Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[monkers]

Since Monker reincarnation.

They have detailed knowledge of posts going back years.

Now, either they are one and the same or I was hot topic of just about every conversation.

Oh I'm never on ignore too

I have read much, maybe all of the thread - some of your lowest points are indeed memorable, often for just laughingly absurd or often wrong you are.

 

[monkers]

 

[briantrumpet]

Singling out a medical intervention that affects only women seems bold.

 

[monkers]

Singling out a medical intervention that affects only women seems bold.

View attachment 13363

This isn't quite true Brian.

The GPEW do not criticise the use of live-saving medical interventions. They criticise the use of C sections where their use is not clinically indicated. This position flows from the evidence provided by WHO and NICE. That evidence shows that an overuse of interventions are too often due to a number of factors - one of which it that maternity units are too often too understaffed to support vaginal birth in all cases.

C-section exposes birthing women to increased post natal risks and harms. To use surgeries due to overcome shortages or similar such reasons is an abuse, depriving women of bodily autonomy for vaginal birth.

 

[Ian H]

Singling out a medical intervention that affects only women seems bold.

View attachment 13363

Analysis
Inconsistent definitions of labour progress and over-medicalisation cause unnecessary harm during birth
https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2023-076515

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2026201557667041334

 

[First Aspect]

I wish people would realise that when you see this level of policy, it casts doubt on the basis for their other supposedly science and data lead policy, such as tHe enVirOnMenT.

 

[briantrumpet]

Analysis
Inconsistent definitions of labour progress and over-medicalisation cause unnecessary harm during birth
https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2023-076515

Even if that is the case (and it is obviously contested), politically it's still bold: they don't have to have a policy on everything, and one that women are obviously going to have strong and personal opinions on is likely to be problematic politically.

 

[monkers]

Even if that is the case (and it is obviously contested), politically it's still bold: they don't have to have a policy on everything, and one that women are obviously going to have strong and personal opinions on is likely to be problematic politically.

Contested by people who spout the narrative that British women have become ''too posh to push'' and also that the ''the Greens are just sandal-wearing, tofu-knitting, tree-hugging, anti-science nutters''.

People also say that the Green Party have no policies, while you say ''they don't have to have a policy on everything''. It's having a complete policy set that makes them ready for government.

Less a contested view that conflicted one I'd say.

This is how women of birthing age would vote according to Yougov ...

 

[First Aspect]

Contested by people who spout the narrative that British women have become ''too posh to push'' and also that the ''the Greens are just sandal-wearing, tofu-knitting, tree-hugging, anti-science nutters''.

Less a contested view that conflicted one I'd say.

This is how women of birthing age would vote according to Yougov ...

View attachment 13364

Sorry but this is trite. How many of those people know what the policy is, or agree with it? The greens have always soaked up the virtue signalling yoghurt knitting demographic, who tend to be a bit thick because by and large the "answers" they think they have are simple. It is just more extreme at the moment.

 

[monkers]

Sorry but this is trite. How many of those people know what the policy is, or agree with it? The greens have always soaked up the virtue signalling yoghurt knitting demographic, who tend to be a bit thick because by and large the "answers" they think they have are simple. It is just more extreme at the moment.

So you will say. I don't say this to be rude, but clearly you know little about the Green Party. On the one hand they care called ''middle class champagne socialists'', and on the other ''bog snorkeling ultra lefties''.

Their economic position is a bit left of centre, and their social policies are liberal. That doesn't stop detractors from the far right groups calling them ''communists'', ''far left loons'' etc.

At the moment they are becoming more popular and not because they are ''more extreme'', but better understood, especially by working age women, who may object to being called ''a bit thick''.

 

[Ian H]

Sorry but this is trite. How many of those people know what the policy is, or agree with it? The greens have always soaked up the virtue signalling yoghurt knitting demographic, who tend to be a bit thick because by and large the "answers" they think they have are simple. It is just more extreme at the moment.

All parties have their uncritical adherents. I don't see the Greens as particularly bad in that respect.

 

[First Aspect]

So you will say. I don't say this to be rude, but clearly you know little about the Green Party. On the one hand they care called ''middle class champagne socialists'', and on the other ''bog snorkeling ultra lefties''.

Their economic position is a bit left of centre, and their social policies are liberal. That doesn't stop detractors from the far right groups calling them ''communists'', ''far left loons'' etc.

At the moment they are becoming more popular and not because they are ''more extreme'', but better understood.

Right now they are populist, as far as I can determine.

My own direct observation of the Greens was via the Bute House agreement. Pretty much everything they tried backfired and had unintended consequences. Mostly little things like causing undue economic hardship, being illegal and/or unworkable outside of the central belt.

 

[laurentian]

This isn't quite true Brian.

The GPEW do not criticise the use of live-saving medical interventions. They criticise the use of C sections where their use is not clinically indicated. This position flows from the evidence provided by WHO and NICE. That evidence shows that an overuse of interventions are too often due to a number of factors - one of which it that maternity units are too often too understaffed to support vaginal birth in all cases.

C-section exposes birthing women to increased post natal risks and harms. To use surgeries due to overcome shortages or similar such reasons is an abuse, depriving women of bodily autonomy for vaginal birth.

My wife is a midwife and has been for over 25 years. I am not one myself but obviously we talk.

C Section is often the go to for any doctor who is a little uneasy with the way any birth is going will opt for C Section. Situations where proper "normal birth" management are implemented will often negate any risk perceived by a doctor.

The fear of litigation is a driving factor

The post section risks to the mother can be greater than any risk to mother and baby of a normal birth.

I don't think there is any other example in the NHS where one can elect for surgery when not needed. Consider going in to A&E with stomach pain and insisting on having your appendix out . . . it would not be entertained and yet C Section is something any mother can opt for.

Not only are there arguments on the medical and moral fronts, but the cost of C Sections (greater than 50% of births in some trusts I believe) involving surgeons, anesthetists, nurses, time in hospital etc etc is huge when compared to a "normal" vaginal birth and a significant unnecessary cost to the NHS.

There are, of course, very legitimate and necessary reasons for some C Sections but I believe these to be a small proportion of those carried out.

Given what I believe the present situation to be, this seems a logical and financially sensible policy from the Greens.

 

[monkers]

Right now they are populist, as far as I can determine.

My own direct observation of the Greens was via the Bute House agreement. Pretty much everything they tried backfired and had unintended consequences. Mostly little things like causing undue economic hardship, being illegal and/or unworkable outside of the central belt.

Their policies are broadly the same. Polanski is pretty clear - he has hijacked aspects of the populist playbook because he is media savvy; he knowns this is the only way to cut through. Now the GPEW have about 2 million members, have tripled their vote share. The gap is closing between them and Reform currently because the Reform vote is falling. Greens are up about 10%, Reform have dropped about 10%.

Where is your criticism that Reform have no real policies, just shouty messages designed to inculcate fear? Even the most superficial study of what Reform exist for should cause concern in a thinking person.

Yougov's polling shows that the real battle is no longer a class war, it is between people who work, and people who are collecting pension.

The workforce wants a better deal. Reform are not the answer to this.