| Polanski on 14:14 - May 3 with 237 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Polanski on 07:13 - May 3 by urbanpenguin |
But a leader of a party isn't the person that creates the rules, this isn't a presidency. This is particularly the case with the Greens, where positions and political opinions come through a slow but genuinely meaningful process within the membership, not just from what Polanski or whoever says. [Post edited 3 May 9:30]
|
But those policies I talked around are literally in their manifesto, whether they are Polankski’s ideas or not - so you are wrong in that regard.
I’m not telling anyone else how to vote, it’s none of my business - people are welcome to vote for him/them if they appeal. I was just setting out a couple of their policies that are flawed, and why they aren’t for me. |  | |  |
| Polanski on 14:56 - May 3 with 168 views | urbanpenguin |
| Polanski on 14:14 - May 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But those policies I talked around are literally in their manifesto, whether they are Polankski’s ideas or not - so you are wrong in that regard.
I’m not telling anyone else how to vote, it’s none of my business - people are welcome to vote for him/them if they appeal. I was just setting out a couple of their policies that are flawed, and why they aren’t for me. |
OK. I will respond to them then
"I did have a chuckle when the Greens proposed more money for dentistry"
People cannot find an NHS dentist. That dentistry went partially privatised has been very bad for dental health and is a model that the likes of Streeting wish to do more widely in the NHS, so to not only push against NHS privatisation but also try to undo some of the damage done previously seems good to me.
"Aiming for 100pc renewables whilst banning nuclear power is similarly daft."
I agree. but that is the position of members at the moment, though many people inside are pushing against and I suspect it will change in due course, just as the previous (Stupid) opposition to HS2 was reversed due to internal activism so that the party's official policy is now pro.
"It’s not possible to build enough energy storage for renewables without huge investment and losing swathes of greenfield land (not a very green policy)."
It is not anti-green (or anti-Green) to strategically use greenbelt land. As a lecturer in landscape architecture, it's a subject that I often read around and an awful lot of greenbelt land is not only garbage but also in exact places close to transport where we need high density, sustainable and well-designed housing. Just as we should also build over golf courses as they are only green landscapes in colour, not environmental quality.
Therefore we’d be reliant on the continental grid when renewables aren’t providing our full need, which would mean price fluctuations.
But, as I said elsewhere, we do not vote for a leader in this country, we vote for local representatives. And everybody in the Green Party can help steer policy, which takes a long time in the process they use but is democratic. This leads to some total cranks and some crank ideas getting aired, but by and large they get squashed through conversation and argument internally. |  | | |
| Polanski on 15:04 - May 3 with 144 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Polanski on 14:56 - May 3 by urbanpenguin |
OK. I will respond to them then
"I did have a chuckle when the Greens proposed more money for dentistry"
People cannot find an NHS dentist. That dentistry went partially privatised has been very bad for dental health and is a model that the likes of Streeting wish to do more widely in the NHS, so to not only push against NHS privatisation but also try to undo some of the damage done previously seems good to me.
"Aiming for 100pc renewables whilst banning nuclear power is similarly daft."
I agree. but that is the position of members at the moment, though many people inside are pushing against and I suspect it will change in due course, just as the previous (Stupid) opposition to HS2 was reversed due to internal activism so that the party's official policy is now pro.
"It’s not possible to build enough energy storage for renewables without huge investment and losing swathes of greenfield land (not a very green policy)."
It is not anti-green (or anti-Green) to strategically use greenbelt land. As a lecturer in landscape architecture, it's a subject that I often read around and an awful lot of greenbelt land is not only garbage but also in exact places close to transport where we need high density, sustainable and well-designed housing. Just as we should also build over golf courses as they are only green landscapes in colour, not environmental quality.
Therefore we’d be reliant on the continental grid when renewables aren’t providing our full need, which would mean price fluctuations.
But, as I said elsewhere, we do not vote for a leader in this country, we vote for local representatives. And everybody in the Green Party can help steer policy, which takes a long time in the process they use but is democratic. This leads to some total cranks and some crank ideas getting aired, but by and large they get squashed through conversation and argument internally. |
The dentistry one was clearly tongue in cheek…
So largely you agree the energy policy makes little sense. And that’s without addressing my concerns around defence - I don’t want to see large chunks of public money spent on funding weaponry but we need to support our allies and unfortunately human nature means there will be always bad actors who’ll take advantage of ‘weakness’
But you don’t have to spend your Sunday trying to sway me, I simply don’t think they are a serious option. Just giving my two penneth. Enjoy another great KM success. Uppa Towen | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
