Green Party goes into coalition with Lib Dems and Tories in London.

[Paul Calf]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-greens-lib-dems-alliance-london-assembly-b935170.html

So yeah, fuck them.

[Fambo Number Mive]

I see Shaun Bailey will be charing the Economy and Police and Crime Committes

[king_tubby]

That's not actually how it is though, is it?

[pancreas]

Yeah, I can't quite work out what's going on, but it's clearly not about everyone becoming tories. It's about getting a committee structure up and running, and Labour somehow—one guesses because Kieth and/or Sadiq are fucking around—are shitting in the punch bowl.

[olliebean]

Yes, seems to be more a case of everyone wanting to cooperate apart from Labour. It's because of this sort of shit that I don't hold out much hope of a progressive alliance, and therefore, of another non-Tory government in my lifetime.

[Pijlstaart]

Shaun Berry you goddamned hither-thither, you goddamned mutant, if you ain't voting for labour then you ain't goddamned labour! Why aren't you sucking blood-milk from my plurality tit you little freak, you goddamned frankenstein?! Help mummy dig tunnels under the river with those goddamned mole paws you fucking aberrance, get in the fucking tunnel, mummy should've resorbed you in the goddamned womb, then she'd be the biggest!

[ZoyzaSorris]

The way labour is going a Tory-lib dem-green alliance might actually be the more progressive alternative

[olliebean]

Tories are only pretending to be progressive, remember.

[Paul Calf]

Oops.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Yes, seems to be more a case of everyone wanting to cooperate apart from Labour. It's because of this sort of shit that I don't hold out much hope of a progressive alliance, and therefore, of another non-Tory government in my lifetime.

The Lib Dems aren't a progressive party and so this alliance is fictional and not based on any workable route.

Last time the Lib dems got to choose between a progressive alliance and propping up the Tories they chose the latter, paving the way for the situation you are now despairing about.

[Blumf]

Wasn't Labour at the time rejecting any thought of a coalition with the LDs?

[BlodwynPig]

Wasn't Labour at the time rejecting any thought of a coalition with the LDs?

Yes, the usual pompousness that has seen them isolated and despised.

[Pinball]

It looks like even the Greens will mine any seam for power.

[Buelligan]

If you want to save the planet, I suppose, in extremis, it might prove necessary.

[SOMK]

Squashing a guide dog as I double park my Land Rover, swanning through picket lines at the university, I march with destiny in my feet, skipping the queue for the photocopier wearing a t-shirt with my own face on it, "excuse me I'm saving the planet!"

[Blinder Data]

Wasn't Labour at the time rejecting any thought of a coalition with the LDs?

No - Labour made overtures but the Lib Dems wanted Gordon Brown to resign for a new leader. It was never going to happen. Clegg knew the Tories were his ticket into government.

[Buelligan]

Squashing a guide dog as I double park my Land Rover, swanning through picket lines at the university, I march with destiny in my feet, skipping the queue for the photocopier wearing a t-shirt with my own face on it, "excuse me I'm saving the planet!"

What are all the other people in this story doing?  Trot hunting?  Chatting with their focus groups?  Thinking about an affordable home on every btl innercity development?  And no one hears the trees falling.

[sevendaughters]

Having lived in Middle England for a bit, I can say that Green in some places has a conservative character, and is more concerned with what is not to be built in their back yard.

[Buelligan]

It does.  And so does every (almost every) other colour on the political spectrum.  TBH, it's pretty normal to care about what gets built in your back yard.

[sevendaughters]

It does.  And so does every (almost every) other colour on the political spectrum.  TBH, it's pretty normal to care about what gets built in your back yard.

Indeed, but the not building of lower-cost homes as primary motivator for being Green says...something...to me (they're Tories).

[Buelligan]

Don't think preventing the building of lower cost homes is in the Green manifesto (not that I've read it).  Khan promised affordable housing for London as a priority but my understanding is, the amount of genuinely affordable homes (whatever that may mean) built during his last tenure was far below that promised.

[sevendaughters]

Don't think preventing the building of lower cost homes is in the Green manifesto (not that I've read it).  Khan promised affordable housing for London as a priority but my understanding is, the amount of genuinely affordable homes (whatever that may mean) built during his last tenure was far below that promised.

this was more local politics and it was less 'official' but all the homes in places like Upton Snodsbury, Throckmorton, and Pinvin that had Green banners also had NO! TO HOUSES BEING BUILT ON [some land that I looked up that was just brownfield ex-industry]. it was more the people involved than the politicians, but still, they also change policy in the end.

[Buelligan]

I honestly believe that people should have a say in major changes affecting their immediate environment.  I sincerely believe it.  Too often landowners and developers exploit and destroy places and the locals just have to suck it up, I can't criticise people for objecting to that.  Especially given the way planning is allowed for so many second homes and btl investment schemes.  The lack of decent homes for ordinary people should not be laid at the door of those trying to keep the Earth viable and beautiful for everyone, not whilst that is going on.

ETA  And there are many brownfield sites that have become valuable habitat for plants and animals and a place for humans to find something of nature and wildness too, people need it.  I also believe you shouldn't just plonk down houses without adding to infrastructure - there are a lot of reasons to oppose developments.  The village where I live has many empty properties (old houses) in the centre and the mayor doles out the right to build on beautiful virgin wild land to rich holidaymakers because they want aircon and picture windows and swimming pools.  The village has to build the roads and expand our sewerage treatment and so on to support them.

[bakabaka]

There's a piece of land near us that has a planning application for building sheltered housing for old folk. I like the idea of freeing up larger properties by people who no longer have families moving into smaller, purpose-built places. Especially nice places by a stream and woodland.
But the local residents' association is objecting, saying that they should be build on land that has had buildings on rather than open fields. This would make sense if it weren't for the fact that the area hasn't had any buildings on it since the last factory was demolished in the early 70's. The whole valley was full of chemical works, tanneries and other stinking, poison-producing factories, dumping their toxic waste into the stream since the late 18th century. The reason for the planning application is because the land is finally non-toxic enough[nb]most likely due to an easing of the regulations rather than cleaning of the environment[/nb] to build on again.

So many sides, so few simple solutions...

[Replies From View]

No - Labour made overtures but the Lib Dems wanted Gordon Brown to resign for a new leader. It was never going to happen. Clegg knew the Tories were his ticket into government.

Yep.  Remember Labour were offering AV without a referendum and a referendum on STV, and the Lib Dems said no.

[evilcommiedictator]

I've seen this kind of bullshit here in Australia - The Greens will put forward motions in our Senate, which will get voted down but signal intent, and our Labour will vote against them. When The Greens get some legislation through, "They're voting with LOL NO tOrIeS" for the next six months.
You wanted to play hardball and stop them from chairing on one committee? Well suck it, they're now chairing three.

[sevendaughters]

I honestly believe that people should have a say in major changes affecting their immediate environment.  I sincerely believe it.  Too often landowners and developers exploit and destroy places and the locals just have to suck it up, I can't criticise people for objecting to that.  Especially given the way planning is allowed for so many second homes and btl investment schemes.  The lack of decent homes for ordinary people should not be laid at the door of those trying to keep the Earth viable and beautiful for everyone, not whilst that is going on.

ETA  And there are many brownfield sites that have become valuable habitat for plants and animals and a place for humans to find something of nature and wildness too, people need it.  I also believe you shouldn't just plonk down houses without adding to infrastructure - there are a lot of reasons to oppose developments.  The village where I live has many empty properties (old houses) in the centre and the mayor doles out the right to build on beautiful virgin wild land to rich holidaymakers because they want aircon and picture windows and swimming pools.  The village has to build the roads and expand our sewerage treatment and so on to support them.

I mean fine, I don't necessarily disagree, but you can see in a housing crisis why this might be read as small c conservative to not want less expensive houses near your 4 bedroom spread when you were fine with it being a garage before.

[peanutbutter]

I mean fine, I don't necessarily disagree, but you can see in a housing crisis why this might be read as small c conservative to not want less expensive houses near your 4 bedroom spread when you were fine with it being a garage before.

My concern with the greens would be that they'd be quite opposed to new housing in their largely southern constituencies but to balance it out would be quite supporting of Tory plans to build tons of hastily thrown together shitholes across the "red wall" to garner a younger voting base with little effort to build up a sustainable infrastructure around them.


There's a lot of absolutely horrible towns in Ireland where during the boom years everyone just let fucktons of houses be built around small towns under the assumption the  rest of the amenities would naturally develop around them.

[The Culture Bunker]

There's a lot of absolutely horrible towns in Ireland where during the boom years everyone just let fucktons of houses be built around small towns under the assumption the  rest of the amenities would naturally develop around them.

I wonder if current thinking is that they don't actually need that many amenities anymore, at least in commercial terms: "Everyone shops online now, so no need for shops. And folk can't be arsed with the pub these days..."

Even with schools, there's probably an assumption people are happy to send their kids 10 miles on the bus if needed.

[Buelligan]

What about dealing with all the shit that comes out of these people.  All their bins and recycling.  Fixing their teeth and their covids.  Getting them into and out of where they now are to all the places they want to go?