[Closed] The Green Party...

Short term-ism

People don't vote Green because people don't Green. The SNP succeeded because folk were willing to vote time and time again. Eventually they looked like they could actually win but that didn't happen between one GE and the next. Of course PR helped as well.

IMHO the same reason why UKIP won't be much of a feature come 2020 - although they've done better than expected, whilst not a single policy party, they are heavily weighted on one policy and it is the major driver behind all their other polices.

The 'big two' saw them coming years ago and sought to nullify them - as soon as it looked like they might be a contender they amended their own policies to include a robust environmental offering, how much they actually do... they don't have to do much, just enough to appease voters enough to not 'waste' their vote on a party that can't win.

I'm probably a prime green voter, but I don't vote for them. I would if there were a relatively secure labour government, as leverage to get a relatively left wing government to enact the policies I want to see.

As it is we have a frankly nasty right wing mob in charge and a vote for the greens won't influence their policy one bit. Voting them out by voting for the biggest alternative is my priority.

See?

Short term-ism

They who have the better celebrities have the largest vote.

I'm a member of the party, agree they have a lot of things that poeple will agree with. I think that a lot of people still think that they are loonie weirdos lol

BigEaredBiker - Member

Why are the Greens not doing better in England & Wales?

FPTP. 3.8% of votes cast gains you 0.15% of MPs rather than the 25 it ought to, and of course deters voters from wasting their vote in the first place- no way to know what share they would get in a more democratic system. Fundamentally 1,134,742 green votes got thrown in the bin

A name change and re brand could work wonders for them. Everyone knows they are pro environmental action. They need to bring their other policies to the forefront to attract more voters.

Because whey seem to think they are a Socialist Workers lite. No thanks, top down planning will never work.

I'd quite like someone to start a pro capitalism green party, then we might start to get somewhere.

Because whey seem to think they are a Socialist Workers lite. No thanks, top down planning will never work.

Watermelons - Green on the outside, red on the inside

An internet that’s free of state or corporate surveillance.

What does this mean?

If the state cannot monitor the internet then how do you prevent it becoming a haven for child pornography and grooming/paedophilia? How to you prevent extremism and violence?

dragon - Member

I'd quite like someone to start a pro capitalism green party, then we might start to get somewhere.

How do you envision that working?

Like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism

Dragon is right, the Greens are too top down.

As part of the libertarian tradition, green libertarians maintain that the government itself is responsible for most environmental degradation, either directly, or by encouraging and protecting politically powerful corporations and other organized interests which degrade, pollute and deplete the natural environment.[citation needed] Therefore, the government should be held accountable to all the same environmental regulations they place on businesses. One problem is that while private corporations or individuals can be sued under the Common Law for damaging the environment, the government protects itself from the same suits. Therefore, green libertarians call for the abolition of sovereign immunity. Increasingly, federal and state law is being amended by lobbyists for those who pollute or extract resources from public lands or waterways so that such actions can no longer be challenged in the courts.

I've always liked this idea.

dragon - Member

I'd quite like someone to start a pro capitalism green party, then we might start to get somewhere.

Well, if you start it I'd probably more inclined to vote for a party that exists to promote libertarian values and smaller government. I believe that in some areas the existing Green Party is like this - I don't think they are all communists in disguise... but I've yet to go to a meeting to check.

An internet that’s free of state or corporate surveillance.

What does this mean?

Just had a very quick flick through their website, they don't really say. At a guess I'd say it means they are against mass survelance and data gathering without a warrant. In a post-Snowdon world I can see a lot of people supporting that.

Yeah, I'd vote for a Green Libertarian party in a heart beat. Both the conservatives and labour are too authoritarian for me and traditional libertarians tend to be too hard in terms of welfare and ignorant of environmental issues.

I'm a green party member but, thanks to our wonderful democracy, haven't yet been able to vote green where I live.

dragon - Member

Because whey seem to think they are a Socialist Workers lite. No thanks, top down planning will never work.

I'd quite like someone to start a pro capitalism green party, then we might start to get somewhere.

Plus, I'm a scientist so it's obv a total non-starter to consider a green vote.

This is the main thing that pisses me off about a lot of green party members, a purge of all the anti-vaxer, homeopathic astro-hippies would make us far more appealing to the general public.

^^^ Also that

^^^ Also that

Quite agree, there seem to be some sensbile people in this thread 😯

Maybe we could infiltrate...

Most people I talk to seem to want many of the things that the Greens are saying they would deliver on - yet not many seem interested in voting for them and think of them as a single issue party.

Theres a gulf between [i]wanting[/i] it and [i]wanting to pay for it[/i]. The better society we could build would take about 40 to 60 years to come to fruition. That means [i]we[/i] would have to pay for it but not really get to experience it - it would be the next generation would get to live it, and would arguably live in that world at less cost to them than it would cost us to create it.

The 'wanting it' isn't unique to the Greens. Frank Fields was tasked with plotting out a route with similar aims for labour to a happier and more equal society and came to the same conclusion - nobody would vote for the start of the journey.

The SNP's clever rouse is to take non of those steps.... but are allowing it to be thought that they would have and could have if it wasn't for that pesky Westminster. The reality is the scottish electorate wouldn't be any easier to persuade to vote and pay either.

It's first past the post innit? When offered the opportunity to change it we politely declined.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Yeah, I'd vote for a Green Libertarian party in a heart beat. Both the conservatives and labour are too authoritarian for me

Authoritarianism is exactly what's required in green government, their most important job is to stop corporations from doing what they want. The only part of the green libertarianism movement that makes any sense to me is full-cost accounting, but they don't seem to have realised that it's actually big-government personified.

(the thing about removing sovereign immunity makes sense, but is very regional and doesn't apply here in the same way. But the underlying premise that governments are the biggest polluters is obvious bobbins and just seems to be standard capitalist redirection, in the same vein as blaming governments for the financial crisis.)

People get principles and politics mixed up They are two completely different things. Politicians appeal to our sense of principles., But principles on their own are often not deliverable in the real world because principles deal with ideals and the real world is not about ideals. Therefore politics is the art of compromise and how you compromise your principles. Unfortunately politicians argue their way to power on the basis of principles therefore that is were the distrust in politicians comes from - in order to get to a position of power the have to promise things they cannot possibly deliver. This is the green Party's downfall and JC's too. Most people can actually see that, although the cannot argue with the principles, we understand those principles are impossible to deliver in the real world.

What most people look for is a balance between what they believe in principle and what is going to impact them personally. Mostly the two things are not the same and most people fall on the side of what benefits them personally at the expense of their principles. That is the nature to the real world. Why would anyone sacrifice their own situation for the benefit of the greater good??

After reading the Econmic Adjustment thread it got me thinking - Why are the Greens not doing better in England & Wales?

Have you read their agricultural policy document?

Have you read their population policy document?

Does it remind you of another political movement?

It doesn't need to be authoritarian, a set of well conceived incentives coupled with good goal setting legislation would go a long way. In the majority of cases the carrot is mightier than the stick and the stick should only be a last resort.

Right I'm off to write a green libertarian manifesto that puts science at its heart. Should be a fun thought exercise.

there is no chance of a right wing pro capitalist green party. simply capitalism is incompatible with green objectives.

Scandanavian countries seem to get this stuff right, not just their politics but organising society in general.
I think we are just a bit thick, succesful mind (British/Anglo Saxons) due to our unsurpassed aggression.

there is no chance of a right wing pro capitalist green party. simply capitalism is incompatible with green objectives.

I'm going to disagree; capitalism does not have to be large psychpathic corporations that put profit above everything else. There are loads of businesses out there that are socially and environmentally responsible and yet, are capitalist in nature.

This view reminds me of how many dismissed Free & Open Source Software as communist 20 years ago, and yet its now how many make their money in software development.

Is it possible that over the next 10 years the Greens could do what the SNP achieved in Scotland?

No the voters are too discerning. Caroline Lucas is much nicer than her rival there though

I used to vote green as green issues are very important to me but I stopped due to the rest of their policies becoming so controlling over other areas, very left wing economics. I have no idea who I would vote for now.

They represent important issues but are let down by shallowness of thinking/policies in core areas as the last election and their manifesto showed all too clearly.

They could be interesting coalition partners for someone though.

Watching Lucas and Rees Mogg trade niceties and laughs on QT last week was refreshing - not that I am suggesting a coalition there!

Scandanavian countries seem to get this stuff right, not just their politics but organising society in general.
I think we are just a bit thick, succesful mind (British/Anglo Saxons) due to our unsurpassed aggression.

I would just blame the French

capitalism does not have to be large psychpathic corporations that put profit above everything else

But no-one has come up with a capitalist system where the large psychopathic corporations don't dominate. Not yet...

I vote for them

On Question time CL seemed quite keen on a coalition of leftish parties to take the Torys, seems a sensible idea.

In countries with proportional representation Greens typically poll 5-8% eg Germany. They get a few MPs but are never close to power.

Greens have one MP / Council. Have you seen the shambles they have made of it in Brighton (my daughter lives there) - uncollected rubbish etc.

Authoritarianism is exactly what's required in green government, their most important job is to stop corporations from doing what they want. The only part of the green libertarianism movement that makes any sense to me is full-cost accounting, but they don't seem to have realised that it's actually big-government personified.

(the thing about removing sovereign immunity makes sense, but is very regional and doesn't apply here in the same way. But the underlying premise that governments are the biggest polluters is obvious bobbins and just seems to be standard capitalist redirection, in the same vein as blaming governments for the financial crisis.)

I don't agree, libertarian values can be used to justify market incentives that discourage pollution.

But no-one has come up with a capitalist system where the large psychopathic corporations don't dominate. Not yet...

Because as of yet, no one has yet listened to centerist or left wing libertarians - for us, it's as Doug Stanhope put it - like repeatedly pointing out food to wilfully blind starving people. Then there are some that really loathe us, because using libertarian values to support ecological aims - offends and undermines the Corbyn voting SWP types.

Can't argue with Stanhope.

I sense sarcasm, but Noam Chomsky makes sense sometimes - although he leans more to the anti-capitalist side.

I don't think Natalie Bennett did them any favours to be honest.

No sarcasm at all Tom, I totally agree with you, hence the "not yet..."at the end of my post.

And Natalie Bennett was rubbish.

Tom_W1987 - Member

I don't agree, libertarian values can be used to justify market incentives that discourage pollution

Justify, yes. Deliver, no- that requires big-government intervention with enormous funding to deliver suitably huge bribes. And full-cost accounting can't possibly occur without immense state intervention across the developed world. It's actually a great and logical idea- one of the great failings of capitalism is that it so often doesn't deal with true costs. But it's by no means compatible with libertarianism; it's enormously more interventionist than the west is now.

I'll be honest, I just see most of this stuff as smokescreens for corporatism. Let's stop banning companies from doing awful things and instead pay them not to do things they're not allowed to do today. Instead of fining them for destructive behaviour, pay them more. Let's talk about small government while arranging to flow enormous sums of money from the public purse to corporations, forever. Funny how so many people are suddenly for big government when it's about taking money from the state. But god forbid you should spend it on people.

OTOH it'd encourage innovation- as soon as we start having governments make market interventions to discourage pollution, inventing new ways to pollute is incentivised.

But so many of the worst offenders regarding the environment are state owned. The French government own large chunks of our energy infrastructure, the Chinese state seems bent on burning all the coal in existence and the Russian government owns most of the gas. In the current global system, government and corporations are basically the same thing, a feedback loop of profit and vested interest.
If there were to be a system of libertarian capitalism, this mess of state-corporatism would need to be sorted out first.

Justify, yes. Deliver, no- that requires big-government intervention with enormous funding to deliver suitably huge bribes. And full-cost accounting can't possibly occur without immense state intervention across the developed world. It's actually a great and logical idea- one of the great failings of capitalism is that it so often doesn't deal with true costs. But it's by no means compatible with libertarianism; it's enormously more interventionist than the west is now.

I'll be honest, I just see most of this stuff as smokescreens for corporatism. Let's stop banning companies from doing awful things and instead pay them not to do things they're not allowed to do today. Instead of fining them for destructive behaviour, pay them more. Let's talk about small government while arranging to flow enormous sums of money from the public purse to corporations, forever. Funny how so many people are suddenly for big government when it's about taking money from the state. But god forbid you should spend it on people.

Time and time again corporations hind behind government, see Bhopal etc - you can't resort to big government when big government throughout history has shown that time and time again - despite holding peoples "best interests" and lofty ideals superficially - becomes nothing more than a corrupt special interest group. Do you seriously think, that some of the biggest and most corrupt governments on the planet are going to make "big bribes" in the interest of you and I? **** no - that is hilariously naieve. What needs to happen, is that in combination with market based fines, not incentives, like you seem to suggest - people need to be be empowered to be able to take corporations that flout laws to court. This means being able to take legal action easily, cheaply and without fear of retribution - activists, scientists and NGO's need to be empowered to look after the planets best interests - not government. Decentralisation makes corrupt practices harder to achieve, the thought of various world governments being the ones to dictate our environmental future makes me shudder.

The attitude of divide and conquer needs to be taken towards government and corporates, as Fin put it - they needed to be broken up and scattered - that includes removing the ability of corporates to influence environmental policy or bypass laws by removing as much of the duties associated with regulation from government as possible and producing a model that allows for strong decentralised action against corporates.

That's where goal setting legislation works much better, rather than saying you can't do x, y and z, it says that as a company prove to us as a government that you are making the necessary moves to lower your environmental footprint. And then the corporation is measured against their own metrics and current best practice.

That's at one level, then individuals need greater incentives to be more energy efficient. I'd love more people to walk and cycle but the infrastructure needs to be there and people incentivised to use it.

Have you seen the shambles they have made of it in Brighton (my daughter lives there) - uncollected rubbish etc.

who does your daughter vote for out of interest Jambalaya?

Point of order, China is dropping CO2 output faster than anyone else and mostly by dropping coal.

Mostly because they're the ones most able to get rid of dirty energy production, because a huge chunk of their energy production was dirty in the first place.

That may be, but it's still "a good thing"™

China's a great example of why strong central government fails in regards to economic policy btw - here we have a country whos environmental agencies are massively corrupt and when corrupt officials are arrested you can't even be sure that it is for the right reason. This is a country where accusations of corruption are used as a political tool to further the self-interest of various individuals. There were a bunch of arrests at their environmental agency not so long ago, but you can bet that's not because someone within government actually gave a shit about the environment - it would have been an internal power struggle, as par for the course in China.

That's at one level, then individuals need greater incentives to be more energy efficient. I'd love more people to walk and cycle but the infrastructure needs to be there and people incentivised to use it.

But in the current state-corporate system, that infrastructure will never be built beyond a few pet projects and tokenism, as there is no real benefit to those interests which have the greatest influence over the legislature.
We will never legislate ourselves out of these problems, as the current system simply will not allow it, nor will it simply give up and let us try something different. It must be removed, as it cannot be meaningfully reformed.
To go back to the OP, the Greens will always struggle as this very dilemma is at the heart of the party. I know Jamby is a bad example to draw from, but his comments about bins is indicative of the problem.
The standard consumer mindset (perpetuated and encouraged by the state-corporate system to boost profits) sees it as the duty of the council (and their outsourced agents) to clean up their rubbish, as they pay their taxes, after all. A service in exchange for payment. The Green mindset asks the individual to think about how much waste they create, take responsibility for it, reduce it as much as possible and to challenge others to do the same. Through taking individual responsibility, a person can massively reduce both their impact on the environment and their reliance on state-corporate bodies.
The state-corporate system seeks to control and contain populations through mass consumption, this is the true authoritarianism, as alternative voices are quickly put down using corporate media assets.
Green libertarianism offers an alternative to this insidious type of state-corporate nannying. Unfortunately, it's an alternative that most "happy consumers" are less than interested in.

So lack of refuse collections and local services being underfunded is a local councils fault, not Central government cutting off the budget...
No wonder some of you are so easy to control, like clockwork automatons, wind you up and get the media to point you in the wrong direction.
Evolution gave you the capacity of critical thinking, try and employ it once in a while

Have you seen the shambles they have made of it in Brighton (my daughter lives there) - uncollected rubbish etc.

IIRC, the rubbish collection issues were caused by contracts negotiated by the previous, non-Green administration, and because although the Greens had the controlling group in council they didn't have a majority so struggled to get things passed.

Bingo, Miketually.

I don't think Natalie Bennett did them any favours to be honest.

And Natalie Bennett was rubbish.

Natalie's main task as leader was sorting out back office systems, and growing the party membership. She's successfully done those.

She didn't do brilliantly in debates and interviews pre-election, but the only reason the Greens got into the TV debates, etc was because of the growth in membership.

Even so, the Green's achieved a reasonable amount in the election. Kept Caroline Lucas as Brighton MP, did well in Bristol, more Parliamentary candidates than before, etc.

In Darlington, where I live, membership has grown from 8 to 80+ and the party went from zero council candidates in the previous election to fielding more candidates than the Lib Dems with one or more in every Council ward and fielding a Parliamentary candidate.

Tom_W1987 - Member
...a huge chunk of their energy production was dirty in the first place.

a huge chunk of their energy production is our (moral) responsibility, as it's used in the manufacture of goods that we've chosen more or less exclusively on price.

(fwiw Tom, i hope you don't feel i'm nit-picking your post, merely using it to highlight an issue)

a huge chunk of their energy production is our (moral) responsibility, as it's used in the manufacture of goods that we've chosen more or less exclusively on price

This is my reply whenever any says "but China..." in response to a suggestion we need to sort ourselves out. Yes their total CO2 emissions are higher than ours but their per capita is lower and a big chunk are caused by them making stuff for us.

@mike when you are in charge you take responsibility. Brighton has more than enough money to ensure rubbish is collected, it's a matter of competence and priorities. Being in charge is more
complicated than being in opposition

@yunki I am not going to comment on other people's voting preferences

As I said above with PR we'd likely have 30 Green MPs more of a voice but very little real influence

Tom_W1987 - Member

Do you seriously think, that some of the biggest and most corrupt governments on the planet are going to make "big bribes" in the interest of you and I? **** no - that is hilariously naieve.

No, I'm not- I'm saying it's a stupid idea (*), that's the entire point of my post. It's neither libertarian, because it requires big government and big intervention, nor a good idea, because of the inevitable outcomes.

(* I almost said unworkable, but that's wrong. It's definitely workable, it just wouldn't achieve any of the things people claim it would)

Tom_W1987 - Member

China's a great example of why strong central government fails in regards to economic policy btw - here we have a country whos environmental agencies are massively corrupt and when corrupt officials are arrested you can't even be sure that it is for the right reason.

That's not an issue of strong central government, it's an issue of massive corruption- in some cases, because of weak government, letting corruption run rife... in others, because government is part of it. But it doesn't follow that strong government is corrupt.

No, I'm not- I'm saying it's a stupid idea (*), that's the entire point of my post. It's neither libertarian, because it requires big government and big intervention, nor a good idea, because of the inevitable outcomes.

Then I fail to see your point - as I never suggested big bribes - I'm suggesting increasing peoples personal freedoms by giving them a stronger ability to pursue environmental laws. Think of the environment as a propety rights issue.

[b]That's not an issue of strong central government,[/b] it's an issue of massive corruption- in some cases, because of weak government, letting corruption run rife... in others, because government is part of it. But it doesn't follow that strong government is corrupt.

[img] [/img]

Hofstedes power distance index - visualized.

[img] https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9f12cdfddc73726875cd08d68efc47b2?convert_to_webp=true [/img]

Corruption perception Index

[img] https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f1b350937923218e7758f180ba3825c3?convert_to_webp=true [/img]

Tom_W1987 - Member

Then I fail to see your point - as I never suggested big bribes

You proposed discouraging pollution with market incentives. What is that, if not formalised bribery? Do as we want and we'll give you a biscuit. And they have to be big enough to offset the actual costs.

Your 2 diagrams actually show that there's not a simple correlation between power distance and corruption. But also, power distance =/= strong government- you can have a weak government with a great deal of power inequality and vice versa.

You proposed discouraging pollution with market incentives. What is that, if not formalised bribery? Do as we want and we'll give you a biscuit. And they have to be big enough to offset the actual costs.

A stick (read fines) isn't a bribe is it - isn't this how most of society works - as in - don't kill people or we might have to put you in prison? What I'm saying is to lay down hefty fines and then make civil litigation easier for people who feel/know that they have been wronged by corporates - give people who make environmental research or activism their life work the tools to be able to take corporates to court and win.

I'm assuming I'm being bribed not to kill my fellow man then?

<double post>

A stick/fine isn't a market incentive. But you started out saying that green politics are too authoritarian and now you're advocating making companies do what you want with a big stick.

Your 2 diagrams actually show that there's not a simple correlation between power distance and corruption. But also, power distance =/= strong government- you can have a weak government with a great deal of power inequality and vice versa.

Yes, semantics - you could have a strong libertarian government. But decreasing PDI most likely entails decentralizing government.

A stick/fine isn't a market incentive. But you started out saying that green politics are too authoritarian and now you're advocating making companies do what you want with a big stick.

You're conflating green libertarianism with a certain brand of psychotic american libertarianism - it doesn't entail the ability to do whatever the hell you want. Again, as I've mentioned before - if you consider the environment to be a property rights issue - civil cases could be brought by citizens without much central government involvement. Devolving power like that would go someway to reducing that PDI coefficient - central governments remit should be to make sure that it is possible for those people to exercise their right to living in a clean environment.

Tom_W1987 - Member

You're conflating green libertarianism with a certain brand of psychotic american libertarianism

No, I'm pointing out that the positions are contradictory. The key elements of your "green libertarianism" are interventionist

Easier civil litigation is a good idea but not as a substitute for state intervention- that just creates a greater imbalance of power between large companies and individuals. But again, strengthening the individual's legal power is also state intervention.

No, I'm pointing out that the positions are contradictory. The key elements of your "green libertarianism" are interventionist, or they're meaningless.

Easier civil litigation is a good idea but not as a substitute for state intervention- that just creates a greater imbalance of power between large companies and individuals. But again, strengthening the individual's legal power is also state intervention.

That's anarchism or full blown minarchism you're thinking of - the state should intervene when individual freedom is threatened by large corporates - I just do not think that they can be trusted to do that themselves - so funding should be directed to providing legal support.

@mike when you are in charge you take responsibility. Brighton has more than enough money to ensure rubbish is collected, it's a matter of competence and priorities. Being in charge is more complicated than being in opposition

I'm too far removed from Brighton to know the specifics, but if the previous administration signed a long-term contract what could a new administration do?

TBH Tom you just don't really seem to know what you want. You want libtertarianism but with government imposing fines, with government funding civil legal action (without diminishing government's own powers), you say the state should intervene then you say they can't be trusted to do so...

It all feels like "green libertarians" like the word but don't really like the meaning. It's no wonder you keep contradicting yourself considering what a mess of philosophies it is.

It's not actually that much of a mess really. Green libertarianism starts from the understanding that the current system is far too weighted towards the protection of profit, and very much weighed down by the bloated executive and legislative branches needed to protect that profit.
What tom appears to be proposing is an extension of the mandate of the judiciary to act on the part of citizens to keep corporate and governmental interests and actions in line with pre-determined legal criteria.
This would naturally lead to smaller government, as the interests government protects and the negative aspects of the running of such large government would be largely proscribed.
Forgive me if I'm getting any of this wrong, im at work and trying to type in a hurry.

What Fin said, like socialism which can range from New Labour to Marxism - libertarianism is a grey and fuzzy political ideology.

So...

Would the Green Party be electable if they actually pushed their more libertarian policies over the more socialist bits?

Or have we come to the consensus that they are in no way libertarian 😕

Tom_W1987 - Member

libertarianism is a grey and fuzzy political ideology.

There's "grey and fuzzy" and there's "contradicting yourself in a single sentence". And then there's "calling it libertarian even though it requires big government and massive state intervention to make it work"

But I think we're going around in circles now. It's pretty clear that most of "green libertarianism" which is green, isn't very libertarian, and likewise most of the libertarian bits aren't very green. This isn't to say there's not some good ideas in there.

So...
Would the Green Party be electable if they actually pushed their more libertarian policies over the more socialist bits?
Or have we come to the consensus that they are in no way libertarian

I don't think the British have ever been that comfortable with libertarianism. It's mostly associated over here with the more American, free market sizzle, which everyone on the British left is petrified of, because it doesn't revolve around trains. The British right also feel a bit uncomfortable with libertarianism because, deep down, they just like telling people what to do, while a great number of the British public just like being told what to do.
So, no, I don't think the Green Party taking a more libertarian approach would necessarily make it more electable.

To answer your second question, the green party is a mish mash of socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, libertarians, green conservatives, anti-vaxers and hippies. I am a green party member and a libertarian. I do not think the two things are mutually exclusive, but there is a definite push from elements within the party towards a more traditionally socialist mindset.

Green (and far Left) politics only work if the economy is tightly controlled, it's the very opposite of Liberty.

You don't know much about libertarianism do you?

it's the very opposite of Liberty.

if your idea of liberty is the freedom to collect loads of cash for no reason other than foolish pride

Well a quick scan shows they seem to have moved a chunk of the bat shit crazy anti science off the main pages... Might help them.