Animals Count in Euro Elections

[Ruby Shoes]

Just to add something, as much as anything, Animals Count is there to hold all the other parties to account. We want to cause all the other parties to have to make a policy statement on these kinds of issues because at the moment none of them are and yet these issues are critically important. Livestock farming is the single biggest cause of climate change and yet so far only Animals Count has the courage and the honesty to say so.

 

[Yossarian]

That's the Grand National, Damien Hirst's shark and the PG Tips chimps all fucked.

Yep, I think that's kind of the point - I'd be sad to see the Grand National go but I guess it's indefensible when even the most basic standards of animal welfare are taken into consideration, and I don't see why Hirst/PG Tips can't create art/sell teabags without using animals.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Hi there

We absolutely did not want to impact on Caroline Lucas' stance in London and because the candidates are either based in Essex or East London and looking at the results from 2004 where UKIP did very well the Eastern region seemed like a very logical choice as the region to target.
x

Thanks. Regardless of the possible implications for the GP I am impressed it has got going. But I also think being single issue will be what stops progress, that's being blunt. A group like yours could get a lot of your objectives through at Green Party conference, then you would have over a hundred councillors working to advance those objectives on behalf of people who have voted for them.

Is there anything about our policy you'd like to be more radical?

Anyhow. Best wishes and thanks for being on the animal's side.

 

[liampreston]

Animals Count stood in the Lambeth and Southward GLA Constituency in 2008, getting 1,828 votes, finishing 9th out of 10, above the Socialist candidate Daniel Lambert.

 

[Ruby Shoes]

Animals Count stood in the Lambeth and Southward GLA Constituency in 2008, getting 1,828 votes, finishing 9th out of 10, above the Socialist candidate Daniel Lambert.

We were late getting our stuff together and we were only able to distribute 10,000 leaflets so we were quite pleased with the result.

 

[Ruby Shoes]

Thanks. Regardless of the possible implications for the GP I am impressed it has got going. But I also think being single issue will be what stops progress, that's being blunt. A group like yours could get a lot of your objectives through at Green Party conference, then you would have over a hundred councillors working to advance those objectives on behalf of people who have voted for them.

Is there anything about our policy you'd like to be more radical?

Anyhow. Best wishes and thanks for being on the animal's side.

We will continue of course to work with the Green Party and other interested parties and we are very keen to have discussions about how policies can be driven forward in the most effective way.

It remains the case however that only Animals Count is prepared to talk openly about the severely negative impact of livestock farming and the meat and dairy diet on the environment and human health. The Green Party manifesto talks about GM crops and how these would be banned by the Green Party but has nothing to say about livestock animals who are as genetically modified as any crop and has nothing to say about the impact of animal farming on our planets health. So yes, we would like some policies to be far more radical (which in our opinion equates to being more honest and courageous about the facts) and we would like to see much more mention of these issues and we would like to see animal policies much more centrally in the manifestos of the major parties including the Green Party.

It's not strictly true that we are a one issue party because changing how we treat non humans has a direct and immediate impact on so many other issues as well such as human health, education, economics, environmental protection and so on and so on. As you know we are greatly encouraged by the success of The Dutch Party For The Animals and their tremendous achievements in such a short space of time. This proves that there is a space for other parties and we do not need to rely on other parties to come around to the right way of thinking. Ultimately however we really don't mind who implements these policies so long as they do get implemented.

Thanks for your encouragement and lets hope we can work together for animals and people.
x

 

[Jean-Luc]

We absolutely did not want to impact on Caroline Lucas' stance in London and because the candidates are either based in Essex or East London and looking at the results from 2004 where UKIP did very well the Eastern region seemed like a very logical choice as the region to target.

Caroline Lucas is actually standing in the South East Region not London. I am afraid that I could never vote for Animals Count. Animals do count but not as much as Humans. Like most humans throughout history (and many animals themselves) I like to eat meat from time to time and, as far as I can see, the logic of the Animals Count position is compulsory vegetarianism.
PS What's the significance of choosing a region with a big UKIP vote? surely you're not targetting UKIP voters? I thought they represented the huntin', shootin' and fishin' fraternity

 

[Ruby Shoes]

Hi there

Yes sorry I meant to say South-East, which of course includes London. Our fundamental concern was not to stand in the same region as Caroline and impact on her campaign.

Animals do indeed count and if we don't start doing things differently with regards to them (livestock farming, over-fishing, deforestation, poisoning the land and marine environments) then it won't matter whether humans are more important or not the planet will be pretty much stuffed anyway, and unfortunately we can't yet all decamp to Mars and live there instead. We all need to recognise the common thread that links these issues together - treating non-human animals better has, by default, a positive impact on the living conditions of human animals. We are all part of the natural world and utterly dependant upon it for our survival and that is why Animals Count is taking the courageous stance that it is by having the honesty to put this issue at the heart of its manifesto and, if nothing else, to cause the other parties to have to make a policy stance on these issues as well, so that we can all see where everybody stands on this vitally important issue.

The logic of the Animals Count position is whatever will work best for our health, the welfare of non-humans and the protection of the environment. It's not our "fault" that vast numbers of studies demonstrate over and over again (cf, The China Study is a "meta-study" bringing together the research results of over 800 peer-reviewed studies in addition to original research) that a vegetarian diet is better for human health and less damaging to the environment (also see the United Nations Food & Agricultural Organisation's "Livestock's Long Shadow", available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM); the policies of Animals Count are evidence-based policies, based upon the evidence of science.

And however uncomfortable this may be, however inconvenient this may be, it does not stop it being true. We have to respond, and respond urgently, to what the data are telling us.

Animals Count isn't really "targeting" UKIP voters but the thinking is that Euro elections offer better opportunity for people to use their vote as a "protest" vote and put their "x" next to parties other than the "big three"; in the 2004 elections a lot of people in the East did this and voted for UKIP, but they (UKIP) have proven themselves to be completely useless and pointless and so they are unlikely to get anything like as many protest votes this time, and so Animals Count is hoping to be able to pick up on some of those votes at least!

 

[butchersapron]

Most current polls show the UKIP as being the main electoral benificiary of anger over MPs thievery.

 

[pk]

I agree broadly with the notion of animal welfare in regards to climate change, and that companies who deliberately pollute the environment should have their directors jailed.

But I likes my bacon sandwiches.

 

[Ruby Shoes]

Most current polls show the UKIP as being the main electoral benificiary of anger over MPs thievery.

And that's really frustrating! They only have one policy, UK=good (er, not necessarily, cf, MP's expenses!) and anything non-UK=bad.

UKIP MEPs take the salary (and very generous allowance scheme that goes with it) and then sit there for five years doing NOTHING; they don't want to engage in debate or committees because it's "all foreign" and they don't like it! They just want to moan and offer nothing in the way of practical solutions to all of the issues that our society (which is nowadays inevitably international and global in scope) is facing... A vote for UKIP really is a wasted vote!

 

[pk]

And that's really frustrating! They only have one policy, UK=good (er, not necessarily, cf, MP's expenses!) and anything non-UK=bad.

UKIP MEPs take the salary (and very generous allowance scheme that goes with it) and then sit there for five years doing NOTHING; they don't want to engage in debate or committees because it's "all foreign" and they don't like it! They just want to moan and offer nothing in the way of practical solutions to all of the issues that our society (which is nowadays inevitably international and global in scope) is facing... A vote for UKIP really is a wasted vote!

And a vote for Animals Count is on the other hand, a supremely effective way to enact a change in social justice?

 

[dylans]

I'm sorry but this is fucking ridiculous. All the shit in the world and you want to build a political party on the basis of animal rights?

Iraq? Afganistan? Sri lanka, Pakistan? The destruction of our civil liberties? Growing unemployment? A thousand really important issues to stand on and the most important issue to you, the issue you think deserves all your efforts and organisation, the issue that you think the British electorate should be focussing on, the issue that you think trumps all other political issues is...........rights for animals?

Nuts, absolutely nuts.

 

[gosub]

And that's really frustrating! They only have one policy, UK=good (er, not necessarily, cf, MP's expenses!) and anything non-UK=bad.

UKIP MEPs take the salary (and very generous allowance scheme that goes with it) and then sit there for five years doing NOTHING; they don't want to engage in debate or committees because it's "all foreign" and they don't like it! They just want to moan and offer nothing in the way of practical solutions to all of the issues that our society (which is nowadays inevitably international and global in scope) is facing... A vote for UKIP really is a wasted vote!

Not an easy google but I did find UKIP MEP's on EUropean Parliament Committees and there are 107 results for UKIP EUropean Parliament on you tube so they do speak in debates.
Have you though about doing this in Italy, they once had a horse for a senator.

 

[Orang Utan]

I'd vote for a cat

 

[Corax]

I'm sorry but this is fucking ridiculous. All the shit in the world and you want to build a political party on the basis of animal rights?

Iraq? Afganistan? Sri lanka, Pakistan? The destruction of our civil liberties? Growing unemployment? A thousand really important issues to stand on and the most important issue to you, the issue you think deserves all your efforts and organisation, the issue that you think the British electorate should be focussing on, the issue that you think trumps all other political issues is...........rights for animals?

Nuts, absolutely nuts.

As so often on these boards, zero-sum bollocks.

 

[pk]

I'd vote for a cat

I'd vote for a meerkat!

Or the Pink Panther, for that matter.

But not a poodle though.

Poncy bite-happy yappy bastards that they are.

 

[frogwoman]

I'm sorry but this is fucking ridiculous. All the shit in the world and you want to build a political party on the basis of animal rights?

Iraq? Afganistan? Sri lanka, Pakistan? The destruction of our civil liberties? Growing unemployment? A thousand really important issues to stand on and the most important issue to you, the issue you think deserves all your efforts and organisation, the issue that you think the British electorate should be focussing on, the issue that you think trumps all other political issues is...........rights for animals?

Nuts, absolutely nuts.

This sums up my feelings tbh. Im sorry, but humans are more important than animals. That's not saying that I want animals treated cruelly or anything but I'm yet to be convinced that building a political party based on animal rights is anything more than fucking daft. Why should i, someone who cares about animals but cares about humans a fuck of a lot more, vote for you, what have you got to say about the economy and crime, which are probably the most important issues right now. what would you do about the school system, defence, etc?

serious question btw

 

[butchersapron]

The answer is above - sell those votes to greens for policy changes. There's surely no serious plans for an ongoing party.

 

[liampreston]

But the Dutch version of the party have seats in the Senate, based almost entirely on the subject of animal rights. There are more members of the RSPCA than there are members of political parties in this country.

Animals Count seem to be a beefed-up pressure group, and maybe this is where they will end up, but I wish them well.

There are many political parties who are focusing on crime, war, economics, and trade union rights. Animals Count happen to have another focus and that unless they go batshit bonkers i think they should be supported.

 

[ddraig]

But the Dutch version of the party have seats in the Senate, based almost entirely on the subject of animal rights. There are more members of the RSPCA than there are members of political parties in this country.

Animals Count seem to be a beefed-up pressure group, and maybe this is where they will end up, but I wish them well.

There are many political parties who are focusing on crime, war, economics, and trade union rights. Animals Count happen to have another focus and that unless they go batshit bonkers i think they should be supported.

this ^ and "you have to start somewhere"
fair play and good luck i say

to the posters saying yeah but humans are more important so there!
is anyone saying any different? even in the party itself? no, just a stupid defensive conclusion you jump to with no need.
almost as typical as the 'but they're tasty' or 'i likes bacon butties me, real man see' yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwn
i have never understood why people get so defensive aggressive and challenging when they come across someone who chooses not to eat animals and cares more for them. why is it so important to do down these people and make a point of trying to catch the out or roll out the tired 'jokes' again? i just don't get it

very good point about the rspca membership and this countries attiudes to animals is pretty fucked already no?
you do know far far more people actual make an effort to complain when an animal (usually a pet) gets mistreated on tv than when a human does?

they are sentient beings and one day it will come to pass that the history of eating them will be looked back on in horror.
all credit to Animals Count for being part of that and beating the path for us all
good luck

 

[butchersapron]

But the Dutch version of the party have seats in the Senate, based almost entirely on the subject of animal rights. There are more members of the RSPCA than there are members of political parties in this country.

Animals Count seem to be a beefed-up pressure group, and maybe this is where they will end up, but I wish them well.

There are many political parties who are focusing on crime, war, economics, and trade union rights. Animals Count happen to have another focus and that unless they go batshit bonkers i think they should be supported.

But so what? Do they have a FPTP system?

 

[liampreston]

But so what? Do they have a FPTP system?

No, they don't, but the Euro Elections in the UK aren't FPTP either

 

[butchersapron]

So why use examples where they can get in to agrue they can where they can't?

Just compare like with like, or least point out the special non-applying circumstances that have led to their election. Paint a proper picture.

 

[XR75]

to the posters saying yeah but humans are more important so there!
is anyone saying any different? even in the party itself? no, just a stupid defensive conclusion you jump to with no need.
almost as typical as the 'but they're tasty' or 'i likes bacon butties me, real man see' yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwn
i have never understood why people get so defensive aggressive and challenging when they come across someone who chooses not to eat animals and cares more for them. why is it so important to do down these people and make a point of trying to catch the out or roll out the tired 'jokes' again? i just don't get it

Some people get offended when you have daft views then attempt to impose them on others when there's also more serious matters at hand.

very good point about the rspca membership and this countries attiudes to animals is pretty fucked already no?
you do know far far more people actual make an effort to complain when an animal (usually a pet) gets mistreated on tv than when a human does?

A worrying trend indeed.

 

[Corax]

A worrying trend indeed.

Not unless you're very simple.

People have assumptions about what would be 'allowed', and what is already being 'looked after'. These assumptions are sometimes incorrect of course, but lead to exactly this kind of effect.

That is, people assume that televised human abuse is already being addressed, whilst they may also assume that abuse of animals has been missed.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

The idea "oh, but humans are more important" has a lot of problems.

It is often said that you can judge a society by how we treat prisoners. I think a better judgement is how we treat animals, which is generally appallingly.

The "humans are more important" arguement is definitevely antrhopecentric and has the potential to be species-imperialist, which we most certainly are.

I have zero doubt that if we treated animals better, humans and the planet would benefit enormously. It's bleeding obvious.

The most basic start is to decrease the amount of animals we raise to kill for food. It is ineffecient, it is cruel, it is unneccessary and by and large it isnt even healthy. But coercion would likely just rub people up the wrong way. The first thing is to end subsidies for the meat and dairy trade, that and education.

As St Paul of McCartney hath spoke: If the slaughterhouses had glass walls we would all be vegetarian. Don't know about "all", psychotics will always be with us, but I reckon "most" might cover it.

Ruby Shoes

I havent looked at the full Green Party Manifesto statements on AR&W for a while, but I can assure you that prominent members are constantly raising the ecological impact of the meat and dairy trade.

 

[butchersapron]

species-imperialist

Nil votes

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Nil votes

Do you mean it won't get votes or that you don't think humans are, broadly, species imperialist?

IMO the former would be fairly true beyond an obvious niche. The latter would be much harder to argue.

 

[butchersapron]

I think it's a pathetic idea.