[Closed] The end of democracy...

Actually it is to the rest of us as well.

You and the 0.5% ? LOL ! 😀

Let me remind you :

[i]"I've come to the crashing conclusion the 99.5 percent of the people on this planet are wrong about everything 100 percent of the time."[/i]

Cherry picking your conclusions Ernie?

While we're all entitled to our ethical opinions, the party continues to make statements that are about as grounded in reality as Narnia,

The Greens energy policy is noble, and I would love to believe that it could happen, but the idea of making a 65% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020 through energy efficiency and renewable energy projects alone seems far-fetched. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Greens' dislike for nuclear energy is ideological,

This is the party whose international parents came out against the evils of electromagnetic radiation

Tell you what - hows about their take on the evils of fluoridation of water:

http://greenparty.org.uk/archive-documents/comment/169.html

Completely and utterly batshit crazy!

Let me remind you :

99 percent of the rest of the country will be opposed to them for the wrong reasons, like preferring racist parties, hating gays or just feeling comfortable voting for labour.

I'm not a misanthrope btw, I'm a disappointed humanist.

Fun this innit

Bleedin 'ell, you're getting desperate Z-11, you're now posting links to a French party !! 😀

[quote=piemonster ]Fun this innit
I almost feel like I'm intruding

STEALTH EDIT ALRET

Ah brilliant, you've now edited your post to get rid of the embarrassing French party link ! 😆

Nope, moved it about because I linked to the wrong one

the one I meant to link to was here:

you're now posting links to a French party

Ahhh stealth edit.

Now you've edited it back in !!!

After pretending that you knew all along that it was a French party link 😆

As I said - I linked to the wrong one, easy when you've got a couple of tabs open.

Now, hows about that commie plot to put fluoride in the water?

Nope, moved it about because I linked to the wrong one

the one I meant to link to was here:

http://old.sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/xarchive/downloads/masts.pdf

*SARCASM ON* Best....literature review....ever *SARCASM OFF*

It reads like the rant of someone on abovetopsecret.com.... next up.....Chemtrails!

I don't see what they're so bothered about though, lots of greens want more people to die so we have less people on this planet. Why do they care about radiation? Are they anti-technology or would they just prefer it if *sarcasm on* slitty eyed people and darkies died off instead of them?

Seriously mate, I can't handle this - you're now editing your edits !!!

Calm down and slow down mate ...... I think you're starting to get hysterical 😀

What is incorrect about their summary

It is incomplete and seeks to suggest providing any form of flexibility would be wrong, which is somewhat surprising as the next sentance in the judgement they quote is as follows:

There are well known legislative formulae for conferring complete flexibility of decision making on a Minister.

and in the previous paragraph he said

Furthermore, like Pill LJ, I recognise that there are considerable advantages in there being a large measure of flexibility in designing and administering a statutory scheme.

So it is a clearly partisan commentary or perhaps you would prefer the use of the word "spin". You can read the judgement [url= http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/reilly-wilson-v-secretary-state.pdf ]here if you are so inclined.[/url]

Now back to the action.

Seriously mate, I can't handle this - you're now editing your edits !!!

Calm down and slow down mate ...... I think you're starting to get hysterical

Just admit that you got internet bitch slapped big time?

Slapped any harder, and he'd end up looking like [s]Zelda from Terrahawks[/s] Jenny Jones

[img] http://southwark.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/local_parties/southwark/people/jenny_jones_drop_shadow.jp g" target="_blank">http://southwark.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/local_parties/southwark/people/jenny_jones_drop_shadow.jp g"/> [/img]

Ooh, a personal and puerile attack on Jenny Jones's physical attractiveness. Classy.

mefty - Member
"What is incorrect about their summary"
It is incomplete and seeks to suggest providing any form of flexibility would be wrong, which is somewhat surprising as the next sentance in the judgement they quote is as follows

To me it says that the government used flexibility as an excuse to bypass the correct process, when:

There are well known legislative formulae for conferring complete flexibility of decision on a Minister

I don't read it as saying flexibility is wrong at all, the quote doesn't contradict them.

It has become pretty semantic - the points have been made.

Funny all this slating of the greens for a lack of evidence based policy etc - yes it's not ideal, but then if they were in power they probably wouldn't start any illegal wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, or demonise the poor when the economy is failing.

I believe doctors in Germany can prescribe homeopathic medicine btw, and we all know how awful life is for most people there.

Funny all this slating of the greens for a lack of evidence based policy etc - yes it's not ideal, but then if they were in power they probably wouldn't start any illegal wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, or demonise the poor when the economy is failing.

Yeah your right but judging by their manifesto they'd probably end up helping to create the conditions right for WW3 to kick off by destabilizing the world economy even further.

Or we might not have invaded Iraq and hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's may have perished in "Iran-Iraq fight to the death with chemical weapons - part 2".

My point being I'm not going to vote for them just because they mightt not have started a war and may or may not have theoretically saved lives. BTW I've worked with a lot of Iraqi's, all them are happy as **** Saddam went - even the ones who had children killed by Nato bombs.

I believe doctors in Germany can prescribe homeopathic medicine

Which makes them tools.

yes it's not ideal

Yes it's far from ideal, they'd be the first ones bleating and pointing to studies if another party came in proclaiming global warming didn't exist. But ****, if you use science against them? Your part of the machine man! This is called confirmation bias.

Lack of evidence based policy is what's gotten this country into the mess it's in, I don't want to vote for another party that is even less inclined to listen to evidence.

I believe doctors in Germany can prescribe homeopathic medicine

Be that as it may, there appears to be no evidence that the Greens support prescribing homeopathic medicine. Even the Guardian link which Z-11 provided in his blundering and hysterical haste, highlights their claim : [i]"Our policy is that any medicine or treatment available on the NHS should be backed up by scientific evidence[/i]." And goes on to comment : [i]"the Greens are excellent on drugs policy, and it is refreshing to see a party highlighting the issue of managing Britain's water supplies"[/i]

But the issue here was never whether or not the Greens supported homeopathic medicine, it was whether they were loonies. Bwaarp appears to be under the impression that those who disagree with him must by definition be loonies. He, by his own admission, has an extremely low opinion of the overwhelming majority of humanity.

There is much of the Green Party's policies which I disagree with, some of it quite fundamental, but I don't automatically dismiss people as loonies simply because they have a different opinion to mine.

Indeed at the last election faced with the depressing sight of three indistinguishable neoliberal parties on my ballot paper, none of which deserved my support, I was forced to vote for the only party on the ballot paper which was actually standing on a social-democratic keynesian ticket, the Greens.

I decided that the Greens had finally grown up and become a serious multi-issue party. And that their policies on the economy, Trident, peace, welfare, transport, etc, deserved to be supported. It is only by supporting alternatives that change occurs. You don't change anything by doing the same thing over and over again.

Yeah they just altered their wording to make themselves seem less loony in their 2010 manifesto

Make available on the NHS complementary
medicines that are cost-effective and have been proven to work

The next anti scientific bit is

Support GM-free zones and continue to
work for a complete ban on genetically
modified food in Europe

There is no reasonable evidence that supports GMO crops being so wildly dangerous it warrants a total ban. They're as safe as any other crop.

Then

Immediately ban causing harm to
animals(including but not only primates)
in research, testing and education, and invest
in the development of alternatives to animal
experiments.

Bye bye medical science in the UK, bye bye billions and billions of pounds worth of research, jobs and infrastructure in Oxfordshire etc

• Protect biodiversity and human and
animal health. We will always adopt the
‘precautionary principle’ with regard to
any alleged benefits of new technologies
such as genetic modification, cloning,
xenotransplantation and nanotechnology

Uhhhh so does science, what that means is that they won't support them at all.

• Reduce dramatically the use of pesticides
and introduce measures such as ‘buffer zones’
around sprayed fields to protect humans as
well as wildlife.

Just think, if the whole world did this we'd have to use more land to produce food or starve. Guess we can make our land nicer and have the wogs grow us more crops though.

It destroys infant industries in poorer
countries, which are forced to open their
markets to imports from more developed
countries, and undermines efforts to
become more self-reliant in both North
and South

My economist girlfriend from the Philippines laughed so hard at this one.

The liberalisation of trade in goods and
services has rendered the world economy
increasingly unstable because economic
contagion spreads more quickly

Yeah all that trade actually tends to decrease wars and increase stability. It's a total fallacy that the world is less Geo-politically stable right now.

It produces increased international trade,
which makes a signi?cant contribution
to the rise in transport-related carbon
emissions.

Oh no. Those brown people are going to improve their living conditions!

Our international policies should everywhere seek to reduce the economic, political
and environmental factors that force people
to migrate. E

Yeah you do that by increasing trade between wealthy nations and developing nations. **** tards

Promote fair trade,so that trade with
developing countries is based on decent
pay and conditions, with a fair price paid
to producers.

I'll refer them to this gem....."A report published by Adam Smith Institute claims that “Fair Trade”methods actually sustain uncompetitive farming practices rather than encourage the development of modern techniques or industrialization. In addition, payment structures put in place by the Fair-trade Foundation “unintentionally encourage farms in developing countries to take on labourers only during harvest time.” Seasonal sugar plantation workers in Asia are the most exploited. They toil under harsh labour conditions with low wages, no medical benefits and housed in crowded and filthy living quarters."

Gradually increase alcohol and tobacco
taxes by about 50% to match anticipated
increases in expenditures on the NHS, raising
£1.4bn in 2010 rising to £5.6bn by 2013.

**** no, if you want to decrease NHS spending costs massively reduce the costs of booze and fags. It'll mean more people killing themselves earlier. This is where I don't get greens, they rail against medicine and international trade like they want to make sure as many people die off as possible....yet they want to ban booze andd fags. I guess it's because they're seen as corporations and we all know they are evil that must be opposed.

Levy eco-taxes on non-renewables or
pollutants, in particular pesticides, organochlorines, nitrogen and artificial fertilisers and phosphates.

= More skyrocketing food costs.

Working to live,
not living to work

I prefer living to work actually, it usually means you have an interesting job. Working to live usually means, well just that. Working to put food on your table

Our programme has to be paid for, and we
accept that the Government borrowing of
12% of GDP is unsustainable. Like the
Government, we would aim to more than
halve the deficit by 2013, and the programme
of taxation and spending in this manifesto is
designed to achieve that.

Massive LOL!

Invest in the green economy now –
and if, in certain vital sectors such as energy
generation, the private sector is acting too
slowly and on an insufficient scale, then the
Government must take the lead.

What, like nuclear? Or Fusion? Or just hundreds of giant ****ing solar panels on every hillside?

Looking at the policies I posted on the previous page as a whole they're whole manifesto seems to revolve around - if it comes from a corporation it must be bad.

* GMO's = Evil and unhealthy

* Pesticides = Evil and unhealthy

* Medical research = Evil

* Alcohol/Cigarettes = Kills lots of people but opposed because they're produced by big faceless corporations.

Many of these policies seem to clash with

* We want to make the world a better place for all the poor people in terms of food security and living standards.

So what do they really want?

Reading between the lines, what their policy amounts to is "anything that is produced locally/small numbers is good. Even if that means lots of people die in the process of attaining that dream." See what I mean, they're still hippies that are opposed to anything produced by "da big man" even if they are better than the alternatives.

You've expended a lot of energy on a party you obviously see as a joke. That's quite pathetic.

mefty - Member
It has become pretty semantic - the points have been made.

Yes you were wrong. 😉

You've expended a lot of energy on a party you obviously see as a joke. That's quite pathetic.

I quite like politics and critiquing a party is what you should do in a democracy, - it allows you to develop a sense of who you shouldn't be voting for 😉 Know thy enemy, plus having a gander at the manifesto allows me to wind up any greens at the next dinner party I go to in Oxford.

And seeing as they take exception to my line of work, I'll take a heavy interest in them thanks.

Can't wait to see you 'critique' of other party's manifestos.

This is a forum, If I had time I could write several dissertations on why they are wrong on medicine, wrong on agriculture and wrong on trade....all backed up with good data.

I dislike all the parties - but most of all UKIP, the BNP and the Greens.

Three consecutive ranting posts, endlessly rambling on without any input from anyone else, calm down bwaarp. Otherwise people might start thinking you're bit of a looney.

And you wouldn't want that now would you ? 🙂

HAHA oh ****ing god David Icke was in the Green Party.

google didnt work this morning - surely that the signal for the end of democracy and indeed civilisation?

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/darker-shades-of-green/

Secondly, in contrast with the Malthusians are groups with neo-Nazi pedigree who claim to advocate 'social justice' and decentralization. In the 1980s, the National Front's Joe Pearce described 'Social Justice, Ecology and Racial Purity' as the three pillars of 'nationalism'. Ruralism, spiritual values, social credit and even animal rights are themes that both appeal to greens but are also given a far-right spin by these groups. Social Credit is a 1930s theory devised by anti-semite Major Douglas, which advocates community take-over of banks, that places the blame for ecological destruction on the banking system rather than capitalism/industrialism. And from here it is a short step to the NF's shrilling about a global Jewish banking conspiracy and 'Alien Bankers Destroying British Countryside' (see Nationalism Today, March 1980). Their espousal of animal rights focuses on ritual slaughter, with the right forgetting that kosher and halal practices are intended to reduce the suffering of animals.

David Icke was in the Green Party.

He was also a BBC Sport presenter. I suggest you boycott the BBC in response.

It was another Green Party btw.

Whoops

It was another Green Party btw.

The other one being the prior version they had before they split it to cover England Scotland and Wales as seperate entities.

So what if he was a sports presenter. The point is.... considering his views....he was attracted to the green party. I wonder why?

What did the greens do to you bwaarp?

You're in a safe place, you can tell us.

What did the greens do to you bwaarp?

Existed,

I jest.... I just don't like what they stand for in their manifesto, who they are and the ideological undercurrents associated with the movement.

bwaarp the greens exist because someone in politics has to represent the ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits who have no voice of their own. Bless

bwaarp the greens exist because someone in politics has to represent the ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits who have no voice of their own. Bless

Lol, I disagree. They exist because they are as I suspect, closeted or confused far righters that need to wrap their racism in something more middle class.

I'll do a psychology study to prove it one day.

he was attracted to the green party

Another party with different policies, different members, and different structures. Perhaps you should be asking why he's not in the Green Party we are talking about ?

Btw I believe that David Icke likes to wear purple, consequently, do you think people should avoid wearing purple ?

So what do you think of this article then Ernie considering the party and movements past

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/darker-shades-of-green/

It seems rather coincidental that much of what is in the manifesto ties in with the accusations made in that article.

binners - Member

someone in politics has to represent the ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits who have no voice of their own.

Interestingly, their increased support in recent years appears to be precisely because they have moved beyond that.

Maybe you hadn't noticed binners ?

I have to confess Ernie that I'm not overly familiar with their manifesto. Could you summarise for me please? Its basically saving kittens, talking to fair trade plants and installing wind turbines on everyone's head isn't it?

I have to confess Ernie that I'm not overly familiar with their manifesto. Could you summarise for me please? Its basically saving kittens, talking to fair trade plants and installing wind turbines on everyone's head isn't it?

And destroying the world economy and agricultural system whilst on the other hand saying they want to help all the poor people.

It's fascism for the Womens Institute and Friends of the Earth.

Well I'm struggling to believe that you lack the necessary google skills binners, but have a look at this :

http://greenparty.org.uk/policies.html

I quite like a lot of the stuff in that. Although undoubtedly it will send bwaarp into a raging rant.

Having a quick read, that sounds dangerously like what the labour party [i]should[/i] be doing if it hadn't become the impotent, irrelevant (relatively) moderate wing of the Tories

I have to confess Ernie that I'm not overly familiar with their manifesto. Could you summarise for me please? Its basically saving kittens, talking to fair trade plants and installing wind turbines on everyone's head isn't it?

Yes, it's basically saving kittens. Whilst fundamentally misunderstanding why we need both an efficient and productive agricultural system.

Listen to greenies and you'll end up with a vastly more productive agricultural system yet one that's so expensive and inefficient in man hours everyone, and I mean everyone will have to work on the land.

The views of your average Eco warrior on GM crops are also heavily based in the land of idiocy. GM is ok, so long as it was done in ye olde ways and you don't have a white coat on when you do it seems to be the jist. There are issues with GM, but it has more to do with the application. And especially who controls the supply.

Bwaaaarps deranged ranting however, is bloody good fun. Keep up the good work Bwaarpy, have you considered representing the 0.5% in the right by setting up a political party?

Was ruining food supply and trade part of Old Labors manifesto? I think not.

Keep the proper Labour policies, cut out everything else and call them Old Labour....then I'll vote for them.

Food and agriculture
The Green Party will pursue a resilient local and global food supply to ensure everyone has access to a sufficient diet of nutritious, safe and affordable food. We will support farming and local growing practices that protect the land and wider environment, support decent jobs, provide healthy food and respect animal welfare. We will support a European ban on genetically modified food.

This is quite different to the ramblings I heard from the Green Rep I last spoke to.

This is quite different to the ramblings I heard from the Green Rep I last spoke to.

What, the reps rantings were even worse? How do they expect to meet that pledge when they want to do away with modern farming practices as evidenced by their 2010 election manifesto?

What they state on the website looks considerably watered down in comparison.

Back to the actual topic though. Half the reason or voting for minor parties is to create influence over main stream decision making. The current system relies on people believing that a protest vote is a wasted vote. When really it isn't, it's a protest. There is the mechanism in place to effect change (flawed admittedly) but it does require people to make it happen.

Tory decision making has been affected by UKIP. What would labour policies looked like if 1 million of there supporters switches to SWP?

Yes, I know. Loonies everywhere.

I would....perhaps vote for SWP to get Labour to swing a little more left - but here's the kicker.

If I/we did that and Labour went further left they'd end up losing seats to the SWP or the Tories like the Tories are with UKIP and Labour......and my line of reasoning has always been.....anything to keep the conservatives out. Labours policies are just enough to the left of the conservatives for me to go with the safe option.

For the record I'm a slightly left wing libertarian so none of the parties including the SWP appeal to me.

What would labour policies looked like if 1 million of there supporters switches to SWP?

I take it that would just be the blokes?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-workers-party-rape-kangaroo-court

http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2013/01/what-does-swps-way-dealing-sex-assault-allegations-tell-us-about-left

I can't see the Labour Womens Network embracing SWP policies anytime soon!

I'm a little surprised that link didn't come up as the first response

The current system relies on people believing that a protest vote is a wasted vote.

Not a mistake that's likely to be repeated by anyone who voted Lib Dem last time around. That's what worries me a bit. Voting for someone who makes all the right noises, making all sorts of claims, as they know they're never going to be voted in. Then when they find themselves in power, turning out to be a completely different animal altogether from what you voted for.

[img] [/img]

So, somewhat perversely, I wonder if (I agree with) Nick could have not only wiped out his own party (lets take that as read) but scuppered the chances of the like of the Greens as a protest vote? Just a thought

Besides, it's an example of how to influence mainstream decision making. Not an actual suggestion.

You vote for who you want to vote for.but if your unhappy with the current state of affairs you need to do something other than sustaining it.

Yeh, Lid Dems are screwed. On one hand they have one of there balls under a Tory heel, on the other there voters are stamping hard and fast.

They should never have got into bed with the Tories. What did they really think would happen?

Good lord, look at the shambles that was voting reform.

Voting for someone who makes all the right noises, making all sorts of claims, as they know they're never going to be voted in

perhaps vote for SWP to get Labour to swing a little more left - but here's the kicker.

They should never have got into bed with the Tories. What did they really think would happen?

Bwaarp, I love the idea of left-wing libertarianism. It's sounds like an oxymoron, but isn't of course. But be careful, you get flamed on here if you do not pigeon hole yourself according to traditional and wel-defined party politics 😉

Good for Ernie and others sticking up for the poor old greens. This is a party that actually has an MP and yet gets buggar all media coverage, versus UKIP whose coverage is out of proportion with its "actual" political status or representation. Now why is that?

I heard a great description of UKIP the other day

The BNP for people who shop at Marks and Spencer 😆

Now why is that?

Election results

UKIP - 919546 votes
Green - 285616 votes

Junky, To be fair to Farage - thats one area where he's done something remarkable - mobilised the 'don't votes' to come out and support his party, as well as taking from all three main parties (not just disaffected Tories)

The BNP for people who shop at Marks and Spencer

Now that's a keeper

Good spot piemonster! But even then?

Good spot piemonster! But even then?

Constituency boundaries?

Bwaarp, I love the idea of left-wing libertarianism. It's sounds like an oxymoron, but isn't of course. But be careful, you get flamed on here if you do not pigeon hole yourself according to traditional and wel-defined party politic

Fair point. I don't really where I fit in though, I have left wing social ideals, right wing views of corporations (as in they're not always bad) and a streak of libertarian philosophy thrown in.

😉 I get the boundary bit! By "even then", I meant that even considering the difference in votes that comparative coverage of UKIP v Greens seems somewhat out of kilter!

You have sent me off for some new reading with LWL Bwaarp. Interesting that Libertarianism is more commonly associated with RW politics but where it exists in a LW form tends to be associated with anarchism. I am sure there is some interesting middle ground! Are you John Rawls in disguise (obviously not as he is dead, but...)?

I meant that even considering the difference in votes that comparative coverage of UKIP v Greens seems somewhat out of kilter!

Given much of the media reporting on UKIP has been in the context of recent by-elections (Middlesborough, Croydon, Eastleigh) and that the Greens didnt field a candidate in any one of them whereas UKIP placed 2nd, 3rd and 2nd respectively in the same, and that polling is showing twice as many nationally favouring UKIP than "others" into which is bundled the Green party, I think it's not surprising that a "freakish"* win of a parliamentary seat against the odds of the first past the post system does not necessarily put the Greens on political/media par with UKIP.

*we're talking brighton here folks 😉

UKIP hit the headlines a lot because of the knock on effect towards the Tory filth bags in power. That and they are all racists, yes all of them.

That and saving kittens isn't big news. The greens need to get out more in masks and white overalls and trash some valuable scientific research that might help feed people in decades to come.

Well that's my honest and reasoned oNion on the matter. Well, some of it, perhaps....

I guess I should stop digging then!! Puts shovel back in shed and repairs hole.... 😉

Wish I had a shed, garages are good. But it's a direct link to the kitchen and..... Her

Mcmoonter really should set up a sideline business.

Democracy is well and truly getting a kicking:

http://www.****/debate/article-2276327/Last-week-MPs-revived-corpse-Secret-Justice-Bill--debating-gay-marriage-time-noticed-Here-spell-terrifying-implications-life--Secret-Britain.html#axzz2KUQUBQxz

The House of Commons have already approved the Justice and Security bill and only the House of Lords now stand in the way of secret courts...

Now it could just be coincidence, but the timing coincides quite well with the ongoing investigation into the 80s Establishment Paedophile ring which included members of the Cabinet, The Royal Household and a famous pop star...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-failings-put-dozens-of-children-at-risk-from-notorious-paedophile-ring-8518522.html

Could it be that national security procedures revolve around blackmail as witnessed in the Kincora Scandal and they want to make sure the dark truth is never exposed?

I see that the BBC were obviously reading this - the leader of the Greens is on QT tonight. After all I said, I had better watch it!

Election results

UKIP - 919546 votes
Green - 285616 votes

That is not necessarily an accurate indicator of popular support. At the last general election UKIP contested almost twice as many seats as the Greens, so you would expect them to have almost twice as many votes if their support was identical.

It does suggest that UKIP possibly enjoys roughly twice the support that the Greens do. However I don't think anyone could argue that the Greens receive half the media coverage that UKIP does. Or even a quarter.

EDIT : I withdraw that ^^ comment, it's quite impossible to conclude what popular support might be from just the total votes throughout the UK. I suspect that UKIP support was probably 4 times or more than the Greens in 2010. Although I maintain that the Greens don't get a quarter of the coverage in the press/TV that UKIP do.

Caroline Lucas wins a googlefight but this might be because it is a more common name.

Some Labour MEP did a QT analysis and Farage appeared 11 times to Lucas's 8, it is tricky because they tend to get wheeled out when issues they are associated with are making the news. Europe has probably been a bit more high profile recently.

Both parties have done remarkably well considering their meagre financial resources, the Greens have focused their spending on a few areas which means they have done much better in FPTP elections, whereas UKIP has fought on a broader front bringing success in PR elections, but very limited FPTP success.

Farage is funnier though.

However I don't think anyone could argue that the Greens receive half the media coverage that UKIP does

you're having a laugh!

do you remember the coverage prior to the Norwich North by election, when the BBC put forward the Greens as the fourth party, inviting them to a place in the televised hustings, but excluding UKIP

Same in the run up to the London mayoral elections - who was in the hustings? Jenny jones.

a QT analysis

To be fair QT tends to invite a lot of people who aren't from the 3 main parties, but that sort of exposure is not reflected throughout the media. As I say, imo the Greens don't get a quarter of the day to day coverage that UKIP does.