Greens: the myth of the “new left” debunked

Embedded image permalink

This article is in part an exploration of the tension between environmentalism, human rights, equality and social justice. This is an important issue, because how political ideologies are translated into policy often has profound and far-reaching social consequences. I also challenge assumptions and criticise the Green Party for a lack of clarity regarding policy and intent – there’s a lack of connection – integrity  – beneath some of their key policies. There are no explicit connections made in the Green Party manifesto between ideas, policy, context and consequences.

I explore the environmentalism and “blood and soil” philosophy underpinning the Volk and Nazi movements, the Nazis being an exemplar of the problematic issues I raised. I also examine Malthus’s ideas on population growth and the finite nature of resources. I link some of the Green philosophy and policies with Malthus’s ideas.

The important point here is that it is not the ideas in themselves that are problematic: it is the context, the application, the way those ideas are translated via policy and the subsequent social consequences that warrants some discussion.

Malthus’s ideas both informed and were informed by a context of Social Darwinism, eugenics, laissez faire capitalism, competitive individualism, all of which were the basis of a dominant paradigm at that point in our history. One consequence of that was the terrible Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834, which saw the introduction of the dreadful, punitive workhouses.

Just to clarify further, I do not at any point claim “the Greens are Nazis,” or “are like Nazis”  as some have tried to claim. The discussion of Nazism and environmentalism is used to highlight the problematic tension between green ideas, human rights and to challenge assumptions made about social equality.  scroll2
There is a strand of Green Party narrative with philosophical roots that may be traced back to the thinking of the Reverend Thomas Malthus. He was a political economist who believed that the decline of living conditions in nineteenth century England was because of three elements: the overproduction of children; the inability of resources to keep up with the rising human population; and the irresponsibility of the lower classes. Malthus’s narrative in the nineteenth century fueled the rise of Social Darwinism; the eugenics movement and resulted in the extremely punitive Poor Law Reform Act of 1834, which included the introduction of workhouses for the poor.

The Green Party have the following listed amongst their aims regarding population:

In the short-term, to promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK. In the long-term, to achieve consumption and population levels that are globally sustainable and respect carrying capacity – the term used to describe the population that can, according to the Green Party,  be sustainably supported in any given region. In theory it varies, depending on consumption patterns.

However, during times of greater social equality and prosperity, rather than the population growth predicted by Malthus, families actually reduced the numbers of children they had, with the emergence of the small nuclear family unit. Families and households got smaller throughout the 20th century. Women in the late nineteenth century gave birth, on average, to 4.6 children during their lifetime. Having ten or more children was not uncommon. By the 1950s the average had fallen to 2.19 children.

Data released by the government in the General Lifestyle Survey shows that the number of children in the average household has become smaller. In 1971, there were 2.91 persons in the average family whereas in 2011, this number has shrunk to 2.35 persons.This means that almost half of families in the UK have just one child. Malthus was wrong. Prosperity, equality, social development and growth contribute to population reduction and greater resources.

Environmentalism is widely seen as a caring, strictly left-wing concern, and it’s been linked with what are now fairly tacit assumptions about the Green Party’s credentials regarding equality, rights and political partisanship. The Green Party have tried to position themselves as “the new party of the left”, and have invested heavily in an aggressively negative campaign strategy that has involved outright lies about the Labour Party’s proposed policy intentions.

But the claims made by the Party and assumptions drawn from grassroots supporters have no historical verification whatsoever. In fact history refutes the claims.

Just because people have environmentalist concerns, we cannot infer from that – it does not automatically follow – that the same people will have concerns about inequality, social justice and human rights.

The German Volk and Nazi movements marched beneath the banners of “Nature” and the “organic.” Environmentalist ideology  was a fundamental part of National Socialism (which wasn’t socialism at all, on the same  basis, we wouldn’t say that the German Democratic Republic was a flourishing democracy, either), Green ideas were at the core of Nazi thinking. The Germans idealised Nature.

Whilst the Holocaust took place, German army comrades were also busy establishing bird sanctuaries, nature walks and planting trees. The Nazis conducted horrific experiments on men, women and children but at the same time, they banned medical experiments on animals. The Nazi perpetrators of crimes of unimaginable  brutality and horror against fellow human beings also advocated conservation, vegetarianism, homeopathic healthcare, organic agriculture and forest preservation. It’s a myth that environmentalism and ecological concern go hand in hand with a concomitant respect and concern for the well-being of all people, too.

In The Destruction of Reason, written in 1952, the marxist Georg Lukács proposed that the idealisation of “nature” and the “organic” was, from the very beginning a political narrative. It was an attempt to defend “natural” feudal privileges. He said:

“Biologism in philosophy and sociology has always been a basis for reactionary philosophical tendencies … it cannot permit of any essential change, let alone progress …. Oppression, inequality, exploitation and so forth were presented as “facts of nature” or “laws of nature” which, as such, could not be avoided or revoked.”

This is an essentially right-wing perspective: that society is naturally hierarchical – a pseudo-biological defence of class privileges.

The Green Party, with their uncritical embrace of environmentalism, have focused on the idea of a scarcity of natural resources. They promote the idea that there are natural limits on how many people may live on the planet and constraints on how much we can produce and consume. That is essentially a Malthusian position.

And we tend to think of fascism strictly in terms of its oppression, so that we lost sight of the fact that Nazism began as a movement by appealing to the working classes and campaigning against capitalism.

One famous National Socialist election poster shows a social-democratic winged “angel” walking hand in hand with a stereotyped banker, with the curious slogan: “Marxism is the Guardian Angel of Capitalism.”

The Left and the Labour Movement grew from of an overwhelming social need to challenge the idea of a “natural order”, limits and the idea that human potential and aspirations must be constrained to preserve some kind of natural order. Karl Marx condemned the ideas of the miserabilist Thomas Malthus and the Social Darwinists, he would condemn the Green Party for the same reasons. Marx described Malthus’s ideas as a “libel on the human race” because they promoted the idea that human beings “cannot abolish poverty, because poverty has its base in nature.”

Nature is truly a many-splendoured thing, but three essential socialist principles will not be found anywhere in nature: democracy, rights and equality. This is an example of the is/ought distinction: regardless of what we may think “human nature” is, our moral decisions regarding how we ought to organise as a society are distinct- there’s a difference between what we are and who we are.

Sylvia Pankhurst summed up socialism as follows: “It means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance … We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume.”

The Greens are proposing exactly the opposite of what Pankhurst and most socialists have called for, historically. The Greens call for scarcity, not abundance. They propose a limitation on births, always insisting that the world is overpopulated and resources are being diminished.

The Green party’s manifesto argues for zero, or even negative growth and falling levels of personal consumption. This would lead to recession; families would become materially poorer each year. After centuries of growing global connectivity, the Greens want to see greater national self-reliance. And whilst Labour prioritise job creation, the Greens argue that government policy should make paid work “less necessary”, with people making their living from the home-based “informal economy”. That is anti-progressive.

The Left is progressive and has an expansive, generous view of humanity, faith in our potential and holds a vision of a plentiful future. The Greens, by contrast, are in favour of adapting to austerity – incorporating a social philosophy of thrift, parsimony and self-denial.

The Left aim to liberate humankind from poverty , the Greens aim to encourage us to accommodate it.

In Brighton where the Greens have power in the council, they have been cutting services, disastrously, for the least well-off and caused a refuse collection strike when they clashed with the GMB union over pay – as chronicled by Labour Peer Lord Bassam.

Earlier this year the Green Party leadership in Brighton and Hove was defeated in its efforts to impose council tax increase of five per cent by a coalition of opposition parties, including Labour. The increase will affect the poorest the most.

After losing a vote of no confidence in the leadership, the Council was threatened with Whitehall humiliatingly stepping in if a budget could not be agreed. This is not the sort of responsible leadership that households in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis deserve.

As my friend Neil Schofield informs us, for a second year running, the Greens are proposing a substantial increase in Council Tax – next year of 5.9% – that would require the approval of a referendum.  And the arguments are largely the same; that an increase of this magnitude is needed to offset the effects of austerity. He says:

“And the same arguments against such a rise apply this year too: that it is an entrenchment of austerity, using legislation designed to reduce the power of local authorities and to reduce them to hollowed-out commissioning bodies of a skeleton level of local services, provided by the lowest bidder; that it avoids the responsibilities that Councillors are elected to take; that it will make no real difference to the cuts faced by the city; it will hit hardest those who on low incomes who have seen their real incomes fall dramatically, in a city with some of the highest living costs in Europe; and that it is more about gesture politics than about effecting real change. “

The Green Party do not have an underpinning ideology that can be described as left-wing at all. Some of the historical and ideological links with far-right and fascist ideology are very worrying, because the links highlight a tension that needs to be addressed between environmentalism, social equality and justice.

This doesn’t imply the Green Party are fascists, but rather, it indicates a need to examine underpinning philosophies and explore how they may translate into social policies, and what the implications of those policies may be. It cannot be assumed that caring for the environment is automatically equated with caring for all human beings, as history has taught us.

The fact that the Greens have themselves chosen to regard the Labour Party as their “enemy” means that they don’t see a potential ally, yet they manage very well in coalition councils, working amicably side-by-side and cooperatively with Tory and Liberal Democrats.

If they did see the Left as a natural ally, they would join us and lobby for green policies through SERA, Labour’s green affiliate. Instead, the Green Party have chosen to aggressively campaign using a negative strategy, shamefully lying about Labour’s policies and proposals, all of which are costed and evidenced, in an attempt to bolster their own credibility. That in itself is a right-wing tactic, which ought to be raising alarm amongst supporters. The deeper implications of policies are also cause for concern.

Another worry is that one of the Green party’s key policy proposals – the universal basic income (or “citizen’s income”) – will adversely affect the poorest, and would in fact create more, not less, inequality and poverty.

The Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT), which has given advice to the Green party and been repeatedly cited by the Greens, has modelled its scheme and discovered it would mean 35.15% of households would be losers, with many of the biggest losers among the poorest households.

The trust’s research shows that for the two lowest disposable income deciles, more than one-fifth would suffer income losses of more than 10%, something one of the most left-wing parties in the election is unlikely to want to advocate.

The Green Party have already failed the people of Brighton and Hove. Don’t let them fail the people of Britain by voting Green next year and allowing the Tories to remain in government another five years. People are suffering and dying as a consequence of Tory austerity, we need to ensure that ends.


Waste your vote on the Green Party – or choose a green Labour government – Sadiq Khan

Brighton’s Greens, Council Tax and a disgraceful act of moral blackmail – Neil Schofield

The Green Party’s women problem – Neil Schofield

A few words about respect – Mike Sivier

The moment Ed Miliband said he’ll bring socialism back to Downing Street  

Ecofascism: Deep Ecology and Right-Wing Co-optation  

Green Fascism and the Greening of Hate – Derek Wall

“Paradoxically, while Greens argue for social justice and other left themes, environmentalism is often linked to the right. Hitler believed in a politics of hatred ordained by iron ‘laws of nature'” Darker shades of green. Derek Wall traces the thread of ecofascism through the Green movement’s history. Derek is a member of the Green Party’s Anti-Fascist and Anti-Racist Network, author of Green History (Routledge 1994).

He notes the same tension as I do, between environmentalism and social justice/human rights. He discusses the environmentalism of the Nazis and the influence of Malthus’s ideas.


193 thoughts on “Greens: the myth of the “new left” debunked

      1. That one has already been tried by a green party member pretending to be a lawyer. It’s not remotely libelous and your attempt at intimidation and discrediting is transparent and pretty lame. I have a friend who is a journalist – see his comment on this thread regarding the article and the law.

        I also have a friend who is a REAL lawyer. She informs me the article is not at all libelous. I take her word for it. 🙂


  1. You really must be running scared to write what you know to be utter rubbish. Thank you for invoking Godwin’s law because it just makes Liebour look all the more desperate and ridiculous. Good day.


    1. Gosh so many words and yet you still have so little coherence. If it’s ‘utter rubbish’ then why don’t you explain how, in what way you disagree, rather than being so aggressive, fascistic and proving my point, by simply stooping to insulting the author? No? Thought not

      You can’t defend the Greens so you sadly have to childishly comment about Labour.I’m not actually a Labour Party member, as it stands. Again, my point is made well.

      Godwin’s Law isn’t applicable when valid references to ideology are made, as was the case here. It simply becomes an ad hominem on such occasions


      1. this article is based on untruths and fear-mongering. the green party sets policy through democratic processes, unlike Labour, opposes austerity because we know that abundance is the natural order if society was more equitable, and proposes a universal basic income scheme.
        you should do your research. I didn’t expect this level of disinformation form Labour proponents, it just pushes home the realisation that Labour is part of the corporate establishment, run by millionaires with no grasp of reality.


      2. I did my research, thanks, and sources are cited on the blue hyperlinks throughout the article. Please feel free to discuss what you think are “untruths.”

        Democratic process? I’m surprised, most of my experience of greens is not democratic, or about any genuine dialogue and engagement, have a look at the comments some of your peers have made. They have nothing to do with democracy.

        There are 3 millionaires in the Labour party, and they endorse the mansion tax, the increase in income tax paid by millionaires, the bankers bonus tax, and a more progressive tax system generally, which Labour have pledged. The greens don’t propose a progressive tax system, instead they propose a basic income, which will increase inequality and adversely affect the poorest citizens. And that’s according to the The Citizen’s Income Trust (CIT), not me –


  2. Shameful posting. If this is what we can expect of Labour’s propaganda machine… About as spot on as an attack on Labour for sharing “socialism” with the Nazis. Hitler was a vegetarian ergo vegetarians are Nazis. Gah!


      1. Placing A and B side by side, arguing they both have the same philosophical roots and looking at how, in your opinion, that has led to their actions, is by definition a comparison.
        That can be a comparison by contrast (here are Labour and Tory policies on X, look how different they are) or a comparison by similarity (here are Tory and Nazi policies on Y, look how similar they are) but placing political parties alongside each other in this way is by definition a comparison.

        The structure of the blog post (with the overwhelming emphasis on Malthusianism) also implies that Green Party actions in Brighton were motivated by a desire to control the population. (When in fact they aren’t, to the best of my understanding, significantly different from Labour actions in Liverpool and Manchester.)


      2. I explored the tension between environmentalism, human rights, equality and social justice. This is an important issue, because how ideologies are translated into policy often has profound social consequences.

        I discussed the environmentalism and “blood and soil” philosophy underpinning the Volk and Nazi movements, the Nazis being an exemplar of the issues raised. I also discussed Malthus, and his ideas on population growth and the finite nature of resources. I linked some of the Green philosophy with Malthus’s ideas. My point was that it is not the ideas in themselves that are the issue: it is the context, the application, the way those ideas are translated via policy and the consequences that need some discussion.

        Malthus’s ideas informed and were in formed by a context of Social Darwinism, eugenics, Laissez Faire capitalism, competitive individualism, all of which were the basis of a dominant paradigm at the that point in history.

        Other people’s interpretations of what I wrote is pretty much their own business. I had a decent response from Tanya Jones, Green Party Parliamentary candidate, and she also said thanks for the opportunity to discuss those issues.

        Many of the other responses are nothing but mob mentality threats and knee jerks, claiming I wrote comments that aren’t actually there.


      3. Also, you appear to have actively deleted a couple of very benign comments I’ve made. (They’re no longer showing up as ‘awaiting moderation’, as the first, longest one was for a few days after I posted it.)


    1. This is rather hilarious from you.

      Also your points regarding the link that Greens being fascists is incredible, there is nothing in the party structure, the way it organises or it’s membership that hold true to that.


  3. This is a really interesting article and I am aware that the Nazis did appropriate “nature worship” in much the same way that they appropriated “socialism”. Just a couple of thoughts.

    Right at the end you say “Vote Labour. That is the genuinely socialist thing to do”. I’m personally struggling to see what is “socialist” about the current Labour Party. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are sincerely trying to shrug off the years of New Labour but my feeling is that they are not there yet…not by a long chalk.

    I was also aware that many prominent members of the Fabian Society were also dedicated Malthusians and Eugenicists to boot. Yet I would never in a month of Sundays make any link between them and anything to do with the modern Labour Party and I would guess neither would you. However, you do make this link with the Green Party. Some may see that as having double standards.


    1. I have written on this site elsewhere about the Fabians and eugenics, as a matter of fact, though it was in a post about UKIP. And the Fabians advocated eugenics at the time when Malthus was influential

      I don’t consider it double standards at all. In the C19th, eugenics was a consequence of our socio-political views and other dominant scientific theories, both left and right were advocates of the idea that we could ‘progress’ as a species. However, we saw on terrible, logical conclusion of that thinking – the Holocaust – and eugenics was dismissed in horror.

      Now, I don’t go that far and say that the greens are eugenicists, I cite population policy from their site, and compare with Malthus’s ideas, and the point is that environmental concerns do not make a political party caring about human rights per se. Nor does environmentalism make a party ‘left wing.’ It’s a reasonable point, and the right wing basis of the ideology underpinning policies is worth pointing out for consideration


      1. ‘And the Fabians advocated eugenics at the time Malthus was influential’
        You are making shit up aren’t you? Seems like the whole of the above article…..

        Was it a massive exercise in projection?


    1. I’m up for debate, just not up for allowing personal abuse and bullying on my site, and I have always moderated comments on here. Otherwise I get swamped with right wing and UKIP trolls. Not to mention one or two greens. Why would I want my readers to have to put up with people pouring out their hatred in the comments?


      1. I have read your work, and believed you to care for the poor. Have you taken the time to read my work, posted as a comment on this page, before deciding I don’t care about the poor?


      2. I am wondering why you didn’t post my perfectly reasonable response to your reply on my original post? Is it because I did actually provide some evidenced answers to you rpoints that you preferred not to share? Not much of a debate in that case is it? There certainly wasn’t any abuse or hatred in what I said. Very disappointing. I’d appreciate it if you would post it.


      3. Why do so many of you imagine I am online all day to moderate this site? Perhaps if your peers would stop swamping my inbox with abuse and threats, I may get to moderate older comments.


      4. You think you seen bulling and threats but you aint seen nuthing yet. thats a promise. you cant hope to get away with drivel like this and not expect a payback. they are coming


    2. My comment, though calm and polite, was also moderated out. I’m not sure why.
      I simply pointed out that I have always found Green Party members to be natural allies of lifelong Labour supporters like myself. The things we disagree on we tend to discuss and work through because we are all pragmatic activists working for change. We know who the real enemies are and we tend not to get sidelined by irrelevant theorising or loose historical conjecture.
      kittysjones is more than welcome to expound these theories. There may even be some historical truth in them but in my experience they certainly don’t reflect the beliefs or behaviour of the many current Green Party members I know and respect.
      I fear such attempts to demonise the good people of the Green Party will backfire on the good people of Labour and that would be a great shame.
      Merry Christmas One and All – I’m off for a pint with a Green. a Labour and a Don’t Know. 🙂


      1. Sorry it’s taken so long to get to your comment. I have been mobbed by an army of abusive, threatening green party members, and your comment was buried under neath a huge pile waiting to be moderated. Your comment, however, is reasonable and civil. I have tried my best to work with green supporters on mutual causes and aims. With a couple of exceptions, however, I have experienced mostly aggression, bullying, abuse and a complete unwillingness towards any cooperation from greens. Yet if the greens spent as much effort attacking the Tories, instead attacking a disabled campaigner and blogger like me, we may have made some progress. Take a close look at the comments on this page.

        Merry Christmas to you, too


  4. this why im never going to vote labour again. you’ve clearly got nothing good to say about yourselves just pathetic smears against your opponents.


    1. Take a look on the site, you will see I have PLENTY of good to say about Labour, from policies and principles to leadership. You need to take a look at the threats and comments your peers have made on this page before accusing anyone else of smears.


  5. I’m glad you have been able to articulate the many doubts I have about the Greens. Both here & abroad, the political parties who call themselves “green” are a long way away from what many (urging us all to vote green as an alternative to Labour) seem to think they are. The adoption of the term “Green” tends to conjure up the Greenpeace, plant a tree, loose environmental philosophies, but like the Ukip crowd, their new supporters cannot point to a single actual policy document to show this. I think the vehemence of some of the comments already posted is more illuminating! Great work, once again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Florence. It was a difficult piece to write, and I am getting some pretty terrible personal abuse from Green supporters. But not much criticism of the content and details in the article, unfortunately


    1. It wasn’t a ‘comparison’, it was actually a point made about assumptions regarding environmentalism and the link with social equality, I used the Nazi example of environmentalism because it shows very well that care for the environment does not guarantee social equality and rights…but you and many other people commenting seem to lack the capacity to read what is actually written, and to comprehend what you read…


  6. As it seems most MPs both male & female were aware of the systematic child rapes & murders in the 1980’s and covered it up, it is my belief that regardless of party affiliation many British MPs should be put to death. Literally, for the crime of turning a blind eye to the powerful wealthy political class, they should have their throats slit and be thrown into a mass grave.
    All it will take is a few more dead police in the USA and there will be a revolution there, swiftly followed by one here, so the idea that the present government system will emerge intact is fairly optimistic anyway.

    Death to all paedophiles/rapists.


  7. As a member of an identifiable group, a Green Party member, I am deeply saddened that a blogger I admired & respected has first libeled me as a Nazi, then chose not to moderate responses to said libel thus preventing any attempt to demonstrate or argue my innocence of said libel. I obviously take this with the severity it deserves.


    1. I don’t sit online all day. I have to go offline occasionally you know. Furthermore I have been inundated with abusive comments from green supporters, and so your comment has only just been seen

      I have not called you or anyone else a Nazi. You may want to actually read what I wrote before accusing me of libelous comments.


      1. As a lawyer I know what proper construction means in terms of the laws of libel; the law is clear to me in this issue. What confuses me, as someone who thought you a writer who shared many of my values and concerns for the nation we live in, is why you’ve written this. People are often more complex than the law.

        In see my previous comments are still awaiting moderation. You have moderated this comment and not those. I do hope that isn’t a further attempt to misrepresent either my character, or those of other Green Party members. Sue, Ms Jones, I don’t understand why you write something so clearly defamatory.


      2. You’ve defamed the character of an identifiable group of which I am a member. I haven’t threatened you. Quite the opposite, I simply remain bemused you should do this, and further troubled that you choose only certain items to allow in counter argument.

        It appears that is the way it must stand on this page. You have made it clear what your position is. I am most disconcerted. Perhaps the advice or counsel of a colleague might help. I don’t think I wish to informerly communicate with you further. I also believe there is little chance of you allowing the unmoderated items to be seen.


      3. No I have not defamed anyone. I suggest you read the article again. The unmmoderated items may well be moderated if your fellow green supporters would cease sending me abusive comments that are piling up awaiting moderation. I have visual problems, as it is. I would appreciate it, actually, if you don’t contact me again. I don’t appreciate being threatened and accused of something I didn’t actually do. I recognise intimidation when I see it.


      4. I’d like a quote please.

        Your unreasonable demands that I moderate over 50 comments in a short timescale to suit you are unreasonable and also ridiculous since I do have other things that I need to do other than respond to abuse from green supporters here on my blog – and i have had some very abusive comments from more than a few people .


      5. I expect a lawyer to be able to spell properly, along with being generally precise – not being able to do so, I doubt that you are.


      6. I doubt a real, professional lawyer would have risked making politicised threats in the midst of a mass and sustained aggressive attack of threats, abuse and so forth from his fellow green party supporters. That would be a case for gross misconduct.

        But I’ve involved the police 🙂


      7. I’d like to interject a word of warning to Mr Price and anyone else who wants to try their luck with defamation claims: You are not libelled by this article. Any attempt at legal action against the author would be laughed out of court if it even got that far. The laws on defamation are very clear and so are the defences against inaccurate accusations; the author of this blog is, legally, stating honest opinions based on clear evidence. If Mr Price really is a lawyer, then he should know better.


    2. I did find the article offensive and libellous, since we do NOT have Malthusian or eugenicist policies, BUT I found some of the responses offensive as well, especially the threats….another thing we don’t do is threaten people with reprisals. (Even if they insult us).


      1. I never at any point claimed the Greens had eugenicist policies. The Malthus influence has had a varied response, with some saying yay and others nay. Malthus principles in themselves are not an issue, insofar as there’s a core of truth to be had there. However, how that philosophy is applied, how it translates into policy is an issue, hence the discussion about historical applications, policy and my questioning that is hardly libelous, and shouldn’t be regarded as offensive.


  8. The Greens’ questioning of the assumption of infinite growth in production and consumption does constitute a contrast with traditional models of socialism, aimed at harnessing the political power of the producers over production. This does not make it Malthusian.


  9. Your attempt to tie the Green Party to Nazi thinking is dishonest, riddled with non sequiturs and about as sensible as trying to claim that the Nazis, being ‘National Socialists’, have a common ideology with the Labour Party whose roots are supposedly in socialism.

    Labour are nothing but a cynical bunch of opportunists.

    You can hardly complain at receiving ‘abusive’ comments when your original piece is so hysterical and crassly abusive itself.


    1. Would you provide a quote where I have been abusive and dishonest in the article? Or hysterical?

      You justify and support the behaviour of green party members who are sending me threats, abuse and are posting lies and extremely hateful posts about me on facebook, twitter and on here because I wrote a critical article, and instead of engaging with the issues in the article, people have decided to attack me, attack the Labour party, lie about them and behave like thugs. Doesn’t bode well for your party’s accountability, transparency and democratic engagement, does it. Nor does it demonstrate principles of ethics and social equality.

      Furthermore, people who know me well on facebook in particualr have expressed disgust and horror at the viciousness of the attacks and the spite of some greens that they had previously considered allies. You have lost the support of 11 greens from my friend list so far, not because of anything I’ve said, but because they have witnessed the spiteful comments from people I blocked last year for being abusive then, they are still being abusive, and I can’t see the posts to defend myself of engage with them – that’s pretty deplorable and cowardly.

      The serious threats have been handed over to the police. The IP addresses have been traced, when people post on this blog, their IP and email is visible to me as the site admin.

      None of these events will affect what I do, what I write and what I believe. I have had much support from fellow campaigners. Your behaviour has done nothing more than expose what you are really all about. Smears, bullying, lies, abuse.


      1. What? I have the option of either posting or trashing comments when I moderate, there’s no option for altering comments. Why would I post a comment at all if I were being ‘dishonest’ or wanting to exclude what someone has said? There are many posts here on this thread, and many raise points that i disagree with, but they have been posted.


  10. historically there have been people like that in the environmental movement but historically there also been people like that in the labor movement and Nealy every movement..

    equating all greens with Malthus. is like equating all socialists with poll pot or kim ill sung…


  11. Labour are nowhere near the right. Miliband is the furthest left leader we have seen for decades. You should check the policies out. That’s why the media have been smearing him constantly, and often so personally. It’s thoughtless unqualified comments like yours that make me so angry, people need to do a little evidence finding and critical thinking before trotting out what they’ve heard. Read on this site an article called Miliband’s policies at a glance, also read 46 more reasons to vote labour, and What Labour Achieved. Then we can talk about where Labour are on the political spectrum more meaningfully and in a fully informed manner. Until then, there’s no point.


    1. I agree that Miliband, if elected, will be by a distance the most left wing PM in the last 35 years, and agree that this is why he’s being smeared by many of the right-wing media. (Cheap opportunism in order to sell papers is also a factor.)

      But I’ve many legitimate criticisms of current Labour policy. Why is TTIP bad for the NHS but good for everything else? Why has Labour not clearly announced a policy for getting rid of Trident, an expensive collection of nuclear weapons aimed at no-one in particular?


      1. I’ve raised my own legitimate concerns regarding the Green Party too…

        Labour have costed and evidenced their policies to date, because that’s what they do. It takes a little time to do so. Labour were kept in the dark regarding the details of the TTIP, as much of the discussion, as we know, went on behind closed doors. That’s not a secret either. With regard to the TTIP, they haven’t endorsed it either. But they did make the NHS an immediate priority.

        Labour had announced their intentions of unilateral disarmament and Kinnock’s retreat from that policy of outright unilateral nuclear disarmament because it was that which had lost Labour the previous two General Elections.

        A bitter dispute broke out after Kinnock sought to clarify policy by pledging to retain Trident indefinitely until the successful negotiation of an international agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons. The public opinion on trident was that we should keep it until there is a multilateral agreement reached.


      2. TTIP is anti-democratic by it’s very purpose – it gives corporations the right to override democracy. You don’t need to know the fine details when the broad strokes are so transparently wrong. (In fairness, Labour’s Jude Kirton-Darling has apparently been a strong and uncompromising opponent of the treaty.)

        I can understand the argument against disarmament in a Cold War context, or immediately after the Cold War when the same mentality was in place. I probably would have agreed, had I been politically active at the time. Can you explain to me the case against disarmament in the current era?


  12. I am genuinely really confused as to why someone like you would scrap the barrel of insults in this manner. If you don’t agree with Green policies, fair enough but to try to sully the party by making connections with Nazis is really too silly. You degrade yourself especially at the end of the piece, where your true motives for this ‘enlightening’ drivel, is revealed in all its glory.


    1. I’m confused as to how so many greens can’t actually read what I wrote and comprehend it. I didn’t compare the greens directly with the Nazis, I simply used the two parties that are environmentalist to highlight a tension between environmentalism, equality and human rights. The point was actually about assumptions people make about environmentalism and social equality.


      1. First, I am a member of theGreen Party and I really am sorry that you have been personally abused by people who share mypolitical allegiances. There’s no need for that crap. Terribly unChristmassy – harrumph!


        No you didn’t compare the Greens to the Nazis – you pointed out that environmentalism doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with humanitarianism. However, you could have done that with one sentence. Can you understand why your lengthy focus on it looks like well-poisoning?


      2. Hardly ‘lengthy focus’. I’ve written close to 300 articles, this is the first I have written about the Green Party philosophy and so on. Yes, it’s critical. But you always have the option of engaging democratically and critically too. So have those who chose instead to be abusive. That would have been the constructive thing to do, and may have helped to build bridges. No party is above criticism, and it’s absurd to assume otherwise. If that criticism is based on fact and truth, then it ought to be addressed. If not, the untruths need to be challenged with evidence.


      3. Replying here as the comments are now too nested to reply directly to your response to me. I hope you had a good Christmas and took at least a couple of days off from comment-moderation.

        You may well have written over 300 articles but yes, in the context of this article, your focus on Nazi ecology is lengthy. I’d have thought it was fairly clear that that was the relevant context, but perhaps it wasn’t. So, given that context, can you really not see how this reads as well-poisoning?

        As others have mentioned, the Fabians were mired in eugenics, but it would be invidious to use that fact to write an article that boils down to little more than “I’m not saying the Labour Party are Nazis, but…”

        I judge the Greens on their policies, as I do the Labour Party. On that basis, I do find the Greens more left-wing than Labour. Dredging up the past cannot alter that.


      4. I’ve written at length about the influence of the eugenics movement elsewhere on this site, and acknowledged in those articles that the Fabians were also eugenicists, as I have on this thread, too. Which you appear to have missed.

        ‘Dredging up the past’ as you call it is important to contextualise ideologies, which don’t arise in a vacuum: but rather, they develop over time in a context of dominant paradigms and economic/social conditions. You don’t need me to tell you the dangers of far right ideologies, sure, yet we live in times when fascism is again on the rise, globally, and when parties such as UKIP have gained support in our own Country. We live in times when it’s become acceptable for the poor to be left without support, and people are dying because of benefit sanctions and cuts. We live in times when it’s acceptable to demonise minority social groups all over again – to ‘other’ them. I have drawn parallels with Nazi ideology and propaganda techniques in other articles, using Allport’s scale of prejudice as a way of indicating that the same process is unfolding here, stage by stage. As a disabled person, I feel this acutely.

        I’ve lobbied the Labour party, regarding the rights of disabled people for the past two or three years. They have responded positively and have worked very hard to challenge and oppose this government’s cruel and punitive policies. See the work of Dame Begg, Sheila Gilmore, Glenda Jackson, John McDonnell. Debbie Abrahams, Dennis Skinner and previously of Anne McGuire. To me, the most important indicator of a decent party is how they will treat the most vulnerable citizens. That entails an acknowledgement of past failures and making progress. For all their faults, the last Labour government gave us the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act and many many others that were important landmarks, rarely acknowledged. Yet without these laws we wouldn’t have won a single case against the current government regarding their draconian policies, which are undoing the civilised and decent society we worked so hard to build. 100 years of civil rights achievements undone in just 4 years.

        You claim that you judge parties on their policies, yet time and time again I see Green party members misrepresenting or lying about Labour’s policies. Your idea of ‘left wing’ is pretty strange, especially given the widespread ignorance about the policies that the Greens so often condemn.

        The Greens and Labour have more commonalities than differences. Yet this past 2 years at least, I have seen the Greens attack Labour rather than build bridges. But regardless of that, my point about the current electoral system stands. Any split amongst the left-wing voters will ensure another 5 years of the Tories. That can not and MUST not happen. For me, that is the most pressing issue we face. Because if the Tories remain in Office after May 7th 2015, there won’t be anything left of our society to fight for. And the Greens constant and often unwarranted attacks on Labour are not helping achieve anything. People are suffering and dying now as a consequence of policies. That did not happen under the last government. The only viable option we currently have to ensure the Tories are outed is a Labour vote. That’s basic maths and the current electoral system, and not my doing. We need to escape this hell first, and then we can discuss the finer points of personal utopias. That’s my position.


  13. ive seen nothing in there manifestos that say anything about population growth maybe ive missed something have you got a link to wear they do say this.


      1. You dont know when to shut up do you. People like you get what they deserve and you will. We will make sure. Best put your time in looking after that Jones family. You never know whats around that dark corner do you


      2. Much as I deplore the offensive (yes, I’m sticking to that) nature of the original message accusing the Greens of having Malthusian and eugenicist policies, I take even greater exception to this sort of reply….another thing we don’t do is threaten people.


      3. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the author of this blog has organized some of these replies (the silly threatening ones) in order to support her position (poor, little well intentioned victim)… So you wrote a crass, inflammatory post and have succeeded in upseting people and provoking a reaction. And then you have carefully moderated replies to get the mix you wanted published, slamming back aggresively at any challenge. Well done, very clever tactic. However have you actually succeeded in getting people to reconsider voting for labor instead of Green? Isn’t that the aim? Somehow I doubt it very much… Quite a futile exercise all in all.. Happy 2015!


      4. How do I ‘organize’ death threats, exactly? Do you think I put an advert in the paper for them?

        There’s a broad mix of comments on the thread, some I responded to, some I haven’t. It’s hardly the case that I’ve edited the more cogent criticisms out, if you take a look.

        I wrote a critical post and no amount of you making excuses for deplorable behaviour will justify it. And victim-blame narratives? It’s like debating with a Tory, Deb.

        Go peddle your pathetic and nasty excuses for thugs somewhere else. I’d recommend the Conservative site, where you would fit in well.


  14. Stinks of desperation. Drivel. Can’t take you seriously enough to even bother debating the straws you’re so obviously clutching at. Sad bitch.


  15. Yeah, but….I know a rapist who voted Labour. So all Labour voters are rapists. That’s about the level of interaction this drivel deserves.


  16. a) Are the Green Party trying to position themselves as “the new party of the left”? I can’t actually find a lot of evidence of this beyond one public talk hosted by Pembrokeshire Green Party. Interestingly it starts with a quote from Rosa Luxembourg, so you’re not the only one quoting Marxists to back up their argument. I wonder when the last time Ed Miliband did that was? 😉
    c) Have The Green Party “invested heavily in an aggressively negative campaign strategy that has involved outright lies about the Labour Party’s proposed policy intentions”? What are these lies and is this really any match for Sadiq Khan’s unit?
    b) Your article is largely a very good example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, the assumption that because two things share the same property that makes them the same thing. Any references to support your implication that Greens believe “that society is naturally hierarchical” for example?


    1. Yes the Green Party HAVE engaged in negative campaigning, and I have witnessed it many times. And yes, that has involved outright lies about Labour. Witnessed by many of us

      One good example of that was a claim that Labour didn’t vote in the bedroom tax debate they tabled themselves. Another was a claim that Labour will privatise the NHS. Another is that Labour support austerity cuts. And beneifit cuts. None of these claims are true. There are many more, these are just off the top of my head. Another claim, made in parliament by Caroline Lucas was that Rachel Reeves would be tougher on welfare than the Tories. She didn’t say that and was misquoted. But members of the Green Party have continued making that claim, despite Caroline Lucas acknowledging the misquote

      I have been seriously bullied for the past 2 years by Green supporters, too. This said, I also have a couple of social media friends who support the Greens who are lovely. Not my common experience, however, I’m afraid.


      1. I don’t know why you say “will privatise” the NHS. You surely mean, “have privatised” Have a look at some 1990s Labour Party policy and resulting decisions. The Tories are just flinging open wide the stable door. And also, regardless of how you spin it, are you saying that the Labour Party are suddenly going to be all fluffy and nice on welfare, when they want to cap EU migrants etc.? I agree that that they fundamentally need to change the system as Reeves has pointed out. But the point is to move away from benefits and welfare, to basic income and systems that account for a world of increased productivity by machines and computers.


      2. PFIs were introduced by John Major. Thatcher and Major left the NHS starkly underfunded, and I can remember the postcode lottery and patients lying in corridors on trolleys for many hours. There was no funding for the NHS infrastructure, that badly needed investment. The PFIs were used to re- invested in the infra structure, and the NHS dramatically improved under Labour. There’s a world of difference between that – reinvesting money as Labour did, to the profit only motive introduced by the Tories. And you cannot blame Labour for what the Tories have done. That’s akin to blaming your ex for your new love’s behaviour. Mind the logical gap there….

        I have looked at Labour’s policies 🙂 Both past and present. I have a compiled list if you are interested


      3. Having experienced the effects of austerity measures under a LABOUR government who stopped my benefits without warning and only informed me of the fact 10 days later. This whilst I was battling the mental health effects of coping with cancer twice as a single mother and paying a mortgage out of the living component of my incapacity benefit (i.e. that which one is supposed to pay bills for food and heating etc.) because I did not qualify for mortgage relief under rules devised by LABOUR, I no longer have faith in anything Labour says. To my mind they do not stand up for the rights of the working classes or the vulnerable. They are hardly distinguishable from the Tories any more. And that is very sad having been brought up Labour. Indeed my great-grandfather was the first Labour councillor in Yeovil. I fully expect this response to be moderated away but I hope you read it and digest the fact that Labour did not protect my child or I and is set for a course in which it will not protect my children’s children and that is why I am rejecting them for the Greens. Your ideas linking Green policies make you look oh so clever but they do not feed hungry children and that is what the marginalised in society need a commitment to RIGHT NOW whilst you the privileged chattering classes score theoretical points against each other. Labour is not recognisable to me any more.


      4. Firstly, Labour did not introduce any austerity measures: that happened after the 2010 emergency budget when the Coalition came into office.

        The payment of mortgages when someone claims benefits has always been interest only, since Thatcher.


      5. I am sorry to hear about your problem with your payment, that must have been very difficult. However, sometimes, administrative errors occur no matter who is in government, and whilst it was a bad experience, I fail to see how you can blame the entire government for that.


      6. Your last comment about ‘privileged chattering classes’ made me laugh, it’s an indication of your prejudice and a chip on your shoulder. The reality is that I am gravely ill, disabled, claiming sickness benefits, from a working class background, dad was a union man and shopsteward, I’m a lone parent, I did go to university in my 20’s and won’t ever apologise for that, or my education. Nor will I ever apologise for my decision to campaign for the rights of disabled people, or the going on for 300 blogs I wrote, mostly attacking the Tories, and promoting our human rights and equality principles. Pity the greens spend all their time attacking people like me, isn’t it, instead of working cooperatively and attacking the bloody Tories. I don’t see much evidence here that greens value equality, ethics and social justice


    2. You need to read what I actually wrote in the article. I did not make the “assumption that two things share the same property” AT ALL, and i’m disgusted with the apparent inability many people seem to have in reading what is actually there.

      What I actually said was this: “It’s a myth that environmentalism and ecological concern go hand in hand with a concomitant respect and concern for the well-being of all people, too”

      That’s nothing like a fallacy of the undistributed middle, nor is it anything like what you claim I said.


  17. Interesting that your accusations against the Greens are totally unreferenced: I think you should provide links to evidence for each accusation. If you can’t link to evidence, you should do the decent thing and withdraw them and admit you were wrong. You haven’t even had the decency to provide one single quote from Malthus. This is an insult to someone who can’t answer back. You have a fascinating (and ever so much larger) tale to tell here, but have fallen at the first hurdle: so why don’t you go back and see whether or not you can back up even one small section of what you say? As it stands, this blog is mere second hand gossip.


    1. Don’t preach to me about ‘decency’ after members of your party have been threatening me. I provided a hyperlink to an article about Malthus, and cited pertinent policies from your own site to show the links in underpinning philosophy. I have backed up sufficiently what I have proposed. Withdraw them? The greens are advocating censorship now?


      1. Moderating hundreds of abusive comments is not censorship. Now I won’t be adding any more comments until after christmas. If you’ve a problem with that, plain tough, I do have a life


      2. I’ve been back here today and oh dear I found absolutely no threats to you from Green Party members or even from fake greens. And no: I am not advocating censorship at all: I am a keen supporter of free speech. If they existed, and if I’d been you I’d have left all those threats out there for all to see. You didn’t. I think free speech is an excellent way for people to work out whether people are real or not, what people who write are really like, what they really think and believe, whether or not they understand history or even themselves and whether or not they use their brains before they put finger to keypad. Processes of writing are creative and very revealing: to the author as well as the reader. I am intrigued that you appear to know which of your commentators is a member of the Green and of the Labour parties and wonder what kind of profile you think a claim to such knowledge of two memberships gives you? But I do take notice that someone claiming to be a Labour Party supporter has just found out where Labour went and made a massive list of what the Labour Party needs to do presumably to come back to a position which it consciously abandoned for electoral purposes in the run up to the Blair years. But since you come across as more of a word generating person than a do-er or a doorknocker, I wish you joy with the to do list. I was also hoping that you had found the time by now to post the critique Wickedgreenblog says he made: you claimed pressure of time at the time. But sadly you haven’t, which disappoints me. I am highly amused by the Confidential Intelligence Unit comments and by your response to them I think they are all very funny. Your blog is an absolute hoot. Someone might be tempted to do the “Noises Off”! By all means keep going: assuming you enjoy it!


      3. 1. The threats are posted so I suggest you look again. Tanya Jones acknowledged the comments that were abusive and threatening, though she did attempt to deny they were made by Green Party members. Odd that other commentators noted them, but not you. What do you reckon the following, taken from the thread here, actually are, well wishes and friendly greetings? –

        “Peekaboo says:
        December 24, 2014 at 5:44 pm

        You dont know when to shut up do you. People like you get what they deserve and you will. We will make sure. Best put your time in looking after that Jones family. You never know whats around that dark corner do you.

        growsome says:
        December 24, 2014 at 1:35 pm

        stop playing the victim. Your entire peice is an appalling smear and people have a right to be angry with you. you deserve a kicking and thats what you get. its overdue. many of us hate you and your lame posts about labour but you never stop. labour are fascists with neoliberal policies and your to stupid a bint to see it. now shut the fuck up.”

        Someone elses’ perspective and account of the abuse and threats –

        My record –

        2. I’ve been bullied online by a group of known green party members for the past 2 years. There are many witnesses to this. And to even attempt to claim that all the threats and abusive comments came from anywhere else is rather ludicrous. But then so is denying the threats exist on the thread. In fact your gaslighting response is pretty deplorable, it has to be said. The abusive comments are because of the critical article I wrote. In the case of abusive commentators that are ‘unknown’, it would be a reasonable estimate that they too support the green party.

        3. I suggest you read the 2 articles by Derek Wall, a green party member, who also links environmentalism with the far right, Nazism and discusses the influence of Malthus’s ideas on the green movement. They are both at the foot of the article.

        4. It is a list of Labour policies that were implemented, not a ‘wish list’, which may of course be verified, easy enough for you to check. However, you seem intent on trying to rewrite anything that you don’t like, hardly a dialogue, more like another bullying tactic and monologue.

        5. I’m a ‘doer’ when I can be. I am chronically ill and disabled, I do what I can, when I can and in my own way. I’ve contributed evidence, for example, to the United Nations regarding their investigation into the government’s breaches of the convention of rights of disabled people, amongst other work recently. But I get out and about when I can. Not that I need explain myself to someone who clearly likes to make assumptions about others, and prejudiced ones, at that.

        Had you bothered reading further on my ‘hoot’ of a site, you would have been a little better informed regarding what I do and what I’m about.

        6. You are highly amused by the fact that ‘Green Dragon’ tells lies and shares those all over the internet? He writes, and his site is one promoting a distinctive brand of green nationalism. Now THAT’S hilarious.

        7. Oh, I fully intend to ‘keep going.’ 🙂


  18. I am sorry if you feel offended by some people’s comments. But after producing such a Daily Mail-esque article with dubious reference points, it’s enough to inspire a lot of wrath. It’s easier always to pull something apart than build it,
    but a few points:

    – Oh great, SERA. The amazing “red-green” environmental campaign, unable to post any news since September 20th 2014? It wouldn’t surprise me if members of the Labour Party thought that the environment stopped in the Winter, such is their thinking. I think perhaps the Labour Party are getting a bit better on environmental things over time. But it’s like the slow trudge of a dinosaur knowing its going extinct.

    Please, please do some actual research on The Greens before putting up this drivel. If you are going to accuse the Greens of not co-operating with the Labour Party in one breath, by falsely associating them with Nazism in another, then I don’t see how anyone can be expected to take this piece as anything but a poor joke.


    1. Please see Mike Siviers’ comment about the fact I have referenced the article sufficiently. Mike has a qualification in journalism, and he responded to the green party member who claimed to be a lawyer and tried to threaten me with libel. The piece has been taken seriously, widely read, I always research my articles and provide hyperlinks (in blue) to evidence what I say. I did not say the greens were nazis…


  19. Still waiting for me previous comment to be published…

    Btw, Labour does support benefit cuts. Rachel Reeves has said she supports the benefit cap, Labour introduced ESA and Labour is planning to end benefits for 18-21 yr olds.

    Also, the quote about Reeves being ‘tougher than the tories’ came from a Guardian article. It’s still up there, no sign of a correction.


    1. How about this, then –

      This is a classic example of lies perpetuated by greens. Reeves supports the BUDGET cap not the benefits cap. There’s a substantial difference between the two things. As is BEING ‘TOUGHER ON THE CAUSES of high welfare spending. Reeves issued a statement about the misquote. I also have this, which is from the Hansard site

      (I had a lot of respect for Caroline Lucas, until, in the middle of crucial debate about the WCA and the plight of our disabled people, initiated by the WOW campaign, Lucas lost all of my respect when she chose political point scoring instead of constructive debate and said this):

      Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green); I was disappointed that Rachel Reeves, on taking up her post as shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, used the opportunity of her first interview to say that she would be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits.

      Kate Green (Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions); Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West did not say that. She said that she would be tougher on welfare spending, not on people on benefits.

      Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East, Labour)
      Does the hon. Lady agree that there are some forms of welfare spending that we should bring down? In my view, one of those is the excessive amount that is paid to private landlords through housing benefit. I am certainly in favour of reducing that form of welfare spending. Is she not?

      Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)
      I am very much in favour of that if the hon. Lady wants to put it under the heading of welfare spending… Source: Hansard.

      Nonetheless she has continued to misquote Reeves, to my disgust, using negative campaigning and smear tactics akin to the Tories to promote her own party.

      Further info on what Reeves actually said:


      1. Er, so she did say tougher on welfare than the Tories then. Nice sophistry.

        And you’ve completely failed to deal with the point I made about Labour benefit cuts.

        AND you still haven’t published my previous comment where I point out the hypocrisy of your smear of the Brighton Greens.


      2. No she didn’t. She said TOUGHER ON THE CAUSES OF HIGH WELFARE SPENDING. Such as low wages, high private sector rents, IT projects and Iain Duncan Smith. Caroline Lucas was informed about this, too, so you really have no excuse for being ignorant about it. But people like you don’t care about the truth, you come on here and demand that I do all the work for you, then you still come out with nasty comments and carry on repeating the same lies over and over again.

        I had a lot of respect for Caroline Lucas, until, in the middle of crucial debate about the WCA and the plight of our disabled people, initiated by the WOW campaign, Lucas lost all of my respect when she chose political point scoring instead of constructive debate and said this:

        Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green); I was disappointed that Rachel Reeves, on taking up her post as shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, used the opportunity of her first interview to say that she would be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits.

        Kate Green (Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions); Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
        My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West did not say that. She said that she would be tougher on welfare spending, not on people on benefits.

        Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East, Labour)
        Does the hon. Lady agree that there are some forms of welfare spending that we should bring down? In my view, one of those is the excessive amount that is paid to private landlords through housing benefit. I am certainly in favour of reducing that form of welfare spending. Is she not?

        Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)
        I am very much in favour of that if the hon. Lady wants to put it under the heading of welfare spending… Source: Hansard record

        Nonetheless she has continued to misquote Reeves, to my disgust, using negative campaigning and smear tactics akin to the Tories to promote her own party.
        Further info on what Reeves actually said :

        You can go online to the Hansard parliamentary record site, type in the Wow debate and it will still be on record. I’ve just copied and pasted it here

        Call me a ‘hypocrit’, but you are a liar or very misinformed, either way, you are not the kind of person whose opinion I give much of a shit about, tbh.

        The are many comments on this thread, I have many still in moderation, and there’s a limit to what I can do in terms of moderating my site, and responding to comments. To make demands, after your green peers have bombarded my site with threats, nasty comments, lies about Labour, is a little unreasonable to say the least.


      3. stop playing the victim. Your entire peice is an appalling smear and people have a right to be angry with you. you deserve a kicking and thats what you get. its overdue. many of us hate you and your lame posts about labour but you never stop. labour are fascists with neoliberal policies and your to stupid a bint to see it. now shut the fuck up


    1. Absolutely. It was widespread in europe and the US, until Hitler thoroughly and terribly discredited it. It was based on notions of progress – that we could improve the human race. Naivety to some degree, and a dominant paradigm of social Darwinism, competitive individualism (here) Laissez Faire economics – all contributed to a ‘spirit of the age’ that was fertile for eugenics ideas. We know better now


  20. What utter rubbish. I’m afraid such a ridiculas article does not deserve constructive engagement.

    You clearly have a very warped and shallow understanding of Green philosophy and history and your views on the Labour party are totally indefensible.

    Please do not publish lengthy articles about subjects you know nothing about!


    1. And you certainly didn’t give any constructive engagement. As good as your word there. Er… well done. Lol

      Don’t tell me what to publish. Who do you think you are, the opinion police?


  21. Thought you should know that the following has been posted about you on facebook today (not my page i should add) But a facebook user and activist with a host of contacts across Britain, all of whom will now have read this :

    “And the ‘spook of the year award’ goes to Sue Jones (below). She hosts a blog under the name of ‘kittysjones’ which she uses to disemminate fabrications against organisations on the left. She appears to being ‘run’ by Scotland Yard’s Confidential Intelligence Unit. Remember her role is to collect information about you and to spread lies and plant false stories about the British left, as can be seen in her latest blog entry. Now she’s been ‘outed’ her capacity to do harm will soon thankfully be over – hope she spent her ’30 pieces’ wisely


    1. As far as threats go, this is one of the more bizarre from the green party membership, that I have received in the last 12 hours. Nonetheless it is still a shameful attempt at intimidation and an attempt to discredit . And furthermore, it’s a lie – typical green smear campaign. I will be looking at potential legal action. But most people that matter to me, including my friends on FB, know who I am. Some of my green supporting friends, disgusted at the threats and bullying they have witnessed, won’t be voting green after this, because they are so shocked at your behaviour.

      The greens who claim to be ‘on the left’, yet treat critics to threats, abuse, bullying and attempts at censorship worse than the current authoritarian government. Most of the articles on this site criticise the tories, yet they have never behaved towards me as utterly oppressively as the greens have here. I will be publishing the threats in full, and forwarding to the mainstream media, also.

      The greens are ‘left’? Don’t make me laugh. They behave like totalitarians, as demonstrated here, incapable of civilised response, but delivering threats.

      Bravo. The greens get the Thugs of the Year Award.


      1. He didn’t say it came from a Green Party member. Obviously this is a paranoid lie, but it doesn’t discredit the entirety of a political party which the writer may or may not belong to.


      2. Gosh, it must be a labour party member. I wonder why they would do such a thing….

        It’s actually defamatory, as well as being a lie. And a threat. And a particularly nasty way of trying to discredit someone.

        That post came from a green supporter, and actually, the threats and abuse I have had from green party commentators on this site does reflect badly on the party. The person who posted was informing me,of the post, the actual post came from a green supporter


      3. I made the point about you assuming it was a Green Party member who wrote the insult because Henry didn’t state that it was – but if he’s informed or shown you in a private message that it was from a Green Party member, I’ll accept that.
        Still, the message reads to me more as outright paranoia – if it were a conscious attempt to defame your reputation, it probably wouldn’t be quite so unhinged.


      4. This person is now harassing me on Facebook, and i have involved the police. My friends have reported that despite being blocked for over a year, other green campaigners are also posting nasty and abusive posts about me, so this stops now. Some were green supporters until seeing the vicious and personal attacks and lies being posted about me. Know this. I refuse to allow a bunch of thugs to intimidate and harass me. It won’t change what I do, what I write or what I believe. It won’t stop the tide of support I have either, because people can see what this is about.


      5. You have my sympathies if you’re being serially harassed, if it’s in anyway helpful (maybe helping with contact details about disciplinary procedures against Green Party members) I’d be willing to do whatever I can.

        But – and this is a big but – I personally feel angry that the political movement I’m a part of has been misrepresented in the way that it has in this blog post. There is a pretty big leap of logic from ‘this one quote can be interpreted as Malthusianism’ to drawing parallels with the Nazi Party. Obviously, that kind of anger doesn’t justify personal attacks, but I can see others feeling the same kind of anger and lashing out in unacceptable ways.

        I’ll do my best to encourage other Green Party members to remain civil, but it’d help your arguments if you included more than one source on the Green Party itself when aiming to ‘debunk’ the very nature of the party. As I’ve said in a previous comment, I found this blog post to be an interesting look at the dark side of environmentalism, but it doesn’t do what the title claims it would do.


      6. I repeat i did not compare the green party with the nazi party. In the years I have been campaigning, I have seen the greens tell lies about the Labour Party, and when I have provided evidence of the truth, I have been attacked, the evidence ignored, and the lies continue to be perpetuated.

        This is one critical piece about the underpinnings of environmentalism, and green party philosophy, which has some contradictions and tensions that could be addressed. At no point in the article do I compare the greens with nazis, but I do make the point that environmentalism has also got right wing roots, and that it does not follow that environmentalism will ensure social justice, ethics and equality. It’s a valid, evidenced point. This is the only critical piece I have written about the green party’s philosophy, or indeed about the greens at all.

        But rather than democratically engage with the criticism and content of the article, I have been systematically bullied, abused and threatened, on here, on Facebook and on twitter. What those people doing that seem to have overlooked is that this is actually visible and evident to other people, too. Two writers have written articles about it. Many have been appalled and upset that people they thought were civil and decent could resort to such vicious personal attacks. As one person pointed out, and on christmas day, too.

        I appreciate your own civility and I also appreciate that not every green party member is a bully – I have friends on facebook that had supported the green party. They have always been decent and respectful of alternative narratives and of criticism.

        I have seen 3 years of green party members tellingthe same deplorable lies about the Labour Party, their policies,and all of this presented without a SHRED of evidence. I wrote 1 critical piece, and your comment does move towards justifying the extreme responses, and unjustifiable behaviour of others. I do appreciate your statement that you will try and encourage your peers to remain civil – and good luck with that – but for me, it’s a little late in the day. I am reluctant to engage any further. Because of the widespread demonstration that green party members simply cannot engage democratically in debate and criticism, and that they target individuals personally and attack them instead. After two years of being the target of the hate campaign from a group of greens on facebook, I’ve recognised that the behaviour is not going to change.

        It won’t stop me doing what I do, it won’t stop me believing what I believe, it won’t stop me writing critical pieces, with evidence and analysis at the heart of them, but it will stop me engaging with those individuals and accommodating them again, in my own need to try and be fair, because they have no intention to ever be that.

        And perhaps you could turn your own critical analysis to your own party’s claims, and ask yourself if the membership behaves in ways that reflect the claims made about green party philosophy. But I can tell you the answer – it’s no. And that is evidence in itself of the proposals I made in the article.


  22. I have not read all of your post, nor all of the thread and I don’t wish to as I would probable get angry and have my post removed. I have seen enough to follow the general flow. A few points that I would like to address without either having my buttons pushed or pushing yours though :-

    In the days of Malthus, most of the rest of the world was not available to be used as a resource, so for all that time we have not fully run out. Sadly now, the rest of the planet is also becoming depleted.

    Greens don’t mind people having stuff, just wasting what they have. It is totally possible to even have more – and for everyone on the planet to have enough – if, and only if, we stop wasting what we have left ( yes and distribute it reasonably ).

    Population does indeed fall when conditions improve, yes this will happen over the entire globe once the above point has been addressed. Green policy is to to assist wherever possible – in whatever way is locally appropriate in order to achieve that.

    A central difference ( aside from – well, everything ) between Fascists and Greens is – ‘we’ are not a singular group of identi-kit dogma followers – but scientifically lead and thus continually re-enlightened individuals – acting individually towards the common goal of managing to stay alive long enough to delight in nature and the products of multiple varied human society, ingenuity and art.

    It is sad to say that these underlying principals are sometimes hard to see when couched in the language of modern politics, but they are there – not as a dogma, but as a direction to follow – whilst causing the least possible – or no – damage. As circumstances change, so does the Green movement and its Party. So unlike the Greys…

    I do not call myself ‘Left’ – I am just Right – about there being limits on the capacity of the planet. The Math of Malthus is eternally correct – if the circumstances change, then so do the variables in the equation. History shows that for sure, but you do have to have an open mind to see it, one not masked by fear and hatred of the unknown as exemplified all to often in anti green rhetoric.

    Thanks for reading this. I hope it actually answers some of your points – which I am glad you raised as there are still some people out there who do not almost instinctively see the reasons behind and the honesty of Green politics.


    1. I don’t hate the greens, but please whilst you are here, take a look at the intimidation, threats and nasty comments your fellow green supporters have posted.

      I haven’t posted the more obscene and very abusive comments, though I will be publishing them here in an article, sending the GPHQ a copy, the mainstream media and of course, the police have been involved, because the level of threat and intimidation has been unacceptable.

      Rather than engage with critical debate and comment, the greens have chosen to bully, intimidate and threaten. That is not ‘left wing’ nor is it ethical, nor does it reflect your claims to promote equality and social justice. Nor does it show ‘honesty of green policies’ or ‘open mindedness.’

      Unless you actually read what I have written, it’s pretty pointless commenting on what you think I may have said. 🙂

      However, thank you for at least being civil and courteous,


      1. I, and any real green will deeply reject any unpleasantness that has been posted – either here or in any other forum. In fact, a GP statement has been posted on another site urging thoughtful and polite replies only. I am sure that GPHQ will take appropriate action as, as both you and I say – it is hardly green to behave like the people over whom we claim moral superiority – not that we should be doing that either ! Education and information is required and I believe – firmly – that once the core messages get out that sensible people will respond to them, maybe alter then, educate us and together work towards solutions.

        I am not normally this pious by the way, I aim to shame the green trolls – if indeed they were Greens at all and not agent-provactors from the vote threatened parties.

        I do intend to more fully read your points – certainly after reading your reply to my first posting. On my initial viewing I felt I was dealing with a troll of some kind. I no longer think so. I do think you have been the victim of them tough.

        I for one do not care at all who saves the planet – I just want it done. I fear that if we don’t no one will.


      2. I am with you Simon Anthony, abuse is unacceptable and I am disappointed that anyone would resort to such comments, though I guess no one likes to feel misrepresented. Polly Cooper I am sorry you had such an awful time – it sounds as if there was very little compassion for your predicament then and not much now from the writer of this blog either… No doubt such injustices will continue whoever is in government, though I like to think that compassion and social justice underpins much of Green Party Policy…


      3. I run groups that support people who are ill,disabled and claiming benefits. Many of my blogs on this site are about how unfairly ill and disabled people are being treated, and I am ill and disabled myself. I have written supportive articles about claiming ESA, appeals and so on. I put a lot of time and effort into being compassionate.

        And Polly had misrepresented the labour party, claiming they introduced austerity, amongst other things, which is untrue. My response was polite and honest. .

        You claim you are disappointed in the comments here, then behave no better by taking a cheap shot.


  23. Whilst the Holocaust took place, [false]
    German army comrades were also busy establishing bird sanctuaries, nature walks and planting trees. [true]
    The Nazis conducted horrific experiments on men, women and children [false]
    but at the same time, they banned medical experiments on animals. [true]
    The Nazi perpetrators of crimes of unimaginable brutality and horror against fellow human beings [false]
    also advocated conservation, vegetarianism, homeopathic healthcare, organic agriculture and forest preservation. [true]
    It’s a myth that environmentalism and ecological concern go hand in hand with a concomitant respect and concern for the well-being of all people, too. [debatable]

    Green logic is leftist logic
    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment


    1. Thanks for at least acknowledging the point I made. ‘concern go hand in hand with a concomitant respect and concern for the well-being of all people, too. [debatable]’ Well no, the Nazis demonstrated the point well, hence my use of them as an example of how environmentalism does not in itself guarantee social justice, and the well-being of people. There’s not really anything to debate there. You seem to be denying that Holocaust took place, yet it was witnessed on an international level, and the UN formulated the declaration of human rights in response to those atrocities…

      Whilst I agree with your last comment in that it may well provide an opportunity, it doesn’t follow that it will be taken as such an opportunity. You would think absolute poverty, as shamefully widespread as it is, and human suffering would also be construed as such an ‘opportunity’, yet it isn’t, sadly. And there ARE sufficient resources to address poverty and alleviate much suffering.

      Leftist logic? Not necessarily. Again, the Nazis were not considered anywhere near left on the political spectrum, yet they were ‘greens’. And that reiterates the points I actually made.


  24. Thank you for blocking me . I simply pointed out that your article was opinion based and not factual evidence based. I was neither rude, insulting nor bullying. What I asked you was for three independent verifiable reports to confirm your assertion that the Greens are linked to the far right and a eugenics programme. Again, without wishing to be labelled as a bully , I find your comments to be incredulous. You spout opinion as if it is fact. You have a far reaching audience so if you want to be taken seriously may I suggest you take a leaf out of Naomi Wolf’s book and behave like a responsible journalist and not some reactionary banshee screaming from the rooftops that the Greens have a sinister agenda .



    1. I block people on Facebook who are either abusive, or when it becomes clear that they have no intention of genuine discussion and debate.

      That’s twice I have had to block you, Laura, I haven’t forgotten the first time either.

      I am not a ‘journalist’, I am a campaigner and blogger. And thanks for the perfunctory insult, as usual. You haven’t actually read the article and grasped what I said, so I can’t respond to your wildly, knee-jerking comments.

      Take a look at the threats from your peers on this page before you chuck out the label ‘reactionary screaming banshee’, that way you won’t look like a complete hypocrit and someone who endorses intimidation, threats and nasty bullying


  25. Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
    Kittysjones here attacks the idea that the Greens are a left-wing party, showing the strong basis of much of Nazi ideology in environmentalism. She also shows how the Greens, when in power in Brighton and Hove council, worked with the parties of the Right to introduce policies that made conditions worse for the poor and the working class.

    This is controversial stuff, but it needs to be said. I’ve heard it from others. A friend of mine also has the same views, and genuine Fascists have tried to infiltrate the Green movement. Back in the 1990s the anarchist publisher, AK Press, published a pamphlet by two German comrades detailing the way Neo-Nazi organisations were attempting to enter and take over the environmental movement. The American Anarchist thinker, Murray Bookchin, for example, walked out of a German environmentalist conference when Rolf Bahro, a former East German dissident, announced that ‘ We need a Green Adolf’. When Rudolf Hess died in the same decade, his funeral was disrupted by Neo-Nazi biker gangs, who took the occasion to declare their manifesto, which included concern for the environment. Nazism was based partly on the ‘blut und boden’ views of early German scientists, such as Goethe, who believed that the natural environment also affected the biological character of the humans who lived there. Hence the Nazis launched vast projects to return parts of Germany and conquered nations like Poland to primeval wilderness, in order to recreate the environment that they believed had spawned the primeval Germanic tribes that they idealised. In his Table Talk, Hitler discusses the necessity of finding a replacement for oil and for establishing wind and tidal power.

    This does not mean, of course, that there is anything intrinsically Fascistic about a desire to preserve the natural environment in and of itself. Many of the early 19th century socialists were keen to preserve the beauty of wilderness and country areas for the working people, who actually lived there, rather than the aristocracy who owned it. The National Trust was originally set up with precisely this in mind, but its aims were subverted as it was taken over by members of the upper classes, until it reflected their concerns of preserving their heritage, such as stately homes and country houses. Indeed, leading members of the National Trust were deeply concerned to keep the hoi polloi out of areas of unspoilt natural beauty.

    In Germany, the Green movement has a dual nature. In most of Germany it’s actually very left-wing. One of its leaders was the lawyer for the Badder-Meinhof gang, the 1970s Communist terrorists. In Bavaria, however, the movement is more Right-wing.

    Where I differ from the article is on the subject of Dave Cameron. I don’t honestly think he has any Green credentials at all. Yes, he made a show of announcing his support for environmentalism when campaigning, and declared that his would be the ‘Greenest’ government of all. That soon went after he took office, along with the windmill on his roof. It was all a piece of radical rhetoric and propaganda, like the stuff about ring-fencing money for and not privatising the Health Service. He lied, and the policies were discarded as soon as they had served their purpose. The Tories have always been concerned to trash the environment, and nothing has changed that.


    1. Thanks Beastrabban. You always write such brilliant summaries that add analysis and important points of relevance and interest. The meme was by Rob Livingstone, and the point it makes is simply that splitting the left wing vote amongst the fringe groups gives us another Tory government. That’s how I interpreted it. Cameron did make claims regarding green policies, but we know that never happened.


  26. Well, you heard it here, folks. The Labour party think environmentalism is Nazi ideology. The Labour Party are anti-environment. You read the same article as me? Labour REJECT environmental concern. 😉

    Sorry, some of us want to reduce global warming, and your reductio ad hitlerum attacks won’t affect those of us who embrace logical thought and critical thinking. And as more and more people embrace logical and reason, more people will abandon the warmongering corporatists (bailing out banks and introducing benefit sanctions is hardly socialism) and join the Green Party.

    And despite what you think, the Green Party are democratic. Every policy is decided democratically by all members in Conference, not by some Policies Committee.


    1. The labour party didn’t write this, I did. Labour don’t reject environmental concern… you think what you are doing is critical thinking??? Ha ha ha ha Is that why you talk in tired propaganda cliches? The green party are democratic? The comments posted by greens on this page are nothing to do with democracy, and more to do with lies about Labour, threats, bullying, demands. The greens are more like a cult of thugs than a political party. There are probably 2 genuine comments that engage with the issues in the article. The rest of the comments are about attacking Labour with lies or attacking me. The greens throw out lie after lie about Labour, rather than attacking Tories, but cannot take any critical analysis themselves without resorting to personal attacks and demands for the removal of my post. I’ve had abuse on twitter and Facebook as well, and I will be publishing the comments your membership have made.

      And usual lies. Benefit sanctions have been around since the inception of the welfare state. WE have always had them, the welfare reform act under the TORIES made them an intrinsic part of ‘conditionality’ processes. See? Greens spend all their time attacking and LYING about the Labour Party, rather than attacking the Tories, and you claim to care about people? You’d sooner attack a disabled blogger than get off your arse and do the right thing: fight the real enemy of the poor and vulnerable. That’s the Tories, btw, and not me.

      As for enticing voters, well you’ve lost 10 so far because of your membership’s behaviour towards me on this page, on facebook and on twitter.


  27. This is a really poorly written article. The evidence for this is in the responses to it. You may claim that you did not intend to say the Greens are Nazis, but it is a very weak argument to say that you did not imply it, it is just what people infer. You may have had an abusive response, but surely at least at some point you could acknowledge that it was not your intention to offend. If you hit someone and then they hit you back, is it reasonable for you to say ” look, see how violent they are”. I don’t condone abuse, but neither do I condone what someone does to bring about such abuse. This was very much ‘negative campaigning’, and for me has undone much of your good work in highlighting the reasons for voting Labour. If you are as focussed on the plight of the vulnerable as you claim then you would not have created such division in what ostensibly are your own ranks.


    1. You just did condone abuse, bullying, threats and harassment. I suggest you take a closer look at the thread here. I write a critical piece, but that does not invite or excuse the behaviour I have witnessed. And I have been bullied by green supporters LONG before I wrote this article, in fact it’s been for the past 2 years Ian, and it’s the first critical piece I have written regarding the greens.

      The ‘evidence’ is in discussion of the article and a critique of that, not from bullying green supporters, surely. Explain what you mean by ‘poorly written’ and perhaps we can make some progress Ian. Until then, I have yet to see anyone actually engage with the issues raised in the article.

      The point I made about the nazis is that their environmentalism did not l come with any social justice and equality principles, I was challenging the assumption that being environmentally aware means you respect all life, and that being green in itself does not make you ‘left wing’.

      I am perfectly at liberty to make that point, it is not libelous, nor is it particularly offensive. So don’t make excuses for the thugs delivering threats and abuse. There is NO excuse for it.

      The division was not created by me. As I said, I have been bullied for two years by greens, they lie about labour, smear and the division is because greens prefer fighting labour and disabled bloggers like me, rather than attacking the tories.


      1. The bullying was witnessed by green supporters who are friends on facebook. Ex green supporters now. 2 other bloggers have reported about the abuse in articles too, today. So don’t trivialise it. This IS probably libelous

        Henry Worthington 2h
        Thought you should know that the following has been posted about you on facebook today (not my page i should add) But a facebook user and activist with a host of contacts across Britain, all of whom will now have read this :
        “And the ‘spook of the year award’ goes to Sue Jones (below). She hosts a blog under the name of ‘kittysjones’ which she uses to disemminate fabrications against organisations on the left. She appears to being ‘run’ by Scotland Yard’s Confidential Intelligence Unit. Remember her role is to collect information about you and to spread lies and plant false stories about the British left, as can be seen in her latest blog entry. Now she’s been ‘outed’ her capacity to do harm will soon thankfully be over – hope she spent her ’30 pieces’ wisely


  28. This article beggars beleif is practically libelous and poor kitty can’t cope with the barage of comments from the green supporters she has practically called Nazis! wake up kitty join the real world, stop idolizing your leader and labor like the nazi’s did hitler, your as bad as you make us out to be!


    1. Libelous? Don’t make me laugh! I have at no point called greens nazis, you need to learn to read what I actually wrote, instead of making things up.

      I am entitled to write critical pieces without being threatened and bullied. Though it’s what I have come to expect from greens. I have had 2 years of it. Pretty disgusting, condoning bullying. And pathetic. The ‘barrage’ of threats indicates you are a party that doesn’t take criticism and can’t respond civilly and rationally. You’ve lost a few supporters because of the threats made on this thread, and nasty nature of the comments. There isn’t a single quotable comment in the article that says greens are nazis, so your claim of what I said and justification of the harassment is tosh and deplorable. No excuses, you’re a bunch of bullies. The article has clearly touched a raw nerve, too.


  29. Even the image you have created is extremely insulting. To try and say that labor is the only left leaning party is absurd. You just pulling the stops out in lies and offensiveness and you think people will be won back to labor. You as small minded as most of our current politicians. the image you have created of david cameron “in green” is to try and say that the greens are like the conservatives perhaps ? Do you have insults left for the green party and the closest party to your own ? If labor is going to have a chance in hell it’s going to be in an aliance with the greens in yet another coalition!


    1. The greens have made it clear that they have no intention of working with Labour for at least the past 2 years. As for ‘lies and offensiveness’, there are no lies in the article at all. If the greens are offended by critical commentary such as this, it doesn’t bode well for party transparency and accountability. Or democratic engagement.

      The image makes the point that if the left wing vote is split amongst the fringe parties, the Tories will be in Office another 5 years. That’s not a lie, or speculation: It’s the simple truth.

      Thanks for offering your personal opinion of me. But it says rather more about you than it does of me


  30. I think the problem does not lie solely with the Green Party, but with all parties. Each has its origins in one social class or another. Whereas class was once clearly defined for generations by virtue of birth, the thatcher years gave us a period of upward mobility within society, and this had an effect on political beliefs. As people moved up to another class they embraced its political policies. Strangely, now we have a period of downward mobility, we do not appear to have the same effect. People are hanging on to the political beliefs of the class they came from.
    The rise of political parties was dictated largely by the size of its class. In order to survive each political party has had to embrace, or appear to embrace, the values of other classes as a means to grow. Basically, the party political system does not work any more as they are no longer individual or significantly different from each other. This should have been a good thing as it could have resulted in real progress being made to benefit all in society. Unfortunately it is all smoking mirrors in a bid to return the elite class to their position of overall control. As we squabble with each other about who the real bogey man is, each party claiming that votes for any party other than them will lead to the wrong party winning, we allow the divide an conquer strategy to succeed. We all saw what tactical voting did for this country in 2010, what voting for the lesser of two evils did. We obviously haven’t learned any lessons from it as it looks likely that the same is going to happen in 2015, regardless of policies or ideologies.


    1. ‘We all saw what tactical voting did for this country in 2010,’. It was the fact that many on the left didn’t vote that earned us what we now have. Since we don’t have an alternative to an intelligent use of a vote – the revolution from the sofa hasn’t materialised – then that’s what we must do. Policies ought to matter, but people don’t seem to be paying much attention to those, as you said, many have gone for the divide and garner cred that way approach.

      For me, THE most important reason to vote is that people are suffering and dying because of the tory policies, that didn’t happen under the last government. I will be voting Labour, for them, because their policy proposals and the fact that they have fought for the human rights for disabled people, have raised the deaths and the cruelty of the current system in parliament time and time again indicates that Labour will support the most vulnerable citizens. I’ve also lobbied labour for the past couple of years, and corresponded with MPs, met up with them to discuss concerns and to question their policy intentions.

      No party is perfect, and above criticism. However, that does not make them ‘allthesame’, and it’s down to each of us to research, inform ourselves and make an intelligent decision next year. If we don’t get shot of the tories, we have no chance of changing anything for the better. For me, that’s the starting point.


  31. Sorry Kitty but this is nonsense on so many levels I don’t know where to start..

    Firstly the basic Malthusian idea of more population = fewer resources is just logic and such an obvious truism that it barely warrants discussion …there are so many examples of this recorded in both nature and Human history it’s difficult to see how you can claim this is anything but true…please feel free to find me a single example in nature where a species that has exceeded its niches carrying capacity hadn’t experienced a catastrophic population crash? Go on just one?

    Sadly for your position it’s not politics but science, in the case above…do you believe in global warming or are you a denier cos this is the sort of nonsense the deniers use to back up their arguments?

    Also Trying to equate the Green movement with fascism is frankly ridiculous too..your evidence? A couple of anecdotes from 1930’s germany .poor logic and so transparent it’s laughable !

    And as for Labour being socialist..don’t make me laugh..socislism died in the party when John Smith did… Can’t imagine him ever saying he was ‘intensely relaxed about the very rich’ can you?? Why are Labour regurgitating the right wing austerity / defecit line which we know is rubbish eh? The greens are standing up and saying this is nonsense. and this along with a lot of other examples leads me to believe they’re the ONLY socialist party left in the UK (apart from other tiny ones like the TUSC )

    Sadly Kitty no one buys this sort of hysteria …if Labour want my vote back (and I have voted Labour my entire life) then THEY need to ditch the neo liberal tendencies .


    1. I can assure you I am not “hysterical.” The article contains links that evidence my main points, and I use rational debate, not insults. The whole Malthus idea of scarce resources is also adopted by UKIP, to justify their anti-immigration stance. Some of your members have denied that Green philosophy is informed by Malthusian ideas.

      In forming his dark forecast Malthus failed to take several factors into consideration. The industrial revolution transformed the very nature of Western society, so that his principles, which assume that agriculture forms the center of the economy, lost their validity by mid-nineteenth century. Focusing exclusively on the birth rates of economically thriving communities, he failed to consider that part of his projected “population explosion” would come from a reduction in death rates. This oversight throws Malthus’s theories into disarray. An increase in the elderly population would not have significant repercussions in the labor market. Essentially, wages would not fall to the extent that Malthus originally predicted. In an era where children entered the work force at an early age, an increase in birth rates would have more profound implications than a decrease in deaths.

      A more forgivable mistake by Malthus involves his failure to anticipate the growth of technology. The advancements made in agricultural science allowed farmers to make greater use of their lands. The development of effective contraception also made “restraint” a non-issue in terms of checking population growth. Because of these scientific breakthroughs the theories of Malthus have had little relevance in regards to Western society. Many underdeveloped nations, however, never adopted improved farming techniques or new methods of contraception. The results of this failure have mirrored Malthusian predictions. So there’s some truth, but it’s not an entire truth in Malthus’s predictions. It is social policies that have shaped population size, rather than the availability resources, to some degree, also, but people overlook that pretty often.

      WE – the UK – are the example that escaped Malthus’s predictions.

      I also pointed to how Malthus’s ideas were used to formulate punitive social policies that were directed at the poor – the Poor Law being one consequence, the eugenics movement being another, because Malthus informed the dominant paradigm which entailed laissez faire, competitive individualism, and social Darwinist notions of ‘survival of the fittest’. This was a part of our social history, rather than ‘hysteria’. You can research this easily enough. But I studied social administration and history, so have a background knowledge of it.

      I am not a global warming denier. I live as green a lifestyle as I possibly can, and vote Labour.

      You missed the point I raised about the Nazis environmentalism, and the tension between that and notions of social justice and equality, clearly. My point there was that environmentalism does not necessarily ensure ethics, social justice or equality. It’s a valid point, and I did not ‘equate’ greens with Nazism’, I pointed out that the Nazis were also green, type in google ‘blood and soil’ and have a read about it. Again, not ‘hysteria’ but facts. The evidence is cited.

      Labour are not pro-austerity and never have been. Miliband established the international ANTI- austerity alliance in 2012, and has turned up at anti-austerity protests. Yet the greens perpetuate the same old lies about Labour, over and over. Criticism is one thing, lies and propaganda are another and the greens need to learn the difference to earn any credibility.


      So your claim that Labour are ‘regurgitating right wing rubbish’ is rubbish. If green policies are so good, why does the green party engage in negative campaigning strategies such as lying and smearing the Labour Party, and why do the greens also viciously attack anyone who criticises them? I’ve been threatened, bullied and abused for simply writing a critical article. It’s about time your party learned to engage democratically in debate instead of behaving like a mob of thugs.

      As for ‘no-one buys this hysteria’, well actually people read and make up their own minds. The information in the article is sound and true, it can be researched easily enough. The Nazis were environmentalists, and they didn’t practice equality and social justice. Few people would disagree with that, though one response on this thread was from a green Holocaust denier….always one…

      The only thing the greens are ‘standing up for’ is lies, smearing and attacking Labour instead of fighting the Tories, and bullying and threatening disabled disability activist bloggers.

      Finally, since you seem so unaware of Labour’s policies, here are the key ones to date. They don’t look ‘neoliberal’ to me:

      Here is the first stage of Labours’ costed and evidence-based plan to rebuild the UK:

      1. Labour pledge to build 200,000 by 2020, focusing on social housing.

      2. Labour pledged to create a State-Owned Rail Company that would compete and win back Rail Franchises.

      3. Labour vow to cut business rates for small firms.

      4. Labour vowed to introduce an increased Bankers’ Bonus Tax if they win in 2015.

      5. Labour promised Free Childcare worth £5,000 a year for working parents who had children aged 3&4.

      6. Labour committed to Sacking ATOS, Serco and G4S if they win the election.

      7. Ed Miliband promised to repeal the Bedroom Tax.

      8. Ed Balls pledged to reverse the Pension Tax relief that the Tories gifted to millionaires.

      9. Labour promised to reverse the Tory Tax cut for Hedge Funds.

      10. Labour pledged they will create 200,000 Apprenticeships

      11. Ed Miliband vowed to increase the fine levied on firms not paying the Minimum Wage by 1000% to £50,000.

      12. Labour are to introduce a new Disability Hate Crime Prevention Law.

      13. Labour would freeze gas and electricity bills for every home and business in the UK for at least 20 months, the big energy firms would be split up and governed by a new tougher regulator to end overcharging.

      14. Voting age to be lowered to 16.

      15. NHS to be re-nationalised.

      16. Miliband also said that any private company that does not meet the needs of the public will be brought under state control.

      17. Labour will ban exploitative zero hour contracts.

      18. Labour have pledged to introduce a living wage.

      19. Labour have pledged to reverse the £107,000 tax break that the Tories have given to the millionaires.

      20. Labour will reintroduce the 50p tax.

      21. Labour will repeal clause 119.

      22. Labour will introduce a law making Private Companies subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

      23. Labour will introduce a Mansion Tax on properties worth more than £2 million

      24. Labour will make up the difference to the value in the minimum wage is restored, reversing the Tory cut of 5%.

      25. Labour will halt Michael Gove’s Free School Expansion Programme.

      26. Labour will abolish the Tory ban on Local Education Authorities opening State Schools once more.

      27. Labour will scrap George Osborne’s “Shares for Rights” scheme that has opened up a tax loophole of £1 billion .

      28. Labour will launch a full public inquiry into blacklisting.

      29. Labour will ensure Water Companies place the poorest households on a Social Tariff that makes it easier for them to pay their Water Bills.

      30. Labour will double the tax duty on Pay Day Lenders and will use the additional £13,000,000 that raises to help foster more Credit Unions.

      31. Labour will impose a cap on the cost of credit, setting a limit at which Pay Day Lenders can charge borrowers.

      32. Labour will regulate food labelling to simplify pricing so that Supermarkets cannot con customers.

      33. Labour plan to introduce a Bill that would ban Recruitment Consultancy firms from only hiring abroad & ban firms from paying temporary workers less than permanent staff.

      34. Labour would set up a Financial Crime Unit, with increased staffing, in the Serious Fraud Office to enable the SFO to pursue bankers who break the law.

      35. Labour will break up the banks, separating retail banking from investment banking.

      36. Labour will scrap Police Commissioners.

      37. Labour will introduce a Forces & Veterans Bill of Rights to build upon the Military Covenant.

      38. As a minimum measure, Labour will at least cut Tuition Fees by 33%.

      39. Labour will introduce measures to prevent corporate tax avoidance.

      40. Labour will also increase the Bank Levy by £800m a year.

      41. Labour will scrap the Profit Tax Cut (Corporation Tax) that George Osborne has already announced for 2015.

      42. Labour will scrap Cameron’s “Gagging” Act.

      43. Labour will ensure all MPs will be banned from receiving any income from corporations after 2015.

      44. Labour will tackle the abuse and exploitation of migrant labour that undercuts wages.

      45. Labour will extend their 2002 public interest test to protect us from exploitative multinational takeovers.

      46. Labour will end unpaid workfare

      47. Labour have pledged to scrap sanction targets.


      1. Amazing . You give a lengthy reply to this person in which you explain your ideas and cite some evidence – but when I asked you to do this you blocked me and then insulted me by calling me abusive and a raver. It’s a shame indeed that you could not have afforded me the same courtesy.


      2. You made personal comments that were nasty, and you struck me as someone who wasn’t interested in debate, but more up for disrupting and being insulting…. It’s the way you came across. If I got you wrong, I’ll apologise, but in my defence, you did refer to me as a ‘shrieking banshee’ don’t forget 🙂 And on FB you were disruptive and offensive also.

        Anyway, I have posted at length in several places responses and information that will cover what you asked. I responded to this person because despite the occasional small insult, he did engage and cited the issues that he had a problem with in the piece, at least.


      3. That is an impressive list indeed, which I fully welcome. However, I fear it will never be realised – pragmatism will kill it, lack of funding, treading on important toes etc. Anyway, many of these items are there because the questions have been raised by green thinkers. The Green Party aims to get Green stuff done. I for one don’t care who does it, but, by voting Green Party we already have made many members of other parties think and also act green – if only to save their votes. Job well done 🙂


      4. The policies have been carefully costed and evidenced. Miliband promised not to pledge anything he may not be able to deliver, hence the modest list thus far.

        As for ‘treading on toes’…well what do you think the lies, smears and personal attacks in the media have been about?? The establishment see Miliband as the biggest threat to the status quo that we’ve seen in decades. He has been taken seriously.

        I live as greenly as possible. and vote Labour. But I always have.The policies are not because of Green thinkers per se, either. The policies are at least partly a response to social need, and unfortunately about adressing the damage the coalition have inflicted on our society. Though I am sure there’s scope for Green and Labour party cooperation.

        For me, there’s also the pressing issue of getting the Tories out, that has to be our main concern, because unless that happens, there won’t be anything left to fight for, nor will there be scope for positive change to happen. As you know, Labour have the greater chance of defeating the Tories, and I would hope that many Greens see this as an opportunity to tactically vote for the intelligent and most viable option here, electorally speaking, for the sake of everyone and see that as our starting point. Having strictly partisan principles doesn’t help the 1,000s suffering and dying under the current government. And actually, having strictly partisan principles to that extent isn’t very socialist either , in that it isn’t for a common, cooperative good 🙂


    2. Here are more, at a glance. Now show your peers and ask them to stop lying about Labour’s policies, and tell them that fighting the Tories would go down better, and that bullying and threatening activists isn’t going down very well amongst some of the more decent greens: you are losing support as a consequence of your negative campaigning strategies, which are visible on here, and all over facebook and twitter…

      Labour’s policies at a glance:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s