Are The Greens the new Raving Loony Party!

Manifesto pledges are made on the knowledge and within the circumstances prevalent at the time the pledges are made. If circumstances change, or knowledge increases manifesto pledges may become even more necessary or easier to fulfil. But equally they can become impossible to fulfil for all sorts of reasons from escalating costs, financial stringency and many other changed parameters.

Of course one expects manifesto pledges to be delivered, but if they aren't one needs to examine very closely why they aren't, was it deliberate deception, cluelessness or incompetence, but equally was it because of an unforeseeable change in social, economic or other circumstances.

Life is considerably more than fifty shades of grey.

Exactly. So why did the others not stick to their manifesto pledges?

Just because a politician lies – what a surprise – doesn't negate the principle.

The problem is, absent, that manifesto pledges went by the board when the coalition came into being.
The NHS wouldn't be in the mess it is in if Cameron had stuck to his manifesto pledges. Why should others be expected to stick to their pledges if the man in charge does not? Why did the others go along with the NHS reorganisation when that was not in the manifesto?
They all broke their manifesto pledges about that.

People voting with their consciences is what people want - and the Brighton Green Council leader acknowledged that - but he said that in practice this was causing real problems running Brighton Council and providing a proper service to the inhabitants of Brighton, because anything the party agreed to do with the general agreement of all councillors could be defeated by one or two councillors deciding to vote against the policy simply because they didn't like it. I do not think there was any question of the opposition being because of deeply and profoundly held ethical views. But this minority tail was wagging the majority dog.

As in all aspects of life compromise is sometimes necessary in politics and that means at times, on more minor issues, accepting that the majority view should prevail is essential. I do not think any of the political parties expects individual members to vote for something they have deep profound ethical reasons for opposing.

I have belonged to various committees most of my adult life and in 50 years I have only twice disagreed so profoundly with a policy put forward that I have threatened resignation and in one case did actually resign, but there were and continue to be times when I have acquiesced in agreeing to actions that I had reservations over, which I had expressed, because this is/was the majority view of the committee.

djen I wan't able to vote in the election that brought Blair to power (two days after major surgery) but hd expressed many misgivings about the man before that and didn't vote Labour in the following elections either because of him.

The Whips Office is politically offensive and the system stinks of corruption and arrogance. That said, I still think it is important and right that party members toe the party line on manifesto pledges.

I'm one of those, absent. I did not vote Labour because of Tony Blair. However, he wasn't a socialist, and has changed the Labour party out of all recognition. I remember reading an article about how Miliband's father would be most upset at the way his two sons have changed.

From an interview with Caroline Lucas in the Guardian at the weekend.

"She talks about how voting is a much simpler process in the European parliament, because it’s done electronically; here, it is often impossible to work out what an amendment means because of labyrinthine cross-referencing. She suggested that a 50-word summary of each amendment be introduced, but this met with huge resistance, she says, because it takes away the power of the whips. “I have seen whips literally pushing people through the aye lobby and the no lobby, even if they are remonstrating and saying, ‘I don’t want to vote this way.’ They are pushed over, and once you go over the entrance way, you can’t come out again. You just have to hide in the toilets. People don’t know what they’re voting on, and I think that’s shocking.”

Shocking is a word she returns to time and again when talking about parliament, most often in the context of the power of the whips. Often, she says, whips will deliberately assign MPs to work on committees where they have no expertise, so they pose no threat. “There is a lot of bullying,” she says. Does she have contempt for the parliamentary system? “Yes, I think I do. That’s not a word I would use lightly. We pride ourselves on our democracy, but when you see the way it actually works, I think it is worthy of contempt. MPs should be doing a hell of a lot more to reduce the power of the whips and to increase the power of the backbench MPs; to actually have people here to make a difference, rather than simply toe the party line.” "

It does sound rather shocking that the whips do this.

Tricky one djen because, in general, people vote for parties rather than individuals. Look how often you hear someone say, "I didn't vote for Tony Blair/David Cameron/[insert name of a former Prime Minister". Only their constituents could vote for them; other people voted New Labour or Conservative or whatever. If a policy is in the party's manifesto, it seems not just reasonable but fair to those who elected them, that the party's MPs or councillors should have to vote in favour.

Isn't that what we all want, people to vote with their consciences rather than the party line?

If the leader of a political party claiming to be nationally credible hasn't had the sense to get full media training so that they are able to deal with difficult questions and play them like the other national leaders of political parties then they do not deserve to be given serious consideration or a hearing.

The Green Party leader of Brighton Council featured in an interview and article in The Independent today. He said that many of the problems he has faced trying to manage the shambles that is Brighton under Green control has been the result of the way the party is run.

Members of his Party are free to vote anyway they choose. Unlike other parties there is no 'whipping' of members ie: having a party line on some issues which members must adhere to. This results in issues that the Green Party administration are agreed to consistently being defeated because some of its own members deciding to vote against Green Party policies because they personally do not agree with them.

Well this came on Friday so they must have had it at the printers!

www.theweek.co.uk/general-election-2015/62747/no-ukip-manifesto-yet-but-here-s-a-taster-while-we-wait

That was clever of them. Shame they never told their leader, because he said it wasn't ready at their conference last week.

A leaflet giving Ukip's manifesto was pushed through our letterbox last week!

Very clever, Mishap. ironing and posting at the same time.

On the BBC news program, Cameron has said he is bored with the the election already. He shouldn't have started the hustings so early, should he.

Green party conference starts on Friday, so Natalie Bennett has the chance to redeem herself next weekend.
Hope they have their manifesto ready, unlike UKIP.

I like Natalie Bennett and I have seen her at several events where she has been very articulate - but on those occasions she has mostly been amongst sympathisers to her cause.

The leader of a party has to be able to deal with probing and sometimes hostile questions and to robustly and unflinchingly defend his/her policies. In this particular case, the question was not unexpected.

I expect a lot of people have noticed that mainstream party politicians, when they don't want to answer a question that has been posed, just answer a question of their own choosing and keep repeating their response, quite often speaking over the interviewer so that he/she can't get a word in edgeways. Although that tactic is more dishonest and very annoying (causing me - and I expect a lot of other people - to shout at the TV), it doesn't seem quite so inept as just drying up completely - though I suppose in some ways it's worse.

Bit garbled above! - sorry. I am just tackling a faulty new iron and hoping I do not blow the place up!

Natalie Bennett is a liability to the greens - if you look at their policies in paper there are some there are many that I agree with. They do need to have someone competent at the top in order to make progress and this is a bad time to be finding out that your leader finds media interviews a challenge that she cannot meet! I felt very sorry for her; but in some ways her discomfort was a refreshing change from the slick lies that we normally hear.

I would be happy if they won a few seats and put themselves in a position to temper any excesses.

Not true, Flickety. As you say, most of us pay our taxes through PAYE. This government wants us to pay less because it believes in small state economy.
If it had left the top rate at 50p we would have had much more in the coffers. It's not the ordinary person who decides how much s/he is going to pay. The average person did not ask the government to reduce the top rate of tax. In fact, more people at the last election voted against that than voted for it.
If all those who dodge taxes one way or another thought about the harm they were doing to the country and paid their taxes in the country in which they earned them again the NHS and councils would not be in the state they are in.

There was an interview with Grant Shapps yesterday about Cameron's promise of selling off 100,000 houses over the next parliament and giving 20% discount to first time buyers.

https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/media-packs/2015/murnaghan-interview-with-grant-shapps,-chair-of-the-conservative-party,-10315

He could not answer how it was going to be costed. Haven't seen today's papers, but it wasn't on the front page of any paper last night, although Cameron's promise to build was.
Admittedly, Shapps was more experienced at not answering the questions put to him, but is that the sort of politician we want?

I missed Natalie Bennett's latest performance as I was away, but I have heard a number of interviews with her and in all of them she has sounded monumentally incompetent, ignorant of her parties policies, surprised by questions on obvious subjects and always remarkably woolly on all fiscal issues.

In an emergency situation, whether banks, defence or natural disaster governments do just spend money without asking 'who will pay for this?' They do it mainly by borrowing money that has to be repaid and repaid with money paid by tax payers in the ensuing years. Most governments also usually have contingency funds there to meet emergencies.

But how you fund a disaster, whatever its cause and how you fund the normal daily outgoings of government; education, health, housing etc is very different. All of us faced with a domestic disaster and a lack of money have replaced a washing machine or paid for a major car repair by putting it on a credit card and hoping to sort out where the money will come from later. But when the food bills, gas bills or council tax are being charged to your credit card because you have are not sure where the money to pay them will come from that is where your finances are heading for disaster.

Our tax system has to rely on those of us on PAYE because we account for the vast majority of tax payers. It is the belief that we can have all the services we want without paying for them by taxing a small and nebulous number of people known as 'the rich' that is causing the financial catastrophe we are in.

That's funny durhamjen, I was having the same discussion with my husband this morning.

Nobody said when the banks were bailed out "who is going to pay for it?" It was just accepted that the taxpayer would pay. On top of that, it seems no firm conditions were attached to try and ensure that the same situation would not arise again.

The Green Party really needs to get to grips with this. It's a question of priorities - do we, as Murphy says, spend money investing in education, housing, energy-saving measures, and general infrastructure or do we make massive cuts everywhere that will eventually lead to a run down country inhabited by run down people? And the matter of ensuring that our tax system doesn't just depend on those paying PAYE is, of course, something that many people feel needs addressing.

Eloethan, a long link, but he thinks just like you.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/02/26/there-is-an-elephant-in-the-room-at-this-election/

I agree grannyactivist. It doesn't take a genius to work out what sort of questions the media is likely to ask - one of the most frequent ones being ".. and how are you going to pay for it?"

What a shame, I like the Greens but this was an embarrassment and a disappointment.

I think the influx of new party members has resulted in the media being forced to take the Greens with a modicum of seriousness and the Green Party were caught unprepared. Natalie Bennett, even accepting that she was feeling under par, was found to be seriously wanting in her ability to provide coherent responses to what were some very basic questions. As a voter I am grateful to anyone who has the courage of their convictions and is prepared to stand for election at any level, but if someone agrees to take on the job they have to do their homework and make sound preparation. There also needs to be a supportive team to resource candidates and ensure that they are properly briefed. Sadly I think that this has not happened as evidenced in Natalie Bennett's most recent interviews and I'm disappointed and frustrated in equal measure.