When Natalie Bennett Got 'Brain Fade' Live On LBC

[ponch]

This has got to be one of the most awkward interviews I've ever heard. Seemed like the greens were making a bit of progress, but no one is going to take you serious if you can't handle 5 minutes with Nick Ferrari. Oof!

http://www.lbc.co.uk/when-natalie-bennett-got-brain-fade-live-on-lbc-105449

 

[Eveleivibe]

I'm gna be voting Labour. I seriously hate Tories. Mind you they're all full of **** promise the earth until they get in....... I wouldn't but for two reasons; people fought for me to have the right to vote n I can't moan if I haven't voted.... And I love a good whinge, find it therapeutic. Hah.

Yep ye got to handle a debate in politics or you're yesterday's dinner.

Evey

 

[Josh]

Earth distances itself from Green Party

It was pretty embarrassing. But in her follow-up interviews on the news, she accepted that she dropped the ball and apologised for it like she was a real human being. You don't often see politicians doing that.

 

[Vurtual]

It was embarrasing, and i've often thought bennet was a bit useless in the media (compared to caronline lucas), but in today's corrupt political/media world that could be seen as a plus point to some - if she was like tony blair and totally at home in the sociopathic world of political media bullshit and would lie to get into power and then ditch the principles and join the dark side, would she be better? (yeah there's probably a middle ground in there somewhere). The greens have got a lot less money to spend on 'PR' and probably tend to have less members in the sort of professions that would be able to play the game as effectively as the incumbents - another good point to me.

One of the problems with our political/media system is how all newcomers must adapt themselves to the system as it is, and in the process end up becoming part of the system, often telling themselves and others that they'll reform it from within (while actually making the system more efficient by providing some sort of safety valve for public discontent (like how the guardian works)). Any party trying to promote ideas outside of the current economic 'consensus' (neoliberalism/blatcherism) has got it all stacked against them - virtually the entire media is behind the corporate system as is (unsurprisingly considering they are corporations (guardian included)) and as soon as anything like socialism or even keynesianism and social democracy is mentioned, the slurs and discrediting starts in the media (the Foot/Benn/Brand method), regardless of the popularity of the poilicies (social democratic policies consistently socre highest in public opinion when separated from the parties)

But criticise the policies not the leader: unlike most parties, the greens are truly democratic in how they make their policies and the leader position isn't the centralised/dictatorial sort the main parties use - the idea being putting your faith in the party wouldn't be putting your faith and hopes in a single person/clique, but in the democratic will of the party which any member can get involved with (you know, democracy) - all the usual bollocks you hear about the importance of 'leadership' i find a bit sinister - what does it mean? ability to do stuff even if you know the population don't want it? and that's a good thing? - we're not voting in a general

In the newsnight interview about it with jennie jones, evan davies actually went into detail the policy that natalie fluffed (housing) and how it was totally feasible and easily paid for in economic terms (even through the lens of establishment toady davis). So the actual policy the fuss was about is a good policy; as are the other economic policies of the party (rail nationalisation, basic income etc).

I'd rather vote in people who fuck up media interviews and forget some numbers on the spot but who's party's policies are right and who might represent the population rather than the elite. (but they would have been better keeping lucas as leader (she didn't want to do it though)

 

[Sammy G]

I agree with many of the Green Party's policies, and in a way I welcome their enhanced media profile, though I agree with a lot of Vurtual's post above.

Two words though: Ralph Nader.

We've already witnessed what the Lib Dems with their (publicly) 'green', cuddly, gay-friendly, minority-friendly approach (forgetting the secret Orange Book neoliberalism) can do to split the vote and condemn us to a Tory government. I just don't think Britain is ready (or maybe even able) to break the centre-right hegemony of the two major parties, and the sad truth is if you don't hold your nose at the ballot box, you'll be holding it harder for the next four years at least.

 

[Vurtual]

I happen to think the left/democracy would probably be better off for more tory government (though i couldn't bring myself to vote for them obviously) - look at how the 'left' lost its way when blair got in cos so many of them ended up supporting/justifying corporate state policies/wars because their team was in office, after they convinced themselves that behind the scenes blair and brown were secretly socialists. Then compare to the relative invigoration of the left (still pathetic) after cameron got in (eg students, ukuncut, occupy and even russel brand).

There's not much point worrying over which neoliberal party gets in when there's no viable option in FPP to vote against neoliberalism (just a slightly nicer version of the same). With our massive wealth and currency we could eliminate any so called debt and easily pay for social democratic levels of public services if the government inched even a small distance away from the econmoic consensus - labour won't do that (they'll still cut, just a bit less (espeically with ed balls, ex goldman sachs employee as chancellor)) - voting for labour means accepting that these cuts need to be done when they don't - to me that is a tory vote.

Even if labour don't get the biggest share of votes, there's a good chance that when you add on the SNP, PLaid and the greens (if they have any after that interview) they will still form the government - and SNP/Plaid/greens have all said they won't support austerity or trident in that situation. I'd much rather an emasculated labour party kept honest by a 'confidence and supply' arrangement than an outright labour majority.

The Nader argument is defeatist and sort of blackmail on the part of the state - look at syriza and podemos - there is always the potential for the people to wake up a bit and ditch/revamp the current system - that's why the bastards have tpo spend so much on owning media corporations to befuddle us from realising it. Shelly's words are as true now as they were after Peterloo:

"Rise like lions from your slumber,
in unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew:
Which in sleep had fallen on you:
Ye are many—they are few!".

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

So painful, got to be a career ender. Got to be able to perform better than that even if you haven't got a clue what the answer to the question is.

 

[Sammy G]

Even if labour don't get the biggest share of votes, there's a good chance that when you add on the SNP, PLaid and the greens (if they have any after that interview) they will still form the government - and SNP/Plaid/greens have all said they won't support austerity or trident.

Best-case scenario, but I can't see there being sufficient SNP / Plaid / whatever MPs in Westminster for that to be a viable option. The Lib Dem vote will obviously collapse, but that still leaves a strong Tory party and an advancing UKIP willing to form a coalition with them.

The Nader argument is defeatist and sort of blackmail on the part of the state - look at syriza and podemos - there is always the potential for the people to wake up a bit and ditch/revamp the current system

Syriza who just won an election on a left-wing platform and are now becoming model neoliberals? :D

I agree that the Nader comparison is to some degree defeatist, but I don't think it's 'blackmail from the state'. It's just pragmatism, pure and simple.

 

[Vurtual]

I've heard several talking heads saying a labour minority government propped up like i said is maybe the most likely scenario (this isn't a very predictable election though) - SNP may well have 40-50 mps according to polls - lots of these will be taken from labour, but they won't help the tories vote.

I don't think you're right about syriza, though that is the definite impression our media is trying to promote - See this article for a different view. There's only so much they can do against the EU/banking mafia (but watch this space... Financer minister Yanis is a pretty formidable economist i reckon).

 

[Sammy G]

It's not just our media promoting that view. Look at the Eurogroup statement they signed, which clearly states this administration will:

“refrain from any rollback of measures and unilateral changes to the policies and structural reforms.”

and:

“work in close agreement with European and international institutions and partners,”

Which we all know means the troika. If that ain't a recipe for neoliberalism at its finest, then call me Tony.

 

[Vurtual]

...have a read of the link in my post

Yet the agreement, as Tsipras has said, cancels the previous Greek government’s planned cuts to pensions, as well as scrapping VAT rises on food and medicine. The reforms Syriza will submit as part of its end of the deal look set to include a massive crackdown on tax evasion and corruption – meaning a shift away from spending cuts towards raising the revenue through taxation.

The Eurogroup statement also includes some flexibility for surpluses to be ‘appropriate’ given economic conditions. In other words, until the Greek economy returns to growth, the punishing targets of the previous government can be eased back – meaning there wouldn’t be as much money to raise as previously. This should free up some cash to tackle Greece’s humanitarian crisis, through Syriza’s promised measures such as free electricity and meal subsidies for the poorest.

And Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has added a very important and under-reported rider: ‘Nobody is going to ask us to impose upon our economy and society measures that we don’t agree with… If the list of reforms is not agreed, this agreement is dead.’

 

[Sammy G]

...have a read of the link in my post

I did, and I responded with snippets of the Eurogroup statement, which clearly contradicts Syriza's claims. In any case, one comment on the article you linked summarises my feelings pretty well:

From the beginning, Syrizia had two choices: accept the Troika mandate and become the new authors of austerity and “reforms” – or take the Grexit route.

They chose the former, counter to their electoral promises, which they knew they couldn’t achieve.

Perhaps there was another choice: to put the “deal” before the Greek voters in a plebiscite, explaining that they oppose it, but don’t have the power to overcome it. At least then, they could have saved their honor and been clean before the people.

In any case, the, a referendum has never been discussed by anyone.

Many, like Walker, suggest that the four-month interim Troika mandate gives Syrizia time to work out a better deal. That is just wrong.

Syrizia was at the height of its power after the general election. It had support throughout Greece, Europe and around the globe. That is gone now as it has simply taken the usual route of electoral politics.

Maybe, after more austerity, the progressive parts of the Syrizia coalition can build a new movement that, in fact, does things differently.

Until then, the Greek people will continue to suffer under the Syrizia apologists, as they did under the Troika directly.

Hopefully, the other anti-austerity movements throughout Europe and around the globe will take note of what not to do.

 

[Vurtual]

I read that comment and thought you might catch it (and the more succinct 'let's give obama a chance too' under it). I agree that they should have just said fuck you to the eu and the euro and gone for it (difficult though this would be with the mafia on their case threatening to crash their economy out of spite), but the greek people seemingly want to stay in the eurozone, so syriza's hands are a bit tied on that score - i had a suspicion that maybe they thought the EU would make that decision for them by being their usual charming austere self, or at least make the greek people more aware of how corrupt the eu system is and allow syriza to then go their own way with the people's backing.

I'm biased cos i want them to succeed, but i think it's too early to dismiss them as having sold out quite yet, for similar reasons as were laid out in the article. Some of this faith comes from having listened to quite a few long lectures by Yanis whatsisface on economics, and he really does know what he's talking about imho (and is an engaging and charismatic speaker - bennet take note). Time will tell i suppose (but i certainly won't take my interpreteation from the bought media, when i can just hear the smug snark in their voices when they're wishing their downfall)

EDIT: This from a less lefty source (reuters) doesn't sound like selling out to me...