasure, but will actually reinforce that this is OK.

I get that the environment is important to you, but the above is more important to me, because that is the environment I live in.

I get that you don't though. Your genitals help you with that.

VoyageofDad if you had bothered to read/listen properly, then you would notice that many of the women raising these issues would like to vote Green, but can't while women are treated as less than people.

If you are an example of a Green activist man, then I think I will stay away from the party a little longer.

Lefty men: ignoring women's rights since the stone age. Plus ca change.

Voyagedad that's the most patronising post I have read in a very very long time. It's not just a policy. And it IS as important as the environment.

For men to finally put their dicks away and admit that it's not the woman's fault they can't keep it down as the men of Sweden have will be a turning point for more than prostitution. The 'I can pay for it so I deserve it' attitude that is behind every environmental problem that exists in the world today would be challenged once and for all.

I still don't get why Green women think this is all OK. Do they have daughters? Should prostitution be seen as a career option for them, is that really OK?