Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Green Party are almost as impoverished as me, and their HQ is overcrowded, draughty and generally crap. They definately need to move to a better space, but seeing as we don't take donations from corporate policy makers, we have to make do with subscriptions, and they don't stretch to rent for swanky HQ buildings.

You'll be proud to know I just had a read of the Green Party's website. Very convincing, in a rose coloured sort of way.


I was especially keen to find out what the party thinks about population growth. It seems to suggest the number of children one chooses is 'personal choice'. But then dances around the issue of 'too many people' and 'overcrowded, overstretched planet'.


You've four children, which is your free choice wholeheartedly supported by your party. Is there a conversation to be had about how many is too many?

Were Labour or the Tories faced with such an issue they'd go and 'borrow' a pile of cash from persons unstated who live outside the UK. That's far more sleazy but requires real journalism which the Metro and its parent, the Standard Evening don't do.


Maurice, do you know Louisa?

Maurice - I am finding it very hard to ignore you rantings particularly when you train them in the same directions every time. CWALD hasn't done anything to you so why must you keep attacking her? I find it really distasteful. For such a 'traditionalist' you lack chivalry instead you're more akin to amisogynist.


Get a life, get an interest, for **** sake and rejoice! You remind me of Alf Garnet character who has forgotten to take prozac. Even if CWALD doesn't object to what you say I do.





Maurice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You'll be proud to know I just had a read of the

> Green Party's website. Very convincing, in a rose

> coloured sort of way.

>

> I was especially keen to find out what the party

> thinks about population growth. It seems to

> suggest the number of children one chooses is

> 'personal choice'. But then dances around the

> issue of 'too many people' and 'overcrowded,

> overstretched planet'.

>

> You've four children, which is your free choice

> wholeheartedly supported by your party. Is there

> a conversation to be had about how many is too

> many?

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Green Party are almost as impoverished as me,

> and their HQ is overcrowded, draughty and

> generally crap. They definately need to move to a

> better space, but seeing as we don't take

> donations from corporate policy makers, we have to

> make do with subscriptions, and they don't stretch

> to rent for swanky HQ buildings.


What about a large marquee - in a field - in the countryside - with wind-up telephones and holes in the ground to poo in? That would be quite environmentally friendly, I do believe.

Dom - but the Green Party like to promote localism, so all that travelling to and from the field would have to be a no no.


Downsouth - Thank you for your gallant rescue, but I did accuse Mr Mo of having Asperger's, so I suppose he has some excuse to get personal.

I think he's just like one of those shy little boys in the playground who can't tell you that they have a crush on you, so they run up and pull your hair or push you or something. Only problem with that though, is that girls like me lacked the sensitivity to suss this out and beat the crap out of them instead.

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dom - but the Green Party like to promote

> localism, so all that travelling to and from the

> field would have to be a no no.

>

> Downsouth - Thank you for your gallant rescue, but

> I did accuse Mr Mo of having Asperger's, so I

> suppose he has some excuse to get personal.

> I think he's just like one of those shy little

> boys in the playground who can't tell you that

> they have a crush on you, so they run up and pull

> your hair or push you or something. Only problem

> with that though, is that girls like me lacked the

> sensitivity to suss this out and beat the crap out

> of them instead.


Hyde Parke? St James's? Dulwich Park? When I said 'field' I meant green space generally so am happy to accept the above locations. I mean, there is a city-farm at Vauxhall within spitting distance of the MI6 building (it's true - I used to go there at lunch when I worked locally and would speak to the horses, pigs and wildfowl).


Anyway CWALD, I have a crush on you too, but don't want to pull your pigtails as that would be crewell!!!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...