In honour of the elevation of Natalie Bennett to the leadership of the Green Party, allow me to repost Rob Johnston’s 2008 comparison of the manifesto of the Green Party, and the results it would have if enacted, with the equivalents for the British National Party: Vote Green, Go Blackshirt.
Natalie Bennett herself makes a comment in which she cites various motions passed by the Greens that were favourable to asylum seekers as evidence that the Greens reject racism. I am sure they do, but they have also loudly promoted the argument that, when it comes to profit-making corporations and other bodies not the Green Party, absence of conscious intent to harm is no defence if harm results.
No dynastic saga is complete without a scene where the young heir to the manor happens to stand next to one of the farm labourers, the bastard son of a housemaid, and the family resemblance shines through. The practical similarities between the vision of “the party of hope and radical change” after “years and years of politics as usual” and “the party that offers a real alternative to the failed old political parties” which wants you to “help us send out our message of hope” are not coincidental. Both have a vision of a future in which the selfish desires of the individual are subordinated to the needs of an idealised community.
But, but, but…that’s good, right? Oh, wait…
I have come to the conclusion that all political activity boils down to the following maxim:
Our group wants to bring about X. Their group wants to bring about Y. How can we remove their group from the decision making process so we can have our way?
This is true for everything for Tories to Communists to Libertarians. The redeeming feature of libertarians is that if they got their way you could still do whatever you wanted, just not to them!
People talk of democratic politics as if it were some lofty Athenian ideal where things are debated and teased out to reveal some higher truth. All democratic politics is is one big long calculated scheme to find out “how can we make the views of those who disagree with us cease to count?”.
The extreme case of this is of course killing the opposition ala the Khmer Rouge. But the thing you have to remind yourself is any political party, after paying lip service to trying to convince you, will devote itself to trying to remove your ability to effect change. They are not your friends, nor do they respect your right to hold a dissenting opinion. If they occupy movement could press a button to politically disenfranchise all of us, they would.
The most recent example was the “consultation” on Gay Marriage up in Scotland. 65% of those consulted say no. But many of those were those pesky Christians, and they responded on pre-paid postcards distributed at their churches. If we remove those who did not fill out the consultation forms properly, hey presto now 65% are in favour.
Isn’t democracy marvellous?
As usual, what JD said.