Green Party call to ban all commercial game shooting within one year..

[islandgun]

1 hour ago, Houseplant said:

Be careful, the Green Party made in to coalition government over here, albeit within a different political system. Extreme anti-gun, anti-hunting left wingers with a window dressing of environmental issues. 

Good point but not just guns. In Scotland when allied with the SNP they tried to ban ALL fishing here in the Hebrides, commercial and recreational, a death knell for a lot of the villages, luckily it was likened to the clearances and became a no go for the snp. The religion of all things green will see an end to meat eating, farming and oil for all but the party elite

[yickdaz]

15 hours ago, ditchman said:

dont worry about it...................they are nothing but a bunch of deluded idiotic weed smoking idiots

Yes they are and they will never get in power so rollocks to them 

[Bobba]

The influence of the Green Party and Labour does not have to be at National level to screw everything up.

Here in Bristol the previous situation was consolidated with the results of the May 2024 local elections for Councillors 

Conservatives. 7

Green Party    34

Labour            20

Lib Dems         8

The city is going to the dogs as will the Country if this translates to a National level

[udderlyoffroad]

My social medjia this morning is full of more (non-shooting-related doozies) from the Green manifesto; so I opened up the PDF again, and yep...

• Phasing out of nuclear power
• 4 day working week
• Cancel recent fossil fuel licences and introduce (another) carbon tax
• Ban all domestic flights where equivalent train journey is under 3 hrs
• Frequent flier levy, 'kerosene' subject to fuel duty
• All ICE vehicles off the road by 2035, ban on ICE sales by 2027, restoration of the fuel duty escalator, bring in road pricing, 20 mph default limit...

It goes on and on, all a bit some animals are more equal than others for me.  I'm honestly not sure what proportion of the electorate wants to be taxed even more for basics of daily life, let alone making an annual holiday even less affordable.  But I'd put money of on the fact that 95% of people who vote for them haven't read their manifesto.

That's before we get to their immigration policies.

[enfieldspares]

I've already last night had the Green Party folks knock on my door as, I speculate, may have other SD and PW members elsewhere in the UK. Like BOBBA says we've here in Leicestershire two local Green Party councillors and it's one of them that came calling.

These smaller parties tend to move pretty quick. So yes I was able to let them know I wouldn't be supporting them and why.

BASC needs to be also quick off the mark.

It is too late next week or next tomorrow to publish a "BASC Guide to 4 July Manifestos" if that party's canvassers have already been and gone along your street.

Edited June 13 by enfieldspares

[Feltwad]

For me the writing has been on the wall since Hungerford it would now have been different if all organisations had been  under one roof with plenty of clout but no it was  I am alight attitude  I do not shoot game  or rifle  with others I do not shot clays resulting  in a shooters worst enemy was  his fellow shooters. Shooting organisations just like  Hunting looked at it has a bad smell that would go away but now  it is  on the door step and will be gone in the near future  maybe 5 years   SAD

Feltwad

[Houseplant]

I'm so ****** off with the way politics has shifted against hunting and shooting, I've decided to resurrect my UK voting rights. I last lived in a labour stronghold (Exeter), so it may well be futile, but I'm going to do my part.  

[oowee]

15 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The longer term risk is that some halfwit will introduce a system of proportional representation (PR).  This will mean coalitions will become almost essential, and that's when these smaller parties get disproportionate power by doing 'deals' to prop up a larger party.

It is likely that under a PR system - the left would prevail because there are more parties (Labour, Scot Nat, Plaid Cymru, Lib Dem, Green, plus an independant or two and some NI MPs).  There is a distinct risk Starmer will introduce PR to 'lock out' the centre and right.

That's exactly what we need. The current system is not fit for purpose. We need to build consensus. Keep policy on track in the middle. Stop the swings. We might actualy make some progress. The alternative is polarised extreme policy based on popularist nonsense. 

Greens have lots of good sensible policy. Wealth tax. Stopping short haul flights where there is a train. Frequent flier tax. 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

Keep policy on track in the middle.

Coalition does exactly the opposite.  Small fringe parties have to be kept on side, hence 'far' (left or right) things get carried through to appease the minor partners.  Look at Israel where the Ultra Orthodox religious parties prop up the government in return for hard line actions.

I have not heard a single sensible policy from the Greens

Wealth tax - will drive money straight out of the country

Stopping short haul flights - there is no spare capacity on the railways to take over the journeys etc.

We in effect already have a frequent flier tax in the form of airport passenger tax.

We need less taxes on people and businesses, not even more.  Adding more and more taxation is the route of the problem - not the solution.

[udderlyoffroad]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

That's exactly what we need. The current system is not fit for purpose. We need to build consensus. Keep policy on track in the middle. Stop the swings. We might actualy make some progress. The alternative is polarised extreme policy based on popularist nonsense. 

How's that working out in the EU?  Stop the swings?  Will probably make them worse, if PR on the continent is anything to go by.  Also, PR is a wheelie bin fire at local level in the UK.

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

Greens have lots of good sensible policy.

😂  They want to export even more of our carbon emissions and make energy even more unaffordable.  If you thought Brexit was bad, the consequences of this will be abso-bloody-lutely apocalyptic in comparison.

Presumably you're not in favour of their shooting related policies?

 

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Stopping short haul flights - there is no spare capacity on the railways to take over the journeys etc.

Even if there was capacity , and a reliable service, the cost of taking the train is often more than the flight, how does that work ? 

The Greens are stone cold BONKERS , and their 1 MP is one too many.

[oowee]

14 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

How's that working out in the EU?  Stop the swings?  Will probably make them worse, if PR on the continent is anything to go by.  Also, PR is a wheelie bin fire at local level in the UK.

😂  They want to export even more of our carbon emissions and make energy even more unaffordable.  If you thought Brexit was bad, the consequences of this will be abso-bloody-lutely apocalyptic in comparison.

Presumably you're not in favour of their shooting related policies?

 

How would you suggest we build consensus. Our no options voting system does exactly that. No options no progress. 

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Even if there was capacity , and a reliable service, the cost of taking the train is often more than the flight, how does that work ? 

The Greens are stone cold BONKERS , and their 1 MP is one too many.

It works because we subsidise aviation. 

[Zoli 12 guage]

to those singing the praises of PR against the current FPTP, be aware that this will give the left wing a loaded dice in future government as there are far more left wing parties than right wing.

[Genghis]

33 minutes ago, oowee said:

Greens have lots of good sensible policy. Wealth tax. Stopping short haul flights where there is a train. Frequent flier tax. 

I understand that you’re a bit outspoken with your views, but to clarify again the Greens are proposing a total ban on firearms. Surely this should be the one issue that all members of a shooting forum are united in agreement against?

[udderlyoffroad]

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

How would you suggest we build consensus. Our no options voting system does exactly that. No options no progress. 

Why would I want to?  The consensus builder used to be the house of lords, which acted as a reforming second chamber.  Yes, laugh it up, but that was where the consensus was built across the parties, and badly thought out legislation was sent packing back to the HoC.  2 things happened to end this:

1. Starting with Blair, he filled the place with relentless political appointees/useful idiots
2. An avalanche of statutory instruments implementing EU directives, unopposed by either chamber due to lack of parliamentary time due to infighting because of 1.

In any case - the consensus you speak of is referred to as a 'confidence and supply agreement' and is the basis of a Westminster coalition...that document in which N Clegg famously sold out his principals for an AV referendum.

I notice you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again: Are you in favour of the Green's shooting and countryside related policies as discussed on this thread?  

 

31 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Even if there was capacity , and a reliable service, the cost of taking the train is often more than the flight, how does that work ? 

I think it's more of a headline-grabbing policy.  Not many journeys actually fall into this category that I can make out, that is the equivalent train journey taking less than 3 hours.  Though this has more to do with the UK's dated rail infrastructure than anything else.  This also presumably won't affect flights to the highlands and islands, as there are few trains north of Fort William...

 

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

It works because we subsidise aviation. 

As opposed to rail which receives no subsidies...right? 

In any case a lack of fuel duty (tax) on aviation fuel isn't a subsidy.  And trains run on red diesel so by your logic, we're subsidising trains too.

Or...whisper it...25kV generated by in the main by fossil fuels.  In fact the cost of electricity in this country is already so high (and will sky rocket if the greens have their way) that one freight operator had to retire their electric locomotives in favour of diesel!

Edited June 13 by udderlyoffroad

[oowee]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Why would I want to?  

I notice you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again: Are you in favour of the Green's shooting and countryside related policies as discussed on this thread?  

Einstein called doing the same thing again and again expecting a different outcome, insanity. 

As a shooter why would I be? 

1 hour ago, Genghis said:

I understand that you’re a bit outspoken with your views, but to clarify again the Greens are proposing a total ban on firearms. Surely this should be the one issue that all members of a shooting forum are united in agreement against?

Surely if that is the case you would expect that to be true. 

 

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

to those singing the praises of PR against the current FPTP, be aware that this will give the left wing a loaded dice in future government as there are far more left wing parties than right wing.

Exactly the case in point. The parliament would better reflect the views of the people. 

 

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

How would you suggest we build consensus. Our no options voting system does exactly that. No options no progress. 

Not with PR, its a road to no where.

 

2 hours ago, oowee said:

It works because we subsidise aviation. 

And we dont subsidise rail, theyve been bailed out more times than I can be bothered to look up.?

 

23 minutes ago, oowee said:

Einstein called doing the same thing again and again expecting a different outcome, insanity. 

Actually , he didnt , its an urban myth.

 

25 minutes ago, oowee said:

Exactly the case in point. The parliament would better reflect the views of the people. 

Really ?
Having a predominantly left wing coalition would NOT reflect the views of the majority, would you say the same thing/support the same view, if the PR coalition were predominantly right wing, anti immigration ?

[oowee]

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Not with PR, its a road to no where.

Really ?
Having a predominantly left wing coalition would NOT reflect the views of the majority, would you say the same thing/support the same view, if the PR coalition were predominantly right wing, anti immigration ?

It's maybe a road to somewhere other than the nowhere we are currently at. So you have no ideas to put forward then? Isn't this typical of voters today. Happy to say what they don't want without any evidence and yet unable to set out a coherent alternative? 

Having a predominantly left wing coalition would reflect the views of the majority if that's what the majority voted for. Currently with PR we might expect, with a fractured Tory party bleeding votes to Reform, a greater number of Reform seats. This in turn might thwart a Labour super majority. 

 

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Einstein called doing the same thing again and again expecting a different outcome, insanity. 

Huh?  We're demonstrably not doing the same thing over and over again.  Westminster is moving to a system with FPTP, but third parties and coalitions will become the norm.  The only reason it isn't currently the case, is because the Lib Dems shot both feet off at the last election with 'head girl' Jo Swinson promising to ignore a referendum result.

But if you truly want my suggestion for consensus based politics, then make the HoL an elected, reforming chamber, with PR if you absolutely must.  HoC remains FPTP.

As an aside, I see a lot of people wanting PR, citing FPTP is only practised elsewhere in Europe in Belarus.  These same people invariably want to abolish the HoL.  I see your Belarus and raise you Hungary as one of the few unicameral legislatures in Europe, and look at what Orban can get through there, nominally with PR.

Perhaps we need a separate thread for constitutional reform, this thread was supposed to be about the Green's (cough) sensible policies including making us all 'professional' pest controllers.

[Gordon R]

The problem with the Green numpties is that their frequent flier tax is the same as Khan's taxing motorists. People just pay the tax and pollution remains the same.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

this thread was supposed to be about the Green's (cough) sensible policies

If it was about the Green's sensible policies it would have ended with the title and a single blank post 🤣

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Huh?  We're demonstrably not doing the same thing over and over again.  Westminster is moving to a system with FPTP, but third parties and coalitions will become the norm.  The only reason it isn't currently the case, is because the Lib Dems shot both feet off at the last election with 'head girl' Jo Swinson promising to ignore a referendum result.

But if you truly want my suggestion for consensus based politics, then make the HoL an elected, reforming chamber, with PR if you absolutely must.  HoC remains FPTP.

As an aside, I see a lot of people wanting PR, citing FPTP is only practised elsewhere in Europe in Belarus.  These same people invariably want to abolish the HoL.  I see your Belarus and raise you Hungary as one of the few unicameral legislatures in Europe, and look at what Orban can get through there, nominally with PR.

Perhaps we need a separate thread for constitutional reform, this thread was supposed to be about the Green's (cough) sensible policies including making us all 'professional' pest controllers.

👍

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If it was about the Green's sensible policies it would have ended with the title and a single blank post 🤣

🤣

Well the good news for us is that there is currently no PR so they will not get a look in. BJ and his beloved are long gone too. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, oowee said:

👍

🤣

Well the good news for us is that there is currently no PR so they will not get a look in. BJ and his beloved are long gone too. 

 

That is true ......... for now .........

[udderlyoffroad]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

Well the good news for us is that there is currently no PR so they will not get a look in. BJ and his beloved are long gone too. 

Ehh?  That's precisely the issue.

They're predicted to get 3 or 4 MPs, who might well be invited to join the 'coalition of chaos', to bolster Starmer's possible slim majority if he doesn't get the 326 MPs needed.  In which case he might offer them some red meat/easy wins to get them on board. Banning things, that only a minority care about, is cheap and easy.  Plaid will definitely get on board with banning those nasty blood sport-ists too, and I doubt Westminster SNP MPs are likely to object if offered the chance to 'turn left' as they enter the chamber.

Hence why BASC has the 'write to your 'prospective parliamentary candidate' campaign going, only I presume they must remain somewhat neutral, so probably can't spell it out in those terms.

[Genghis]

46 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Ehh?  That's precisely the issue.

They're predicted to get 3 or 4 MPs, who might well be invited to join the 'coalition of chaos', to bolster Starmer's possible slim majority if he doesn't get the 326 MPs needed.  In which case he might offer them some red meat/easy wins to get them on board. Banning things, that only a minority care about, is cheap and easy.  Plaid will definitely get on board with banning those nasty blood sport-ists too, and I doubt Westminster SNP MPs are likely to object if offered the chance to 'turn left' as they enter the chamber.

Hence why BASC has the 'write to your 'prospective parliamentary candidate' campaign going, only I presume they must remain somewhat neutral, so probably can't spell it out in those terms.

This explains the situation perfectly.

 

A Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens coalition is one of the possibilities being touted - considered more likely than a Conservative win by the bookies.