Do you see the contradiction you make in saying you want a democratic method of choice which doesn’t result in a commercial outcome?
cheers

I’m afraid i keep having difficulty understanding exactly what it is you are saying. I felt that Nick asked a very clear and precise question and so i answered hopefully clearly. You seem to want to mix both various tangential points of discussion with having a go at me for some reason, so if you don’t mind I’m going to stick to discussing with others from now. Apologies if I’ve misunderstood you, but life is short and all that…

mattf

I also think you’ve consumed a bit too much Green propaganda to being seeing clearly. Surely you understand the vested interest the Green party has in promoting a self-supporting perspective?

You simply make so many assumptions that is hard to believe you have actually thought through the development of your ideas from their starting point. So instead of using blanket insults to dismiss those who disagree, wouldn’t you do better to engage with them in open dialogue to find out why they disagree?

The economic effects of education can be measured at various levels and it is a political decision which needs to emphasised more. At the macro level, schools need to provide for the situation in which leavers will find themselves and be able to survive – which means having the tools to do jobs which exist, rather than the tools to do the jobs you may wish to exist. At the micro level the choice is only noticable at the point which streams diverge.

So, do you think latin ought to be reintroduced as compulsory? How do you cope with demand for plumbers? To what standard should a general education be provided, and to what extent should a specialist qualification be funded?

For starters it would help to know that you’re not in the either/or camp.

I agree that there will always be critics, but non-partisanship is better served by judicious endorsement under specific qualifying conditions – so for example, though I err in favour of Obama I also recognise the dangers potentially arising from an overwhelming victory and would reserve all rights to avoid a decision until the final moment.

I also acknowledge what you’re trying to say when you accuse me of condescention, but again there is a fundamental talking point here about the way people relate and communicate and I disagree therefore with the charge.

Perhaps those Greens above really can answer the questions raised even though they choose not to, or perhaps they choose to waste the opportunity because they can’t… whichever, and whatever the criticisms we throw at the other parties (larger and smaller), is any of us prepared to tell the public they are wrong to put the x’s in the boxes they do? Yet at least one person is deluding themselves that Greens are more popular than the LibDems, according to this conversation – is it possible to defend this untruth by any measure?

thanks for your question. It’s important I think to look at the specific wording that i used. It’s not about being against profits per se, as Sunny notes, but against what i have called ” profit oreintetd control” of things like school curriculums. That doesn’t mean I’m an out and out statist, but that having non state sector involvement in the provision of certain materials and goods is very different than , and this is the most important bit,

having companies who are inevitably driven by their fiduciary duty deciding what subjects actually get taught to 11year old children

the latter approach stems from a neo-liberal position, which the three biggest parties curently share. Left liberals dont’ share this,and so presumably if you are a left liberal you would rather support the green party than any of the other three. So, to conclude, my feeling is that those current lib dem supporetsr who would place themselves on the social democratic wing ought to consider supporting the green party.

In anticipation of your immediate response, how we measure the delivery of better education is a debate in and of itself.

profit making might deliver better school buildings, better staff training, etc et, I think that has still to be demonstrated but I;m open to debate on it. However allowing profit orientation to decide curriculum is a dangerous road to tread,and one which esentially leads to bringing ideology to curriculum choice ( fundamentally unliberal i’m sure you’ll recognise) whereby for example history is forsaken for economics.

I’d rather have those decisions done democratically and accountably. And this is the real problem for neo-liberals, ultimately they beleive in the market rather than democracy, because they believe that the market is democratic. Why they believe this in the face of what seems to me to be all evidence to the contray (ranging from Adam Smith to recent ‘nudge’ economics) is better left to them ( including you?) to explain.

It seems clear to me that left liberals share my analysis, hence my conclusion about liberal democrats and the green party

hope that helps

Best wishes

mattf

is this what you call criticism?
is that all you’ve got? A greater collection of ineffectual and irrelevant nonsense I’ve never heard!

Now, to be honest, we could spend all day long criticising Labour, Libdem, Tory and Green policy.

I’d be interested more in hearing about why a particular party’s policy, in a subject area, is better than what the Greens are proposing.

Otherwise, all I can read from you is just a bit of condescending lather. And usually, you’re the first person to criticise others for being partisan.

So Mattf, why are you against profits? If it turned out that profits delivered better health care or education, would you change your mind or is it a point of principle?

I don’t think they should be against against profits per se, but excessive profits, which are rife in our economy, are simply a product of market failure.

Your other latest points may all be correct, or worthy of discussion, but they are seperate from the above key points, and perhaps due to my brain not working well,, rather unclear. Can you give me an example of what you mean by ‘extent of your ideals’ and ‘how far reaching’, and then hopefully I can assist

If i may, perhaps we can move on by you saying the following:

” In response to your key points, agreed. What i would now be interested in finding out is ….( for you to fill in)

sent in constructive spirit

mattf

You are already very clear that you stand for opposition not leadership, while being completely unclear about the extent of your ideals and how far-reaching whatever principles you have are.

So I doubt the ability of LCs Green conspirators to produce something interesting and I doubt anything productive will be achieved. However, that’s the political challenge for you to overcome.

There is a distinction between specific policy detail and what you refer to as ‘what the party stands for’. I think that oppostion to profit orientated control of school curriculums and health services is very clear in terms of what a party stands for. I think that taxing those earning over £100,000 more than they are currently is also very clear.

You may not agree with these policies, the liberal democrats officially don’t, but the point is about clarity.

To be fair some policy that demonstrated where the greens stand is what you asked to be provided with.

I then suggested that the there was less distinction between the liberal democrats and the two major, economically liberal parties, than there was between the Green party and those two parties. This left me concluding that the earlier remark that the liberal democrat poltical brand was weak, and that left liberals were justified in preferring the Green party to the liberal democrats had validity.

This still stands up in my view.

However if you wanted to pursue other more specifric policy debates , then I’m happy to do that, but perhaps we should start another thread?

Best wishes

mattf

To be fair, I think it’s important to be honest – I’m critical of the Green’s because I’m open to the idea of being convinced of the message they supposedly promote, but that requires someone to communicate it clearly.

mattf,
I don’t think you adequately describe what you stand for.

That David Laws’ LibDem education policy may or may not skirt round the issues doesn’t excuse you from doing so. Also by saying you stand against ‘greater profit oriented public sector in health’ and against ‘greater business control over curriculum in schools does not say whether you stand for the current level or a reduction in those levels, and if a reduction to what level and on what basis.

I also don’t think you are being adequately fair to your opponents for what you say to have any credibility.

The LibDems have clear policy differentiation in a number of areas, such as they have recently set out on Tax. You also propagate the idea that if they did appeal to you you still wouldn’t vote for them, which hardly speaks of an unprejudiced mind. You can admit your own confusion about your opponents, but please don’t assume that’s the same grounds for disagreement everybody else holds with them.

Finally, I don’t think you are being consistent in your arguments.

You claim the Greens are different, yet you defend the Green education policy by saying it is the same as someone else’s before saying theirs are the same as everybody’s.

Pippa,
thanks for that link (although I was already aware of it) – can you point me to the bit which summarises what the party stands for?

Reading through the site it appears like an exercise in distracting attention from the vacuum at the heart of it – Sian Berry has a job on her hands improving the communications department!

Perhaps so few people vote Green because so few have found out what the greens say and therefore are just too unprepared to have it demonstrated by green representatives.

Heh, irony is fun.

I don’t think I was snide or sarcastic. A little terse perhaps… Still, YAY for flinging poo, G!

I think that those particular examples of polices clearly demonstrate where the green party stands on several key issues. I will, for the sake of accuracy, remind you that the education policy is something David Laws has called for this month! To be fair to you, it may be that both green and lib dems are skirting the issue around standards.

It’s clear, to me at least, that the many from the social democratic wing would find a happier home in the green party than in the current liberal democrats. Those of an economic neo-liberal persuasion will clearly not. If you are the latter, fair enough.

I think the public recognises the distinction within the lib dems of these two disparate stands and is therefore confused by it, quite rightly. Essentially they vote liberal democrat because they are not the either labour or conservative unpopular incumbents. They vote Green because they’ve either found out what the greens say or have had it demonstrated by existing green representatives .

Let me give you two examples which might help. If you believe in greater profit orientated sector control over health services you’ve already got labour and conservatives to vote for, but if you don’t the Green Party is very clear on it’s position. If you believe in greater busniess control over curriculum in schools, you’ve already got labour and conservatives to vote for, but if you don’t the Green party is very clear on it’s position

So perhaps the real question for lib democrats are how are their policies actually distinct from the other two parties? They aren’t really, and that is ultimately what Jim means by a weak political brand. If I was a free market liberal i’d vote new labour or the conservatives. If I was left liberal I’d vote for the greens.

i think mattf quite clearly stated that that was _not_ all that he had, but was, rather, an illustrative list.

you can find a more comprehensive record of green policy on the website if it interests you.

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/

Health – you promise to reverse something which isn’t happening.
Public services – you promise something that already exists, or an extension of current policies by additional coercion.
Democracy – you support the LibDems
Education – a sweeping policy which avoids the issues surrounding standards.
Crime – I recall the Home Sec recently said something similar and then reversed/denied the initiative.
Pensions – unworkable and unaffordable under private investment models, hints at coercion, nationalisation, taxation – or all three.

I’d therefore like to hear your transport and energy policies before I call the Green party an empty authoritarian vessel.

Health:
Reverse the sale of NHS services and
hospitals to private companies

Public services:
Mandatory youth services with extra
funding

Democracy:
The voting age should be reduced to 16
years.

Education:
We would abolish the system of SATs
and league tables

Crime:
Where appropriate, bring offenders
together with victims so that they are
made aware of their impact on people’s
lives, and, where possible, can make
reparation for their crimes.

Pensions:
encourage Local Community Pensions
Schemes that would invest in the local
community and in public services, not
the stock market, so offering stable
returns, not dependent on speculation
or vulnerable to mis-management.

that’ll do for now I think

Votes and success are about on the ground work, in politics. Building a party takes time, it is not purely the product of existing voter habits. But our experience is that we are easier to understand and people like us. Our votes grow quickly where we are established.

Caroline and Derek are hardly ever at odds about actual policies. Derek and Caroline took a very different view about internal party structure, for reasons that are beyond me.

The party clearly stands for social and environmental justice. That’s the bedrock of our beliefs.

Says a man speaking for the whole of the public, obviously. Forgive me, am I reading the polls wrong?

I don’t know what the Greens stand for and I don’t think any of the membership actually knows what they stand for collectively as a party either.

Talking about brass tacks, try to nail any two Greens down on specifics and they’ll take opposite views to each other – to whit, Derek Wall and Caroline Lucas.

So why don’t you tell us?

Well, I am not trying to persuade everyone here all at once

“What do the Labour Party stand for?”

“Well they used to be for the working man but now they’re more like the Tories”

“How about the Tories?”

“They’re more like Labour these days.”

“What about the LibDems?”

”On I don”t know really … they’re somewhere in between.”

The point being that ad hominems are a shorthand debating tool and implied logic rather than logic itself, so while they are generally effective in communicating basic attitudes they cannot be assumed in and of themselves to convey any basic truths – they provide for uncertainty, they don’t infer correctness one way or the other.

So I’ll happily defend the right to use them and in so doing can easily agree with your defense against accusations of their use against you by Nick, but I am equally capable of pointing out your own clear problems when accusing others of their use.

In my own defence the ‘nice words’ you refer to (thanks very much for that, I usually get bogged down by impreciseness and over-qualifications) summate the reasoning behind their usage, which taken in combination denies the ad hominem attack – so you result in exposing your own weakness (in this case favoritism towards Greens over LibDems) rather than trying to avoid any impartiality by staying on the sidelines.

So regarding ad hominems if you are uncertain of their proper usage I suggest you steer clear of them altogether, but you can remember the rule of thumb that if you can’t defend yourself without attacking others then you have no defence.

Returning to the topic, I’ll reiterate, the Green party represents a negativist sentiment and will increasingly pick up protest votes until they find they must move mainstream and promote some positive policies, at which stage they will begin alienating the serial protesters who comprise their current activist base. The internal tension between the strands represented by each of their most charismatic fugureheads must not prove too fractious to prevent them from reaching that stage of development, yet they must also not neglect the necessity of debate between them.

The Green party is in an interesting position currently, as they could form a ‘real break’ with political ineptitude and corruption (if that’s how you choose to describe it), or they could represent a ‘culmination’ of historical processes by which humanity reaches it’s full potential (if that’s your perspective). One should remember that the former sloganised phrasiology is a virtually exact transliteration of extreme right-wing thinking, the latter extreme of left-wing thinking, whose intolerance brought about the most destructive, degrading and ultimately dangerous period in human memory. But most Greens are too green to see that.

Hold on – you post some rubbish informed by ignorance, try and pass it off as intelligent discussion, and then accuse me of ad hominems?

It would be good if you actually asked questions or had a serious discussion about an issue, and we could move past stereotypes like ‘Labour is Stalinist’, ‘Libertarians are selfish bastards’, ‘Tories eat babies’ and ‘Liberals are wishy washy’ etc on to something a bit more substantive. Otherwise, like thomas above, its just ad hominems dressed up in nice words.