How did you vote in the European elections?

[Patrick]

Patrick mildly swoons at the thought of a vengeful Trubble!

Jun 5, 2009 9:50:07 GMT trubble said:

The Greens are mild left wing. They just are. What can I say?

They are fluffy socialism.

They are most effective at local level because their original aim as a party was to bring all power to local level. It's what they understand best.

Ping! Just like I said! ;D I can see you getting all Rob-like and stroppy with my conciliatory approach to discussion!





I envisage a lot of shouting too!

[jean]

Jun 5, 2009 8:56:57 GMT swl said:

And as for the Greens... FPS!. I never heard a Green on the campaign trail say one word about the environment. They just aped the socialists, trying to get their votes. I spoke to real environmentalists who will have nothing to do with the Greens. Environmentalists have realised that Friends of the Earth & Greenpeace work far more effectively as pressure groups to influence government policy than the Green party.

Then you haven't been listening in the right places.

It's always tempting to agree with people who tell you on the doorstep they're going to vote for you because of policies that are the exact opposite of yours, but one tries not to take advantage of their ignorance.

Working as a pressure group is taking a different route from being a political party, but they're not mutually exclusive - the same people often belong to both.

It is true that the Greens have been more successful up to now at local level (and it's interesting to note how quickly new Green councillors get elected once the first one has been) but with FPTP electing an MP is going to be an almost insuperable problem.

Caroline Lucas may manage it in Brighton next time.

Meanwhile, if you are serious about knowing what the Green Party's policies actually are, you can always visit their website:

www.greenparty.org.uk/policies.html

[swl]

Jean - I took my views from what the candidates were actually saying, often whilst they were sitting right next to me.

For example

- a massive rise in public sector employment
- promoting women-only and ethnic-only list & quota systems
- rejecting/embracing Working Time Directive (2 candidates, 2 policies but I don't think the first one understood it)

As for their manifesto - until such time as manifestos are legally binding, it's safe to say they're just lies to get your vote.

But, they oppose all Nuclear Power despite this being recognised as the only practical solution for emission free base load demand. They oppose all animal testing, even cancer research and drug testing. They want NHS resources diverted to complementary medicine. Less money for morphine, more money for chanting and incantations.

There's a world of difference between a local councillor and an MP/MEP. 2 of the most interesting, honest and decent people I met were SNP councillors. By contrast, their MEP candidates were wankers. The Green Party candidates I met were Communist in all but name. Utterly clueless, couldn't understand questions and exuding an air of desperation.

[riotgrrl]

Jun 5, 2009 9:47:32 GMT trubble said:

whatever way the votes fall, you have done the right thing by standing up for your beliefs.

one of my arguments with SWL is that he did not do this: he did not stand up for his beliefs.

He stood for some idea that he would do whatever the majority of consituents wanted him to do. He stood for populism and tyranny of the majority, not for beliefs.

[swl]

I stood up for the belief that politics and politicians are rotten to the core and NOTHING is more important than getting the crooks out and replacing them with people of integrity and honesty. You can't reform anything using cheats and swindlers to write the reform. You can't pursue any policy - be it Scottish Independence, EU disengagement, workers rights or the economy whilst those making the decisions are corrupt liars. I stood up for the belief that the party system has been abused and debased to the point that it actually damages democracy and works against the interests of the majority.

I have beliefs. They may be different to yours, but that doesn't make them invisible.

I toyed with the idea of committing to this policy or that policy, but came to realise that it's all irrelevant until we get politicians in who can be trusted - or if not trusted, legally bound & hogtied to do what they are supposed to do.

[riotgrrl]

Jun 5, 2009 11:50:50 GMT swl said:

I stood up for the belief that politics and politicians are rotten to the core and NOTHING is more important than getting the crooks out and replacing them with people of integrity and honesty. You can't reform anything using cheats and swindlers to write the reform. You can't pursue any policy - be it Scottish Independence, EU disengagement, workers rights or the economy whilst those making the decisions are corrupt liars. I stood up for the belief that the party system has been abused and debased to the point that it actually damages democracy and works against the interests of the majority.

I have beliefs. They may be different to yours, but that doesn't make them invisible.

I toyed with the idea of committing to this policy or that policy, but came to realise that it's all irrelevant until we get politicians in who can be trusted - or if not trusted, legally bound & hogtied to do what they are supposed to do.

I think we are using the word 'beliefs' to mean different things here SWL.

Not planning to pursue a major philosophical debate about it - but yes, I did mean clear policies.

I don't want legally bound and hogtied politicians. That's madness. A politician is elected not as a delegate, with a clear voting mandate on every issue (like a trade union representative attending conference.)

God forbid s/he should be! The world changes daily, new information comes to light, politicians need to be able to reflect on this and to change the direction of the management of the country accordingly.

I do not share your view that democracy would work better if the populace could control every vote their representative made. Most of us have neither the time nor the background knowledge - for example - to judge how politicians should vote clause by clause on complex tax (say) or health law. We rely on them - or rather their parties and the support there - to do that.

To seek to control every vote of a politician would leave us in the hands of demagogues and Daily Mail headline writers. Every political debate would be reduced to simplistic, crude sloganising. Prisoners would be serving 25 years for petty offences. There would be no immigrants. We would become world pariahs by refusing to take asylum-seekers or to adhere to international conventions around human rights, etc.

'Hog-tied' politicians would be the equivalent of handing control of the country over to the JSG board members.

We elect politicians to do a job for us. If we don't like how they do that job we sack them. That's how it works, and that's how it should work.

[Patrick]

I'll happily oppose all Nuclear Power stations until they tell us the truth on what they cost! Currently I feel there's too much cover up and incestuousness between Government and the Nuclear Power Industry. They hide the real cost of subsidising it and worse, I think they are hiding the true figure of the years and years and years of maintaining the storage of the waste once it's done with.

[swl]

We elect politicians to do a job for us. If we don't like how they do that job we sack them. That's how it works, and that's how it should work.

Except we don't. We can't. A politician in a safe seat can do whatever he/she wants and will be re-elected every time. What do you do if the party you support puts forward a candidate who has been absolutely useless for years? Or a candidate who barely sets foot back in the constituency once elected?

What do you do in a situation like last year where Labour MPs promised their constituents faithfully they would oppose Post Office closures, then they voted for the closures on the orders of the whip?

The hog-tying I'm referring to is intended to stop politicians telling blatant lies in manifestos.

[riotgrrl]

Jun 5, 2009 12:10:49 GMT swl said:

We elect politicians to do a job for us. If we don't like how they do that job we sack them. That's how it works, and that's how it should work.

Except we don't. We can't. A politician in a safe seat can do whatever he/she wants and will be re-elected every time. What do you do if the party you support puts forward a candidate who has been absolutely useless for years? Or a candidate who barely sets foot back in the constituency once elected?

What do you do in a situation like last year where Labour MPs promised their constituents faithfully they would oppose Post Office closures, then they voted for the closures on the orders of the whip?

The hog-tying I'm referring to is intended to stop politicians telling blatant lies in manifestos.

SWL,

If a politician is in a 'safe seat' then it's because the majority of constituents (or the biggest minority of constituents under a FPTP system) vote for him or her. The way you're putting it you make it sound like 'safe seats' are some kind of corrupt device to keep the unworthy in power.

If people keep voting for an idiot politician, then it's because they're idiots, but so be it. That's democracy.

You're the one who wants the views of people to be heard - if they're voting for a politician then those views ARE being heard.

You can't have it both ways.

And as for the manifesto argument, I really think that's a red herring. I see it in particular with the current SNP Government in Scotland; you cannot hold a minority government to a manifesto, because, by the very fact it's a minority government, it cannot always get its legislation through.

Coalition governments similarly cannot be held to their manifestos.

The only governments you could even THINK of holding firmly to manifestos would be those with a safe majority.

And even then, as I say, the world changes.

Now you get absolute lies, where a simple commitment ("We will hold a referendum on the EU") are simply not implemented. (and this is not a real example, as this is not what hte Labour party said exactly.)

But how do you judge if a commitment like "We will make the health service more responsive to local needs" has been implemented or not? It's a subjective thing. Like your claims that MEPs had "not voted in the interests of Scotland X% of times" . . who defines what that interest is and what the measurement of success is? These are essentially POLITICAL questions.

You work for a company. You know that your company has one-year plans, and five year strategic plans and the like. But only a fool looks at a five or ten year strategic plan, full of broad vision stuff, and expects that this is exactly what is going to happen in the next five years.

Things change. Things that seem like really good and workable ideas one year are found, further down the line when more information is available and things have been piloted a bit, not to be good ideas at all.

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2009 11:50:50 GMT swl said:

I stood up for the belief that politics and politicians are rotten to the core and NOTHING is more important than getting the crooks out and replacing them with people of integrity and honesty. You can't reform anything using cheats and swindlers to write the reform. You can't pursue any policy - be it Scottish Independence, EU disengagement, workers rights or the economy whilst those making the decisions are corrupt liars. I stood up for the belief that the party system has been abused and debased to the point that it actually damages democracy and works against the interests of the majority.

I have beliefs. They may be different to yours, but that doesn't make them invisible.

I toyed with the idea of committing to this policy or that policy, but came to realise that it's all irrelevant until we get politicians in who can be trusted - or if not trusted, legally bound & hogtied to do what they are supposed to do.

Now that you have got the campaigning bug, do what you should have done in the first place- stand as a Conservative - for that is surely what you are .

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2009 12:46:11 GMT jean said:

Jun 5, 2009 11:16:53 GMT swl said:

they oppose all Nuclear Power despite this being recognised as the only practical solution for emission free base load demand.

Nice use of the passive there - recognised by whom?

And although nuclear power does score high in the emission free stakes, its proponents are strangely silent about the waste that has to be disposed of, which noone has yet worked out a safe way of doing.

They want more resources put into other research methods, which may in fact be more effective:

Experiments on animals are unreliable as a guide to human biology. Different species react differently to drugs and toxic substances. Many drugs that cause damaging side-effects in people have passed animal tests. There are viable alternatives to animal testing including epidemiology, the use of cell cultures, human tissue and computer simulation. The Green Party would redirect research funding to such alternatives.

They want NHS resources diverted to complementary medicine. Less money for morphine, more money for chanting and incantations.

Interesting use of 'diverted' - implying that there's one correct way of treating people's ailments and conventional drug-based treatments are it.

Amnyone who's had a successful experience of acupuncture will beg to differ - something the NHS itself is about to recognise.

Chanting and incantations? Sounds like a depressingly familiar politican's way of smearing the opponents.

Jean

Pedantry alert

Surely no-one ?

[jean]

Jun 5, 2009 11:50:50 GMT swl said:

I stood up for the belief that politics and politicians are rotten to the core and NOTHING is more important than getting the crooks out and replacing them with people of integrity and honesty.

But how do you avoid the rotting process yourself once you get elected?

[riotgrrl]

Jun 5, 2009 12:51:10 GMT jean said:

Jun 5, 2009 11:50:50 GMT swl said:

I stood up for the belief that politics and politicians are rotten to the core and NOTHING is more important than getting the crooks out and replacing them with people of integrity and honesty.

But how do you avoid the rotting process yourself once you get elected?

Here is a question: Which is more important in a politician

a) Honesty & Integrity, or
b) Competence and ability?

In other areas it's a no-brainer. I'm sure we'd all rather have a competent doctor who was fiddling his expenses than one who was straight as a dice but not very good.

And, after all, by being expenses-fiddling, tax-avoidance-maximising, venal people who enjoy a bit of luxury, it cannot be denied that our politicians represent the rest of the population, can it?

[jean]

Jun 5, 2009 12:50:21 GMT @arealfarmer said:

Jean

Pedantry alert

Surely no-one ?

Farmer, it's wonderful to have you reading my posts with such close attention.

Whatever it takes!

[riotgrrl]

Experiments on animals are unreliable as a guide to human biology. Different species react differently to drugs and toxic substances. Many drugs that cause damaging side-effects in people have passed animal tests. There are viable alternatives to animal testing including epidemiology, the use of cell cultures, human tissue and computer simulation. The Green Party would redirect research funding to such alternatives.




And this is why I will NEVER vote Green. My daughter is type 1 diabetic. I don't care if they do experiments on rats, mice, gorillas or elephants if it helps them find a cure.

Without experiments on dogs (where pancreases were removed and the like) done in the early 20th century my daughter would be dead by now.


(By the way, there is no such thing as complementary medicine. There is only medicine which has passed rigorous research and review, and unproved mumbo jumbo.)

[Patrick]

Over the years we have made great progress through animal testing. Surely though, we now have the technology to be able to render it obsolete?

[jean]

Jun 5, 2009 13:23:43 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Here is a question: Which is more important in a politician

a) Honesty & Integrity, or
b) Competence and ability?

Ideally one would have both; but a doctor who's milking the expenses system at his disposal is not directly responsible for setting the level of benefits on which I might be expected to subsist in the way that an MP is.

Besides, don't the more ludicrous of the expenses claims point to a failure of competence opn the part of the MPs who made them, since they've known for some time that the details might well become public?

Didn't the late Robin Cook foresee that MPs had a juggernaut heading their way?

[jean]

Here's the reference.

'...In A View from the Foothills, the diaries of Chris Mullin MP, the following entry is recorded for May 1, 2002:

“Andrew Mackinlay dropped a little bombshell at this afternoon’s meeting of the parliamentary committee. Apparently, under the Freedom of Information Act, by January 2005 MPs’ expenses will be subject to public scrutiny, retrospectively. Goodness knows what mayhem that will cause. 'We are in a jam’, says Robin Cook. 'Few members have yet tumbled to the juggernaut heading their way.’” '

[riotgrrl]

Thanks for the reference Jean.

That they didn't see it coming speaks volumes for their intelligence as well as their integrity!

But it's not all MPs who've been at it, is it?

[jean]

No it's not - so I rather hope we're not rushed into a general election before we know the details of the expenses of all 630 of them.