The raised turnout premise is false, anyway. There is no threshold to be elected as there is in the London Elections. The BNP do need to, say, get 5% to be eligible. In elections like that an increase in any vote but the BNP would make reaching a threshold more difficult. In this case, the votes against the BNP MUST be for a minor party that can beat them (as when challenging for a last place seat, the D’Hondt system means that votes for the big 3 parties will be subject to some dilution compared to the minor parties (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv0uHWxhLgs ). Furthermore the votes should be targetted on one party to ensure that party will beat the BNP. Splitting the vote, between NO2EU, Greens and UKIP for instance would be counter-productive.

As you might imagine, I agree!

I give a few more specifics about Jean Lambert’s record in particular over at Dave Osler’s place: http://www.davidosler.com/2009/05/the_left_case_for_a_green_euro.html

Matt

In addition to the abovementioned support by Respect of the Greens in the West Midlands, Respect in the North West region have also stood aside and asked their voters to support the Green Party candidate who is up against BNP Fuhrer Nick Griffin: http://www.stopnickgriffin.org.uk.

Both Mark Thomas and Craig Murray have endorsed voting for Green candidate Rupert Read in Eastern region, with the former urging a Green vote nationally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em2kW1AWzE0
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/with_euro_and_l.html

Joanna Lumley, of all people, has endorsed Caroline Lucas MEP in South Eastern region:

http://southeast.greenparty.org.uk/region/southeast/news/joanna-lumley-backs-caroline-lucass-campaign.html

In particular, the experience of Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland proved a disaster – they worked with Labour merely to rebrand tuition fees, they approved a swathe of destructive motorways, they argue (unlike over Heathrow) for airport expansion, they abstained on ID cards (!), and they approved the planting of GM crops in Charles Kennedy’s own constituency.

Well at least they got the GM crops right.

Green, it would appear, is GO!
I really don’t see any other viable alternative and will vote Green too – probably for the general election as well.

What’s the Green’s policies on immigration?

Chavscum: they’re for greater freedom of movement and the right to asylum, but it’s not clear whether they’re fully pro-open borders. More liberal than the status quo though, which is a movement in the right direction as far as I’m concerned.

Free social care for the elderly?

Nobody (who knows what they are talking about) could give any such undertaking.

Such a commitment is in effect a blank cheque.

A more honest approach would be say that the government can offer less for the oldies but will try to do more to protect standards – a % of care homes are a scandal, that’s a good a place as any to start improving matters.
http://www.paulburstow.org.uk/speeches/000060/first_reading_of_paul_burstows_private_members_bill_care_of_older_people_human_rights_bill.html

I’m voting Green on June 4th.

A & E: any investment like that is a matter of political will, not an impossibility. Money can be found for other, less constructive projects and it seems to me that caring for the old is a hallmark of a civilised social-democratic society.

I always liked this old Samizdata post called ‘Vote green – go blackshirt’ about the similarities between the Greens and the BNP – http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/02/vote_green_go_b.html

I oppose the Greens because they oppose the building of houses, I think this is wrong.

I think the comparison between the Green Party and fascism, if it ever really worked, is out-dated. Decades ago there was a very strong right wing to the environmental movement but the Green party itself has been well situated on the left for some time.

As for “building houses”, it depends when and where: I’m not automatically for all new developments on greenfield sites, as to do that would be simply to place local government in the pockets of big housing development companies.

Trenchfoot: Is the article that gets debunked every time it goes up?

Just makes me shake my head with some pity.

I can’t believe people are still quoting that absolutely ludicrous piece of partisan hackery. It’s been thoroughly debunked (not that it needs it, a quick skim reveals huge holes in its argumentation) a number of times – and not just by people friendly to the Greens, but by Labour bloggers like Don Paskini et al, too.

“caring for the old is a hallmark of a civilised social-democratic society”, agreed, Alan [10].

It’s the sort of phrase I have throughout my entire working life – sadly the gap between the rhetoric and reality has remained fairly constant.

We treat too many of our oldies badly – now there are even more of the blighters, and economic conditions have nose dived.

While I would like it to be different I have no confidence that any of the parties can change this fundamental dynamic – if the Greens are serious the first thing they must do is put a price on such a grandiose project, then they can tell who will be paying for it.

Free social care for the elderly?

Nobody (who knows what they are talking about) could give any such undertaking.

Indeed. The 60,000 jobs are the *cost* of this policy – as are the supposed 200,000 renewable energy jobs, and the 80,000 energy efficiency jobs.

That’s around £10bn of costs right there between the two.

Where would the money come from?

I always liked this old Samizdata post called ‘Vote green – go blackshirt’ about the similarities between the Greens and the BNP –

Anyone who posts that article just shows him/herself as a brainless drone. At least its easy to know who to ignore in the future.

Sod the Greens. I’m voting UKIP

I advocate that the elderly be encouraged to contribute more towards their own upkeep.

There will always be those who just want to put their feet up at 65- let them be encouraged to set up their own pension funds & that so they can maintain themselves at a high standard of living, such as most workers don’t bother, especially the low-paid, which is in part because they can’t access means-tested benefits if they have any savings (one argument for some CBI-related shite, which the Greens support).

Other senior citizens can be encouraged to do part-time paid or voluntary work. A surprising number would like to do so, & firms are beginning to recruit them, & this is something which there should be more of.

Let us do away with this assumption that anyone who reaches a certain age becomes a slobbering invalid wholly reliant on others. It is a disservice to over-65s.

Yes- we have nothing to fear from an ageing society. Better that than relentless population growth.

Asquith [20] – one 1 million of us will suffer with dementia by 2026.
Presently the number affected is around 750,000 – now that’s a lot of aricept.
http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=119

The problem has reached such a scale that Baroness Warnock has suggested a ‘license’ to enable demented oldies to be put down (by state workers).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html

The law as it stands allows employers to reject people for a job if they are over age 65.
http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/age_discrimination10.asp#Im_applying_for_a_job_and_the_application_form_asks_me_to_give_my_date_of_birth__Do_I_have_to_provide_it

@ 20 – I advocate that the elderly be encouraged to contribute more towards their own upkeep.
Are you for real?
Current pension credit – £130pw single, £198.45pw couple. Savings over £6k are taken into account, so for every £500 over this £1 is taken as ‘income’ toward any benefit calculation. Obviuosly if you don’t qualify for any help for benefits then you don’t get any help toward rent/council tax. The fact that you would be hard pressed to find any investment product that pays out £1 per week on £6500 is neither here nor there.

Not every pensioner needs help, but there are many that do because their pensions, old works pensions, are so crap. Certainly for most pensioners over 80 their works pensions tend to be in pence or a few quid per week. Which obviously still counts against them in any benefit assessments.
When you get to a certain age quality of life is partly about not having to worry about paying bills for any care, whether tht be nursing or meals on wheels, out of small pensions. If we can’t look after our oaps then we really do have a problem. Not everyone can afford to feather their nest for their old age.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant that people of working age should be encouraged to make more provision for retirement so that, when they reach pensionable age, they won’t have to live in poverty & degradation as people do today.

I am talking about those who are currently of working age. I don’t think the ageing of society is a problem if it is managed properly- if we accept today that in a few decades’ time we will have a lot of old-timers on our hands & that we can deal with it.

Matt@2 Thanks for the link. She is my MEP and I’m more than happy to put my cross against her name.

In my (admitedly shallow) perusal of MEPs from all countries, it seems the Greens are the most honourable of the lot.

15, 16, and 19,

It’s interesting that all three of you would rather dismiss the article out of hand (because it has been previously disbunked or something) rather than actually explain why it’s wrong, or at least giving a link to an explanation. I get the impression the point of the article went above your heads: it’s not saying that the Greens are motivated by the same issues as the BNP (I think most people recognise that full well). It’s saying that the consequences of Green policies would eerily resemble the consequences of BNP policies. The fact that their intentions are entirely benign is not really a defence, and it just re-enforces the perception that a lot of the left are more concerned with pleasing rhetoric and superficially benign policies rather than the less tasteful consequences that are actually realized.

Was watching East Midlands Today (local news in Nottingham) and they said that the Green Party were “Anti-EU”. I checked their manifesto quite a bit to see if they favoured pulling out of the EU but couldn’t see anything.

Did they get it wrong?

Several years ago I was sad enough to read the whole of the Greens’ Manifesto for a Sustainable Society. They appeared to want to spend money on everything under the sun while advocating economics of zero or negative growth. In short they advocated a policy of declining living standards and inevitable inflation.

Not to mention that they appeared to want the government to regulate and control pretty much everything. Certainly wouldn’t call them liberal.

“MG203 Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term. ”

Really? Why not?

This effectively implies that immigration will undermine the privileges of the wealthy countries. So vote Green and watch yourself become poorer. Not exactly a vote winner, even if one agrees with the ethics behind it.

29,

Richard, that’s not the one that’s so worrying (as it happens, I think restricted immigration is one of the most immoral trappings of modern states). It’s what directly follows it:

MG204 Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied:

a) The ecology of the recipient area would be significantly adversely affected by in-comers to the detriment of the wider community (eg. National Parks, Antarctica);

b) The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples (eg Australian aboriginal people) whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers;

c) The prospective migrants have, on average, equal or greater economic power than the residents of the recipient area and they or their families were not forced to leave the area in the recent past.

Leaving aside the puzzling question of how 204 c) is even consistent with 203, does this not look worrying to those of you of a more internationalist persuasion? Take the recent ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ fracas -it seems to me as though an argument could easily be made that the Italian workers, say, should be stopped from living in the UK given their ‘greater economic power’ (for indeed, they are taking ‘our’ jobs, right?)

TrenchFoot – “It’s interesting that all three of you would rather dismiss the article out of hand (because it has been previously disbunked or something) rather than actually explain why it’s wrong, or at least giving a link to an explanation”

Amusingly, you actually gave the link to the debunking of that terrible piece of rubbish from samizdata, (if you’d read the comments). But since you asked, here’s what samizdata claim the Greens say, and what they actually say:

Claim: *Forbid the purchase of corner shops by migrants; stop people from the inner cities moving to the countryside”

Green policy: MG205 – “Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation.” It’s a section about making migration easier. MG 208 – “The interests of both prospective migrants and the recipient area or community must be recognised and, hence, the appropriate resolution of a particular situation (unless covered above) must depend on negotiation between the parties affected.” It is wilfully misleading to suggest these policies give the right to rural communities to refuse outsiders.

As for the BNP comparison, are you really suggesting that the BNP agreeing with any of the priorities MG 400-405? (Including an amnesty for all illegal immigrants here for more than five years and letting all family members of British residents come to the UK with no restrictions).

Claim: ‘Grant British citizenship only to children born here’,

Green policy: NY 513-514:
“This legislation will ensure that British nationality is automatically received by:
a)All children born in the UK.

b)All children born overseas of British nationals normally resident in the UK.

c)All children of British nationals with no other nationality at birth.

NY514 British nationality will also be automatically available prior to their 18th birthday to all children of British nationals born overseas but now normally resident in the UK. Evidence of such residence would be required.”

I didn’t at the time check further, because when the first three claims made about a party can be seen to be nonsense, just by checking the footnotes, it’s hardly worth reading any further.

“The fact that their intentions are entirely benign is not really a defence, and it just re-enforces the perception that a lot of the left are more concerned with pleasing rhetoric and superficially benign policies rather than the less tasteful consequences that are actually realized.”

This is a brave argument for a libertarian to make, since the consequences of enacting cherished libertarian causes such as abolishing the welfare state, privatising everything and leaving everything to the market would include riots, mass vigilante action and people starving to death:

http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2008/04/so-lets-get-dressed-and-dance-away.html

I’ve voted LibDem in every local and national election over the last 20+ years primarily to keep Tory candidates out (and expect to do so again at the next general election) but on 4th June I’ll be voting Green.

the case for a tactical vote for the greens in one area sounds reasonable, as to where they are politically, the answer depends on the policy area. on anything to do with foreign policy they are thoroughly nationalist. the scottish greens want an independent scotland, outside the EU while the english greens reluctantly accepted EU membership a decade ago. i was in the greens for 15 years & the nationalism was consistent & wholly unconscious.

“This is a brave argument for a libertarian to make, since the consequences of enacting cherished libertarian causes such as abolishing the welfare state, privatising everything and leaving everything to the market would include riots, mass vigilante action and people starving to death:”

Strange that none of these happened in 19th century Britain and America when we came close to libertarianism.

Also see here for examples of how the state actually encourages economic inequality:

http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Chapter3.pdf

Believe it or not there are libertarians who want to smash away state intervention because they believe it will result in a localised less unequal economy.

Plumbus: if they accepted EU membership then that doesn’t sound terribly nationalist to me. Neither do their policies on asylum and immigration. Their Euro manifesto isn’t nationalist at all. Ergo wouldn’t it be sensible to conclude that they’ve, err, changed?

Richard: in the 19th century there wasn’t a welfare state and the heights of industry were all privately owned, so obviously the one couldn’t be abolished and the others couldn’t be privatised. Also, on the contrary to your statement there most certainly were riots and wide-scale starvation.

Strange that none of these happened in 19th century Britain and America when we came close to libertarianism.

Well then it appears you know very little about the history of the working class. Tolpuddle, Peterloo, the Luddites spring to mind. So do workhouses which imprisoned innocent people. As well as a Parliament elected by a landed few or those with a certain amount of property.

Violence was used at every stage to turn working people into a working class of wage labourers. And was resisted with violence too.

Anyway, enough economic history. I’ve posted why I’ll be voting Green at the next election too.

Left Outside: I think that was a case of economic history as our libertarian friend would have liked it to be, untroubled by inconvenient facts 😉

That’s a good post on your blog about voting Green, but in your final point are you not mixing Libertas up with Veritas?

“Strange that none of these happened in 19th century Britain and America when we came close to libertarianism.”

Yes, a spot of child labour is what any earnest egalitarian would advocate.

Myth: the scottish greens want an independent scotland, outside the EU
Policy: In any referendum the Scottish Green Party will campaign for the Scottish Parliament to have the same powers as any other member state in an increasingly interdependent European Union. However, we do not wish to see the replacement of one centralised state with another. Greater power needs to be shifted to communities, to ensure that decisions are taken at the level closest to those affected by them.

We support calls for Scottish independence, not out of nationalistic fervour, but as a means to create a more locally-based, sustainable, and democratic society. We will work constructively whatever the constitutional framework to make the biggest difference we can with the powers available.

“Well then it appears you know very little about the history of the working class. Tolpuddle, Peterloo, the Luddites spring to mind. ”

Not exactly the same as mass social breakdown and widespread civil disorder.

“So do workhouses which imprisoned innocent people.”

These were creations of a state, no true libertarian would condone such coercive institutions.

“Yes, a spot of child labour is what any earnest egalitarian would advocate.”

Child labour was an unfortunate result of us being in the early stages of industrial development. Yes there was a great deal of poverty and misery in 19th century England but that’s because we were a poorer country full stop.

Then there is the left-libertarian view that if the state hadn’t robbed the peasantry of their land then industrialisation would have taken a different course based on more co-operative ownership and smaller-scale industries. Whether this would have been a realistic outcome is another matter.

“That’s a good post on your blog about voting Green, but in your final point are you not mixing Libertas up with Veritas?”

Yes that’s been pointed out and quickly changed – unfortunately my stupidity has rather detracted from the disgraceful behaviour of UKIP. It was only a side point in anycase so I am hoping that it won’t detract from the main thrust of the post

These (workhouses-AT) were creations of a state, no true libertarian would condone such coercive institutions.

Or ban them, because banning them would be all horrible and statist.

Child labour was an unfortunate result of us being in the early stages of industrial development. Yes there was a great deal of poverty and misery in 19th century England but that’s because we were a poorer country full stop.

& now, courtesy of the state, it is illegal.

Then there is the left-libertarian view that if the state hadn’t robbed the peasantry of their land then industrialisation would have taken a different course based on more co-operative ownership and smaller-scale industries. Whether this would have been a realistic outcome is another matter.

Counter-factuals are not something I squander much time on, if I can help it.

Quite, James.

I almost forgot the genocide of the Native American population.

I would also like to point out that once those “darned injuns” were dead the West was a lawless and violent place, but very libertarian.

Richard (the Original) what would you count “as mass social breakdown and widespread civil disorder”? Perhaps 1848 or 1789 or perhaps this.

Hmm….

“Richard (the Original) what would you count “as mass social breakdown and widespread civil disorder”? Perhaps 1848 or 1789 or perhaps this.”

1789 – the absolutist French monarchy was anything but libertarian. Indeed the revolutionaries among them included liberals who wanted a smaller role for the state.

1848 – Don’t recall Liberal England having a revolution. Bit of aggro with the chartists over electoral reform but that was pretty much it.

Charles dickens – I confess to only having read Oliver Twist but I don’t recall there being anything about mass social disorder in there. Yes, a lot of crime and poverty but that’s what one expects at a lower level of economic development.

Poll Tax Riots ring any bells, perhaps?

Apparently riots and the growth of mass industrial action don’t count as “civil disorder” now… it’s like speaking the same words but with different underlying meanings…

Believe it or not there are libertarians who want to smash away state intervention because they believe it will result in a localised less unequal economy.

I’m aware of this, as it happens. There are also Scientologists who want to abolish psychotherapy and much of modern medicine, arguing that the public should instead treat themselves through the visualisation of invisible hand-blades slicing away their body Thetans.

Coincidentally, a Scientological Party of the UK would have exactly the same chance of getting my vote as the Libertarian Party does, and for broadly similar reasons.

Despite your libertarianism, I hope you will at least agree with me that the creation of a Capitalist economy requires an enormous amount of violence (I assume our opinions will differ on the amount of violence present in a functioning capitalist economy).

“Despite your libertarianism, I hope you will at least agree with me that the creation of a Capitalist economy requires an enormous amount of violence (I assume our opinions will differ on the amount of violence present in a functioning capitalist economy).”

If by that you mean the enclosures and related legislation used to suppress the peasantry/working class then yes, I do agree with you. I believe a capitalist economy would probably have emerged anyway but it would have been structured different. Co-operatives would probably have played a larger part and industries would probably have been more localised. That, admittedly, is counterfactual guesswork.

Consistent libertarians don’t support state violence in a functioning capitalist economy unless it’s for the protection of life or property e.g. police and army. Some even want the state abolished altogether. Then there are the “neo-liberals” who are selective in their libertarianism, opposing state intervention where it harms big business and supporting it when it assists big business. Suffice to say these people are an embarrassment to libertarianism.

“There are also Scientologists who want to abolish psychotherapy and much of modern medicine, arguing that the public should instead treat themselves through the visualisation of invisible hand-blades slicing away their body Thetans.”

I hardly think you can compare the economic believes of left-libertarians (which in some cases are actually based on some pretty impressive theoretical and empirical research e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Organization-Theory-Libertarian-Kevin-Carson/dp/1439221995/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242949206&sr=8-1) with the “faith” of scientologists who have no sound theoretical or empirical basis for their beliefs.

There isn’t anything left-wing about economic libertarianism. As someone who considers my own attitudes on social issues quite libertarian, I still think it’s fairly obvious that untrammelled laissez-faire capitalism is, always was and remains the territory of the right.

56 – this lot might disagree:

http://all-left.net/

Dear God, it’s like Samizdata fed through a mirror…

Check out https://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/11/24/the-case-for-supporting-greens-at-euro-elections/ . It isn’t just in NorthWest that the Greens are best-placed to ensure the BNP don’t advance. The same is true in Eastern and West Midlands, to name but two. Not to mention London and SouthEast.

“If by that you mean the enclosures and related legislation used to suppress the peasantry/working class then yes, I do agree with you. I believe a capitalist economy would probably have emerged anyway but it would have been structured different.”

Interesting, I am not sure how that would work as I’m not aware of any capitalist systems arising like that. As I see it all capitalist economies go through a “primitive accumulation” or “accumulation through dispossession” stage, I’d be genuinely interested in seeing some counter examples.

I can understand Libertarian ideas, there’s a lot of ignorance assuming that libertarians are pro-corporate welfare etc., but I am not sure how a capitalist economy could come into being without that initial violent dispossession.