Topic: Nobby's Green Thread. A great party with great ideas. A great bunch of lads!

[brownie 09]

Well off to vote the greens today. This about my fourth vote and its the first time ive voted for a party who I agree with.

Voted labour normally because of my family but just dont see the point. My mum will be voting for the NHA party to. Which is the one about the national health service, a good protest vote imo.

[adopted_scouser]

Just voted greens

[AA1122]

Just voted greens

Same here.

I hope they do well and it does give Labour a kick up the backside. I think they will get an MEP seat in the North West tonight, I hope so anyway. Sadly, I imagine UKIP will poll well too. It will be interesting to look at the results.

Don't forget to vote guys, the only wasted votes in tonight's European elections are the ones who don't actually vote.

[Zeb]

Missus and I have just been to vote. Hope Greens get the MEP and we're at least rid of Griffin.

[zebenzui]

Just voted greens

Same, hoping they can pip UKIP to the last seat in Scotland.

[Elmo!]

Same, hoping they can pip UKIP to the last seat in Scotland.

Just did the same (in Scotland as well).

[Thehunter1978]

Another one here who voted Green.

[Bucke]

I voted green today too, it was my first time. I generally agree with what they stand for, not just the environment stuff but everything that was listed earlier in the thread makes perfect sense to me

On the continent, especially Germany they are a serious political opposition due to the PR systems over there. Howl fully they can get a bit more of a foothold  here

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Green is a very sensible vote in a European election. I am a lifelong member of the Labour Party (save for a few years after Blair invaded Iraq), but even I toyed with the idea of voting Labour in the Wirral Council elections and Green in the Europeans. The UK Green Party is part of a network of Green parties across Europe which has a reasonably strong voice in the European Union. Europe is also the bread and butter of the Green movement, and you can be sure your Green MEP will be representing you properly in Europe, unlike these various incarnations of right-wing fucktardism.

[-HH-]

I also voted green. I will in the General Election too. I would vote tactically for Labour but Ed Miliband (who was actually my choice for Labour leader) pissed me off when he decided to immediately tackle the 'Red Ed' tag by attacking the unions. It's not the best idea to vote Labour to keep the Tories out of power when Labour look more and more like Tories with every passing year.

Labour need a kick up the arse, make them remember that in chasing the right/centre vote that they risk alienating those who backed them in the first place.

[johnsmithlfc]

Yep voted Green too.(in the European)

I looked at the 15 choices for European elections and seeing the BNP and UKIP and other such parties on there really annoyed me.
Also UKIP are fielding a candidate for every single seat....I didn't have a choice of Green or Lib Dem in the locals.
My choice of 3 was Tory, Labour & UKIP - so obviously it was Labour.

Really disappointed with that....if UKIP can do it, why not Lib Dems & Greens?
Anyway, voting done and dusted.

[AA1122]

Labour need a kick up the arse, make them remember that in chasing the right/centre vote that they risk alienating those who backed them in the first place.

I feel that Labour are so out of touch at the moment, if they saw fringe parties like the Greens rising in power, they would probably see that as a reason to go even more right wing, rather than returning to more socialist ideals.

Greens might actually bother fighting/amending TTIP, whereas I honestly doubt the integrity of other parties actually doing what they say they will do.

[adopted_scouser]

Sadly Greens don't run in my constituency for the General Election.  Think I'd rather spoil my ballot paper than vote for any of the others.

[brownie 09]

Only have labour or libdems running in my constituency. Democracy for yeah. Would've loved to had the greens as a choice for the locals. Only available in the eu election

[Twelfth Man]

Voted for them in Europe and NHAparty in London.

[Broad Spectrum]

Yeah, made my missus go across to the polling station last night and vote Green Party! 

[Mutton Geoff]

another Green vote here!

[stevo7]

Had enough of the main parties..voted Green both Local & European. Green Party now the official opposition in Liverpool.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-council-election-results-lib-7167178

[Durlmints]

Liberal Democrats have had their chance and have fucked it up with their lies.

Never voting for them again, so Labour or Greens for me now.

I think these results could be the start of a long term Green Party surge maybe?

[johnsmithlfc]

Liberal Democrats have had their chance and have fucked it up with their lies.

Never voting for them again, so Labour or Greens for me now.

I think these results could be the start of a long term Green Party surge maybe?

The Greens need to be more active, Caroline Lucas getting arrested a while back was great and got a lot of people discussing Fracking and saying "wow, a politician actually arrested while protesting and fighting for their ideals"
THIS is what politics is missing....The Greens really ARE the alternative and yet we hear nothing about them barely.
If the media don't want to give them attention then they need to get out and knock more doors and field more candidates and do it the way the lib dems did and ukip are doing now...... on the doorstep.

Discussing issues and being seen.


The Greens are what Labour once were and what the Lib-Dems purported to be and they need to let people know that.
There are millions of disaffected Labour and Lib Dem voters who would LOVE a real alternative.
Sadly the Media don't help and there is a definite strategy to keep the Greens out of the spotlight as they're dangerous to the political status quo and really scare the corporations and lobbyists I'm sure.... because the Greens put PEOPLE before Profits.

[John C]

Its interesting to see the Greens in particular & Labour embarrass the Lib Dems in Liverpool. I have no sympathy, though, for months the Lib Dem campaign has got to be one of the tackiest I've ever seen round here. Their leafleting literally was trash & cheesey, the subject matter merely attacked the opposition with a photo opportunity next to the nearest bin or piece of dog shit they could find rather than containing any substance, but in particular repeatedly containing untruths which I know for a fact.

[Red Beret]

Incredible to think how powerful the Lib Dems were in Liverpool just five years ago.  They've been decimated up here because of jumping into bed with the Tories.

[OOS]

Another one here who voted Green.

Same. First time voting too.

Come from a working class Liverpool family who always voted Labour.

[brownie 09]

The Green Party are the official opposition in Liverpool, the 2nd biggest party in Manchester not to bad for the north west.

[RideTheWalrus]

The Green Party are the official opposition in Liverpool, the 2nd biggest party in Manchester not to bad for the north west.

That's brilliant

[Zeb]

The Green Party are the official opposition in Liverpool, the 2nd biggest party in Manchester not to bad for the north west.

Voted for them in councils here too. Pleased with that, even if they didn't get a seat here in Manchester. Hopefully promising for the Euros.

[brownie 09]

I think its interesting to see how the narrative seems to be UKIP have done well, but from what I can see there seems to have been more of a shift to the left. Labour have done well and the greens have done well. In Major cities such as liverpooll, manchester, london and birmingham UKIP have done shite.

[jackh]

Voted for Green here in a ward that they won so I'm pleased.  Was very much caught between Labour and Green for both votes (opted Labour in the Euros) but, having attended the Budget Meeting back in March and observed how much of a foregone conclusion the whole process was (regardless of thoughts on the budget itself), trying to establish a foothold for a bit more discussion and debate seemed like the right thing.

[OOS]

I think its interesting to see how the narrative seems to be UKIP have done well, but from what I can see there seems to have been more of a shift to the left. Labour have done well and the greens have done well. In Major cities such as liverpooll, manchester, london and birmingham UKIP have done shite.

UKIP got around 20% of the vote in my local ward, and the two closest wards. Just that Labour always wins here. Sad really (That UKIP got that many votes).

[Zeb]

UKIP polled 7.6% of the vote in Manchester, but only ran in about a dozen wards out of 33. They got within 150 votes in Moston. Sadly Green vote in Manchester is properly split across the city. In my ward they came second. But by 3.2k votes. Still beat the Tories though. Proper Labour stronghold.

[AA1122]

I now have a Green councillor!

I still think Greens will get one North West MEP too. My worry is that tomorrow we find out a lot of people voted for their normal local councillors and then voted for UKIP in the Euros. I think there is a big chance of many people having done that. Not looking forward to the media love-in if it happens.

[Red Beret]

I think its interesting to see how the narrative seems to be UKIP have done well, but from what I can see there seems to have been more of a shift to the left. Labour have done well and the greens have done well. In Major cities such as liverpooll, manchester, london and birmingham UKIP have done shite.

I mentioned on the Tory thread that the electorate is becoming increasingly fragmented.  I'd suggest that in northern areas the Greens could develop into Labour opposition wiht UKIP being up against the Tories in the south.  The swing constituencies will likely remain the unaltered for a long while yet though.

[Mutton Geoff]

UKIP got around 20% of the vote in my local ward, and the two closest wards. Just that Labour always wins here. Sad really (That UKIP got that many votes).

The difference could be BBC never gave The Green Party the exposure they have given UKIP, Media bias can create votes.

[bigbonedrawky]

The difference could be BBC never gave The Green Party the exposure they have given UKIP, Media bias can create votes.

Not the biggest fan of the BBC but in fairness all the channels have been doing the same thing.

[lfcderek]

A quote from the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett in a recent BBC interview with Ross Hawkins -


"The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change.

Any senior adviser refusing to accept the scientific consensus on climate change should be sacked", it said.

Party leader Natalie Bennett said "the rule must apply to all senior advisers, including those with no responsibility for environmental issues."

[AA1122]

A quote from the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett in a recent BBC interview with Ross Hawkins -

Here's a link to the full article from February 2014 if anyone's interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711

This is where I think the Greens may not help themselves, being so strong on environmental issues. However, they are the principles they are founded on and not the socialist ones that I would like them to be. For me, climate change is real and should be accepted, but I would not want to force the view on all other ministers, a good government should be able to hold a variety of views on issues and debate them and negotiate policy sensibly.

What the real issue here is though is that we have an Environment secretary, Owen Paterson, who is a climate change sceptic, has voiced his opposition to wind farms and only real purpose in the role seems to be to ensure 'fracking' companies get their way all over the land. Is this person really fit for purpose as an environment secretary? But let's not focus on that...

The Green Party are not perfect, but in comparison to other parties they represent my views far more.

[Red Beret]

The Greens are compassionate.  Compared to the other parties out there, that's enough for me.

[Yorkykopite]

A quote from the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett in a recent BBC interview with Ross Hawkins -


"The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change.

Any senior adviser refusing to accept the scientific consensus on climate change should be sacked", it said.

Party leader Natalie Bennett said "the rule must apply to all senior advisers, including those with no responsibility for environmental issues."

I saw that. It stinks of dogma. Not so far in spirit from the Catholic Exclusion Acts. It's an astonishing breach of democratic principles. I say that as someone who believes climate change is man made and government isn't doing near enough to treat it seriously.

[lfcderek]

I saw that. It stinks of dogma. Not so far in spirit from the Catholic Exclusion Acts. It's an astonishing breach of democratic principles. I say that as someone who believes climate change is man made and government isn't doing near enough to treat it seriously.

I, too, found this very disturbing. My impression of the Green Party has long been - nice people who have the best of intensions. As would be obvious from the 'Climate Thread', my views are very far from the 'concensus' - CO2 does warm the earth but by about 1/3 of what's being claimed.

Climate is not really the issue here though. It is the idea that people are not allowed to hold opposing views at all. From the same article -

Pressed on the issue, she agreed that even the chief veterinary officer should be removed if he didn't sign up to the view on climate change also taken by the Green Party.

A policy document released by the party said: "Get rid of any cabinet ministers or senior governmental advisers who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change or who won't take the risks to the UK seriously."

In that Climate Thread I regularly (not so much recently though watch that space) cross swords with Rojo and Bio. I put up a graph which showed a raft of climate model predictions compared to observations. The observations tracked well under predictions and Rojo's and Bio's reaction was to condemn the author - a Prof Christy. Now I've seen this bloke on a clip from a Congressional Hearing. By my lights (an atheist) his religious views are, to say the least a bit cooky - Southern Bible belt creationism etc. No rebuttal of the facts of the graph though, just an ad hominem attack on his Christianity.

I seem to see it everywhere. If you don't believe in, and espouse, the party line ('Climate Consensus' etc) you're somehow evil and, in the above case, should be fired and not allowed to earn a living.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this and Natalie Bennett just got a bit carried away on a subject she cares passionately about. Can't say I'd want her in a position of power and responsibility though. 

[Bioluminescence]

I, too, found this very disturbing. My impression of the Green Party has long been - nice people who have the best of intensions. As would be obvious from the 'Climate Thread', my views are very far from the 'concensus' - CO2 does warm the earth but by about 1/3 of what's being claimed.

Climate is not really the issue here though. It is the idea that people are not allowed to hold opposing views at all. From the same article -
In that Climate Thread I regularly (not so much recently though watch that space) cross swords with Rojo and Bio. I put up a graph which showed a raft of climate model predictions compared to observations. The observations tracked well under predictions and Rojo's and Bio's reaction was to condemn the author - a Prof Christy. Now I've seen this bloke on a clip from a Congressional Hearing. By my lights (an atheist) his religious views are, to say the least a bit cooky - Southern Bible belt creationism etc. No rebuttal of the facts of the graph though, just an ad hominem attack on his Christianity.

I seem to see it everywhere. If you don't believe in, and espouse, the party line ('Climate Consensus' etc) you're somehow evil and, in the above case, should be fired and not allowed to earn a living.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this and Natalie Bennett just got a bit carried away on a subject she cares passionately about. Can't say I'd want her in a position of power and responsibility though. 

Seriously Derek? Let me quote myself then

Two problems with your analysis. CO2 levels haven't doubled yet, and we haven't reached equilibrium. Therefore trying to reach conclusions based on this rather cherry-picked graph by Spencer has limited value, at best. Again, you're relying on the slowdown in the rise in surface temperatures in recent years to make your point. This slowdown that has been explained by a number of factors (heat being transferred to the oceans' subsurface layers, aerosols from volcanoes and/or economic activity, a decade dominated by La Niņa events, relatively low solar activity). Yet despite all this, temperatures have continued to rise, albeit at a lower rate. But at some point we'll see more El Niņos, the oceans will release some that heat, there will be less volcanic activity. The rise in surface temperatures will pick up again, and we might well see a period where the rate of warming is greater than that predicted by models (for example, the period from 1992 to 2008 warmed by 0.27ēC per decade).

Then we're back to the problem I've mentioned to you in the past when debating sensitivity: a low climate sensitivity cannot explain the shift in temperatures observed between glacials and interglacials, for example. So you're stuck once again since you have no hypothesis that could explain those shifts in temperature. Whereas including changes in albedo (ice melting for example) and in atmospheric composition (such as arise in water vapour levels), which are already being observed, does a very good job at explaining those shifts in temperatures.

It's worth pointing out once again that models don't predict, they project. It's an important distinction but one that Spencer doesn't seem to understand. Here's a 2014 paper that explains the issue well with regards to the past few years.

As you've said yourself, climate science is a complex topic, and there are still uncertainties. So it's weird to see you make unequivocal statements based, generally, on looking at graphs and nothing much else. I'm not sure why you're so stubborn in your opposition to climate science, whose findings have been established following decades of scientific research, leading to the consensus. Somehow, your position is always different to that of climate scientists - don't you think that you could actually be wrong on this one?

And I don't have a problem with his Christianity. I have a problem with any scientist whose beliefs or ideology means they cannot evaluate the science objectively. That's the problem with Spencer (not Christy), someone whose beliefs in creationism means he rejects evolution and who, probably as he sees his job a little like a legislator minimising the role of the government, rejects the bulk of climate change science.