The Green Party

[eileenrose1]

The Green Party's leader Nathalie Bennett gave a poor radio interview but was brave enough to admit it and apologise. She came back well on this week's Any Questions - and on her Radio 4 profile.

The Green Party has a good record of promoting strong women like Nathalie and Caroline Lucas and my town of Wolverhampton will have female candidates in all three constituences at the General Election, depending on funding. Any support would be much appreciated. Please visit the following link and forward it to others to give us the chance to vote Green. Thanks.

www.crowdfunder.co.uk/wton-green-party-2015-elections-fundraising/

'It's an issue of others not feeling bullied or intimidated.'

But ArcheryAnnie has left the thread because she felt bullied by you. Were you bullied by her mentioning the Green policy on prostitution?

What are you so afraid of by mention of one policy, haven't the Greens got other strong policies that will win votes? If people have doubts about the Greens over their prostitution policy, that is ther entitlement.

In the past I have voted for the Lib Dems, Labour and the SNP. I would consider voting for the Greens or tactically for the Conservatives to prevent UKIP gaining seats in the General Election. The main reasons why are;

1. Britain has been a multi-cultural society ever since the Celts came over here from Europe and there is no place for direct or indirect racism or other prejudices in our society. UKIPs rhetoric and policies appeal to those on the far-right who want to stir up hatred and the refusal to challenge prejudices is what allows movements such as Nazism to take hold and poison entire populations.

2. Leaving the EU would be a disaster. Britain would become an isolated state stripped of influence in Europe. We would then be increasingly ignored by the by the US and organisations such as NATO and the UN. 52% of our total trade in goods and services is with the EU and much of that and the 3.5m related jobs would go. In the modern world co-operation with other countries is required on issues such as global warming and terrorism.

Annie said

"What was really interesting in the webchat thread was that a Green activist man came on and told us all off for bothering about policies that affect women, when we should be focusing on more important things. It really did confirm a lot of my fears about the men in the party."

She probably assumed you were an activist because of your support for the Greens and your wish to change that topic of discussion onto other green issues. You wanted to determine the ciurse of the conversation and steer it away from that issue.To do that all you have todo is to post a different opinion about another topic, there is no need to tell others what they can post about. Other posters will reply to the topics that are of interest to them.

You said

'Utter bollocks Annie, I'm not a Green activist I just happen to vote for them and believe in their rational concerning the environment.

What I did take issue with was a group of shouty FWR regulars telling everyone who was going to vote Green or was in the Green Party that they were defenders of misogynists who thought women were lesser humans.

The environment is a big issue for me. Seeing a little clique do their upmost to trash the Greens was somewhat inflaming.'

You were inflamed because you didn't like the way the conversation was going. But so what? Everyone is equal and everyone is free to decide what they feel strongly about. No one was trashing the Greens, as most posters agreed with their policies, apart from that one policy.

You have to get used to some Green policies being challenged just as Natalie was challenged on LBC when she had her "brain fade". If the Green party's policy are strong enough then they will be able to take the challenge. You being inflaed and trying to steer the subject away was a bit like Jenny Jones trying to tell the press and Natalie what they could talk about at the post "brain fade" conference. It is too defensive.

If the People's Army was that defensive and coudn't face criticism, then they wouldn't now be Britain's third most popular party according to the polls.

We are taking on the entire Establishment, every oleaginous oaf from Oxbridge, every privileged progressive from Primrose Hill, every lying luvvie in the land, every perfidious privileged PPE that the Establishment can hire, we are beating them to the wire.

And do we get inflamed? Of course we don't. We just beat them at their game. We take them on and take them down. Our attitude is "let everyone of their wrong'uns take us on, we'll put them back in the box where they belong".

I live in an area with a green council. I know it's small fry in the big scheme but their constant hoiking of parking charges in nice areas you would want to take the family has made them only only accessible to the rich. We can no longer afford to park at the beach or the parks regularly. Bus fares are high and our son has been refused a blue badge as his autism means he chooses to not walk I won't vote for them again. And ridiculous 20mphzones everywhere including where it's two lanes wides and houses are setback tenmetres from the roads.

You are absoluteright rocket74.

The people are sick of being told what to do by middle class progressives of all the Establishment parties. It is about quality of life and serving us the public. Let's have local referenda on parking fees, turning our streetlights of after midnight, telling us whether we can smoke in parks or not and all the rest so that these luvvies can't restrict the rights of orinary people anymore.

There is a people's revolution going on. Let's win.

' their determination to elbow all other concerns and voices out of the way irks'

But they didn't elbow other concerns out of the way or tell anyone else not to post about what they wanted to, they just stated their views. They didn't tell others what to do, you did.

Voyage. You really have bored me now. Go away.

You know they're different people, right? I raised the question with Natalie and had it answered. I asked one more follow up that was also answered. I have also posted here once. I don't particularly post on FWR, I'm not part of any group, just a woman who joined in discussions about the greens and prostitution as it's something that matters to me, like lots of other women. Just because several women share a viewpoint about something that matters to them and affects them doesn't turn them into some monolith. It's so patronising that you can't see this. And is so cementing the exact point I made way way back about the way greens seem to just dismiss these exact discussions.

Intrigued how we are a "group". I am a MNetter, a woman and a feminist. Those are pretty big "groups".

There was no co-ordinated or pre meditated plan, just a some women in the same place with thr same questions and concerns. If people turn up on other political threads and talk about the same issue (housing for example) are they a "group"?

Maybe it should be a pretty clear message that actually a disparate collection of women all have the same concerns.