Why the Green Party will never break through


Green Party leader Natalie Bennett’s appearance on the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 this morning told us all we need to know about why the Greens will never break through as a major force in British politics.

Taking that valued seat on the Marr show sofa after a torrid few months of weather that have brought climate change to the centre of the political agenda, what did she choose to talk about?

Presented with the morning’s papers, with its acres of weather- and climate-related coverage, the first story she chose to focus on was about...Congolese migrants getting tortured on return to their country and the implications for British immigration policy. A decent issue in and of itself – but, with apologies to the migrants themselves, not Issue Number One, Two or Three for the Great British Public.

So, second opportunity... What was issue number two that was exercising her this morning? Answer: the ‘Bedroom Tax’, in which council tenants are being charged for any spare bedrooms in their homes. Again, a decent issue in itself, but not one that will make many people run over to the Greens’ cause.

If there is any political strategy being applied here, it would seem to be one of positioning the Green Party as the high spending, high debt, and high immigration alternative to Labour.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett
Given that the Greens almost by definition wish to make significant interventions to protect the environment and nature (conservation, you might say – not a world away from ‘conservatism’), prioritising a load more interventionist stuff that voters don’t like– debt, welfare spending, high taxes, more immigration – doesn’t seem like a particularly sensible idea to me.

It also seems to contradict what should surely be their core priorities on nature, land and the environment.

For what does a high spending state require? Answer: economic growth.   

And what does economic growth entail? Answer: consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources (at least for the foreseeable future).

What does consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources mean? Answer: carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution and environmental blight.

And what does higher immigration mean? Answer: extra pressure on limited land resources due to demand for more housing and infrastructure, and therefore loss of natural environment.

All this has me asking, are the Greens really serious?

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has around a million members – more than double all the British political parties put together. There is a political constituency out there waiting for them.

Alas, they seem a lot more interested in being the new Loony Left. This is not good for them politically. But it also doesn’t do much for what should be their primary concern – the future of life on this Earth.

Comments

  1. Anonymous16 February 2014 at 16:59

    As a member of the RSPB for many years, I'd just mention that there is no way I would ever vote for the green (watermelon) party.
    Their politics are anti-people and, worringly anti-conservation.

    Chris'

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5 April 2014 at 10:30

    Back in the days when Natalie was a blogger, I remember being particularly struck by one of her posts, bemoaning the fact that you couldn't get UK asparagus in Bloomsbury Waitrose :

    "I was standing this evening at the door of Bloomsbury Waitrose, watching the rain plummet down. It felt like the Bangkok wet season. Water was tumbling off the awnings and overwhelming the drains, reminding me of the mountains of Bali.

    I had been trying to buy some asparagus. There was aspargus from Peru. There was asparagus from Thailand. Then when I dug around, on the top shelf, hidden away, there was some asparagus from the UK.

    Sometimes it is hard to avoid despair."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

All comments, however critical, will be accepted as long as they are not personal and/or abusive.

Popular posts from this blog

Schopenhauer on Hegel: "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan."

There's nothing like a good insult or two, and if you're looking for insults in philosophy, you need look no further than Arthur Schopenhauer's comments on his German contemporary, the much more popular and successful Friedrich Hegel.  Schopenhauer suggested as a motto of Hegel’s philosophy some words of Shakespeare: ‘s uch stuff as madmen tongue and brain not’. He added : " Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to ac...
Read more

Why Islamists and feminists avoid confronting each other

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of our system of diversity is the way feminists and Islamists avoid directly confronting each other. Their ideologies are utterly opposed to each other, but within the system they are allies, so maintain distance and attack others. We can see this in how feminists resolutely avoid picking up on specifically Islamic-related instances of actual misogyny and discrimination in action. They nearly always stick to generalities and abstractions about the world or society as a whole, as Fawcett Society chief executive Sam Smethers does in telling Owen Jones that , “We have a very misogynistic culture in the UK.” In this version of reality, there is a single culture – or at least all the cultures we have come from the same root - and it is ‘very misogynistic’. This is the ‘patriarchy’ theory that is remarkably popular in the upper echelons of the liberal-left, just as it is among young feminists coming out of their Gender Studies courses at universit...
Read more

Immigration: our public debate misses the main point

Our public debate on immigration in Britain almost always focuses entirely on money and thereby misses the main point, a point that our political-media class finds difficult to deal with and that many regard as almost illegitimate. This is how people feel . It is emblematic of the state of democracy in Britain that any sort of negative opinions about immigration routinely get shouted down and lambasted as ‘wrong’ by the siren voices of people and institutions, most of which are on the supposedly ‘liberal-left’ side of politics. It is particularly disturbing the way that anyone who talks about negative effects of immigration is routinely attacked (often by hordes of lefty people on Twitter) as ‘racist’. These voices have a huge and in my view poisonous impact on the debate, forcing anyone who wants to make some nuanced points about immigration and identity into defending themselves against charges of racism, which is well established as one of the the worst offences one...
Read more