Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[monkers]

Yes, best if the Greens just stick to green stuff. Then everyone can dismiss them as peripheral to real politics.
Complicated innit.

The GPEW is a party of justice, that includes climate care as a social justice but is not restrained by that one issue.

 

[monkers]

Looks like this man took a woman's designated place. I think sensible Green Party members can take some comfort from it being quite a close result but this is the kind of candidate who will attract like minded individuals to the Greens but alienate many of the wider electorate. His victory announcement ended with 'Inshallah... We shall prevail' so obviously appealing to a certain demographic as opposed to the environmental cohort that made up the Green's traditional voters. Will be interesting to see if the Greens tear themselves apart trying to expel those who voice objection to the direction of travel.

View attachment 16873

At the time of the post, she is ''running'' therefore hasn't taken anybody's place. There were other women in the running.

 

[Ian H]

I don't think "getting elected" should be the priority for anybody. Just a sign of ego. The aim should be to change our governance to be closer to one's ideology. Green Party can pursue Green Policies and achieve change without "being elected". Operating in the political arean (putting up candidates for election, etc.) positions them as part of the policy system rather than as lobbyists/pressure groups.

They managed to get surprising electoral success before they were hijacked (that took away from their Green Agenda).

Does that apply to all political parties, that they could have more influence by not getting elected?

 

[monkers]

Does that apply to all political parties, that they could have more influence by not getting elected?

The number of people who confuse the aims of Greenpeace with those of the Green Party is truly astonishing. The aim of the party is to form a government - an altogether different thing to the ambitions of individuals.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I don't think "getting elected" should be the priority for anybody. Just a sign of ego. The aim should be to change our governance to be closer to one's ideology. Green Party can pursue Green Policies and achieve change without "being elected". Operating in the political arean (putting up candidates for election, etc.) positions them as part of the policy system rather than as lobbyists/pressure groups.

They managed to get surprising electoral success before they were hijacked (that took away from their Green Agenda).

Green Party - it's a political party. Political parties generally aim to get elected to further their agenda.
If you're arguing the agenda is getting diluted in the pursuit of electoral success, you might have a point.
If you're arguing they shouldn't aim to be elected, you're talking daftness.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If they want to be elected they have to show a complete set of policies, and socialism is, in general, a better fit than capitalism.

Depends what you meanby better fit. Looking at the number of Conservative governments since WW2 it is not a better fit if you want to win elections.

Edit:
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes socialism should be a better fit for Green policies.

 

[AndyRM]

Looks like this man took a woman's designated place. I think sensible Green Party members can take some comfort from it being quite a close result but this is the kind of candidate who will attract like minded individuals to the Greens but alienate many of the wider electorate. His victory announcement ended with 'Inshallah... We shall prevail' so obviously appealing to a certain demographic as opposed to the environmental cohort that made up the Green's traditional voters. Will be interesting to see if the Greens tear themselves apart trying to expel those who voice objection to the direction of travel.

View attachment 16873

Last bit of the small print is kinda key.

 

[First Aspect]

Depends what you meanby better fit. Looking at the number of Conservative governments since WW2 it is not a better fit if you want to win elections.

Edit:
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes socialism should be a better fit for Green policies.

I still don't think having unsupportable far left nonsensical policies based on economic nonreality helps them get to the point of having enough MPs to be able to endanct any of their green policies.

 

[monkers]

I still don't think having unsupportable far left nonsensical policies based on economic nonreality helps them get to the point of having enough MPs to be able to endanct any of their green policies.

Which of their economic policies do you consider to be far left?

 

[Psamathe]

Does that apply to all political parties, that they could have more influence by not getting elected?

The point was that getting elected is not the most important thing other than for individual egos. What politicians who actually care about their ideology should be doing is looking to the best way for them to progress their agenda, to have influence over governance.

For example, Green Party under Caroline Lucas managed to progress the green agenda far more than one might expect from their electoral success. She made focused coherent arguments (and still does).

Polanski should realise he's never going to become PM, he's never going to have a majority in Parliament (I would question if there's even a safe-enough constituency for him to get elected as an MP). So if he believe's his ideology (rather than wanting Social Media and press attention) then it becomes how to move towards his ideology. Coming out with extreme economic proposals it just going to get his ideas dismissed and ensure Green candidates don't get elected.

 

[Ian H]

The point was that getting elected is not the most important thing other than for individual egos. What politicians who actually care about their ideology should be doing is looking to the best way for them to progress their agenda, to have influence over governance.

For example, Green Party under Caroline Lucas managed to progress the green agenda far more than one might expect from their electoral success. She made focused coherent arguments (and still does).

Polanski should realise he's never going to become PM, he's never going to have a majority in Parliament (I would question if there's even a safe-enough constituency for him to get elected as an MP). So if he believe's his ideology (rather than wanting Social Media and press attention) then it becomes how to move towards his ideology. Coming out with extreme economic proposals it just going to get his ideas dismissed and ensure Green candidates don't get elected.

So, in your view, the Greens should be a pressure group, not a political party.

 

[Pblakeney]

The point was that getting elected is not the most important thing other than for individual egos. What politicians who actually care about their ideology should be doing is looking to the best way for them to progress their agenda, to have influence over governance.

For example, Green Party under Caroline Lucas managed to progress the green agenda far more than one might expect from their electoral success. She made focused coherent arguments (and still does).

Polanski should realise he's never going to become PM, he's never going to have a majority in Parliament (I would question if there's even a safe-enough constituency for him to get elected as an MP). So if he believe's his ideology (rather than wanting Social Media and press attention) then it becomes how to move towards his ideology. Coming out with extreme economic proposals it just going to get his ideas dismissed and ensure Green candidates don't get elected.

Not even comparable to what Fagash has achieved without being in power.

 

[monkers]

The point was that getting elected is not the most important thing other than for individual egos. What politicians who actually care about their ideology should be doing is looking to the best way for them to progress their agenda, to have influence over governance.

For example, Green Party under Caroline Lucas managed to progress the green agenda far more than one might expect from their electoral success. She made focused coherent arguments (and still does).

Polanski should realise he's never going to become PM, he's never going to have a majority in Parliament (I would question if there's even a safe-enough constituency for him to get elected as an MP). So if he believe's his ideology (rather than wanting Social Media and press attention) then it becomes how to move towards his ideology. Coming out with extreme economic proposals it just going to get his ideas dismissed and ensure Green candidates don't get elected.

You seem to be not realising that Caroline Lucas had been a councillor, an MEP, and latterly an MP. This history is not a good fit with your narrative.

Polanski's term as leader ends Summer 2027. Of course he can stand again. There are London Boroughs where he would have a good chance of winning a seat - possibly Hackney or Walthamstow might be a match. Remember he is already an elected London Assembly Member.

 

[Psamathe]

So, in your view, the Greens should be a pressure group, not a political party.

I clearly cannot explin my point such that you can understand it. I explicitly said

Operating in the political arean (putting up candidates for election, etc.) positions them as part of the policy system rather than as lobbyists/pressure groups.

It's "priority" thing rather a directive. The problem comes in that too many politicians have excessive egos and "getting elected" becomes the focus rather than pursuing their ideology.

 

[monkers]

Coming out with extreme economic proposals it just going to get his ideas dismissed and ensure Green candidates don't get elected.

I've already tried asking our friend First Aspect about this, alas no reply. Perhaps you can help further this conversation? Which of his ''extreme economical proposals'' are not in the GPEW policy set? Let's discuss.