They have some very good policies.. but why wont people generally vote for them? I know many here will vote green but now is probably a golden opportunity for the party to gain huge ground due to most people not wanting to vote for the mainstream donkeys. Do people just not bother checking on party policies and get manipulated by the mainstream media to vote anti Romanian?

For years my local greens were slightly left of the socialist party and had policies that had more to do with anti-capitalism than green politics. For the first time there’s a party that sticks to green issues without promising full employment and growth. How they’d manage an economy I have no idea, but if they run the EU they won’t have to so they’ll probably get my vote on Sunday.

Historically it’s been a combination of “No! to EVERYTHING” and as Edukator said the super left ideals that I think most accept never really work.

With UKIP being an exception single issue politics is a tough gig to sell, EU elections get round that partly as PR brings in some of the fringes and partly as people think that protest voting in PR is a good idea – only vote for people you want to see get in.

Being a green party means you skip over a lot of other issues. Being a progressive/center/moderate party with green ideals means you can end up looking like the lib dems. Your either niche enough for your core support or sell outs.

If people voted based on policy rather than dogmatic party political alligences based on stuff their folks told them or something that was done while the current crop of politicians was in school doesn’t mean you will get what you thought you voted for.

So enough being a politician and not answering the question. If someone like the greens can provide a good broad spectrum of policies they might have a chance.
If I was voting their anti nuclear, anti GM stuff would cost them my vote.

I always vote for them. It’s shortsighted madness not to.

First Pass the Post system probably stops a lot of people voting for the smaller parties. Wasted vote and all that.

Their science policy is stuck in the dark ages anti gm, anti stem cell, and generally very damaging to medical and scuentific research on (knee jerk) principal rather than based on any sound reasoning
As a scientist I can’t see past that no matter how much I a agree with their other policies

Also they need to get behind nuclear

If I was voting their anti nuclear, anti GM stuff would cost them my vote.

So your a fan of tons of massively radioactive waste (I assume we’re talking Uranium) that we have no idea how to store for 1000 years let alone tens of thousands. Yet reserves will only last about 85 years?

GM seed? Monsanto? Seed patenting that’s only compatible with specific fertilizers etc?

Come on those aren’t make of break issues are they?

Nonsense policies I don’t agree with e.g. raising fuel tax by 8% a year every year, compulsory 40% allocation of women on company boards, abolishing tax relief on pensions, banning of all animal testing.

i vote green.

i don’t like all their policies, but there’s no need to worry about that, they’re a long way from winning.

you could call it a protest vote, which would probably be fair, but it’s a lot better than not bothering.

you could say the same things about voting ukip, but the significant difference is that the greens mean well.

It’s the colour, it looks a bit drab.

@tightywighty Those are huge issues you can’t just brush away. I agree with Kimbers here, the power situation in the UK is reaching a critical stage and we must take definitive action, in my belief nuclear is the best choice.

Just because they have one or two good policies doesn’t mean they should be ushered in as our new leaders.

Do people just not bother checking on party policies and get manipulated by the mainstream media to vote anti Romanian?

I’d never vote for You Kip.

Alot of the the Green Party’s policies are already in action by the current/previous leaders.

compulsory 40% allocation of women on company boards

You have a point, 50% would be fairer.

As for the fuel tax, fuel is far to cheap at present as you only pay for using it rather than using it and the consequences of using it. Much the same as nuclear power, you are only paying the current cost rather than the true long-term cost.

JCL – Member
If I was voting their anti nuclear, anti GM stuff would cost them my vote.
So your a fan of tons of massively radioactive waste (I assume we’re talking Uranium) that we have no idea how to store for 1000 years let alone tens of thousands. Yet reserves will only last about 85 years?

Given I have a fairly deep understanding of the issues associated with Nuclear Power and the waste it can produce both historically and going forward I’m still in favour. It is one of the few things that can produce a stable low carbon baseload to compliment the growing renewable sector. In the absence of other sensible options it’s the best one.

GM seed? Monsanto? Seed patenting that’s only compatible with specific fertilizers etc?

You have to decide if the technology can be made to work why shouldn’t it be used for good. Your mixing up the technology with the business and throwing out advances to solve the problem of greedy corporate strategy.

So yes blanket no’s to things like that would be a deal breaker. I’d not seen a few of the other science ones which also make me very uncomfortable.

I voted LibDem at the last election because I believed they offered a genuine alternative to the other two. Lesson learned.

I’m going Green this time.

Although living in a city with a green council and a green MP I’ve probably seen more of what they actually do than most. Tbh, they’re not that different to all the others but maybe different enough.

raising fuel tax by 8% a year every year

What would that gain?

So ultimately when the Green Party has forced everyone to work from home, only get jobs locally or catch public transport (imagine the fare rises)…

Our food prices would sky rocket- how does food get to supermarkets and restaurants again? Oh yes lots of cafes/restaurants would close as people wouldn’t pay the prices.

where would the Green Party make up for the shortfall in the massive current tax income from fuel tax? The government needs this steady income.

Oh yes- it’d need to raise income tax to balance the books.

Oh and Green Party’s policy on trams- its already happening.

The sensible energy option people on this forum consistently refuse is investing in energy saving themselves. Even when the investments pay for themselves in 2-20 years. People accuse governments of being short sighted but are just as short sighted themselves.

You only have to look at the car threads to see that fuel economy and fuel type is one of the least important considerations in car choice. Given a choice of 200bhp/T with 40mpg on diesel and 100bhp/T with 45mpg on petrol, which would an STWer choose?

I thought the greens spent most of their energy fighting each other for not being far enough to the left?

The idea of the Greens is great, would be nice to get that without a lot of the hardline socialist baggage.

Hora,

People won’t be forced to work from home though many would love the opportunity to do so.
Most people would like to work locally and approve measures to make that possible.
Public transport costs invariably go down when greens get in.
Food might be a little more expensive but I’m happy to pay a little more to reduce my chances of getting cancer to 1950s levels.
I never eat in restaurants partly because they serve re-heated industrial bilge (check stats before you rubbish me).
The greens would raise more tax per litre of fuel so there would be no shortfall even if fuel demand dropped.
Trams are fine in big cities, preferably with rubber tyres, but buses/mini-buses are better in small towns.

Edit: I agree Martin, the left has hijacked the green movement and seems intent on crashing it.

Edukator- where would the people in the catering industry find new work? Beer etc would also increase in price wouldn’t it so pubs etc would close faster.

You’d want us to become a village economy?

Public transport costs invariably go down when greens get in.

How? All the talk but what would happen in reality would be increased subsidies with raised taxes elsewhere to cover the shortfall/balance the books.

The time is not that far off when the thought of an 8% rise in fuel would be considered a good thing as opposed to 10-15% as it starts to run out.

But with anything like that the solutions need to be in place before the stick is used.

Probably what happened was the founder was actually colour blind; the policies and the colour don’t quite match, unless you’re colour blind.

How? Because an efficient integrated transport system attracts enough users to make it profitable. I never have any trouble getting where I want to go in Germany with or without my bike though it does often involve standing due to popularity. In the UK it’s impossible with my bike and an expensive, frustrating process without it.

Living in a village economy is preferable to living in a stinking big city IMO.

The current tax system is all about subsidising some sectors with taxes raised in others. Green politics concentrate on subsidising things that do you less harm or no harm by taxing things that do you harm.

JCL you are a perfect example of green scientific ignorance

Whatever beef you have with monsanto you fail to appreciate that such technology isn’t all about one corporation and that’s exactly why it’s important to have government engaged and funding the research

When an issue that’s generated so much press for the movement seems to provoke such an immature response – at ukip levels of intransigence you know they can’t be trusted

Edukator – Troll
compulsory 40% allocation of women on company boards
You have a point, 50% would be fairer.

Why? Sex should not be an issue. Period.

So we’d be totally green here. As the smog/pollution of industrial output of Europe drifts over into our country.

On affirmative action. Its encroaching on big brother for me.

So we’d be totally green here. As the smog/pollution of industrial output of Europe drifts over into our country.

Prevailing winds in the UK means the smog/pollution goes the other way, generally. And the UK is part of Europe, too.

I won’t vote Green due to the anti-science ignorance most of their policies seem to be based on.

Why? Sex should not be an issue. Period.

There’s a notion that women need a leg over up.

The Green party leader is called Natalie.

Thats not a strong female leaders name. What would her nickname be? The green lettuce lady?

Already being covered above, but just to add my weight. The ‘green’ movement in general is in favour of things that are bad for the environment and bad for people. They are anti-scientific and dogmatic. They promote a political and social idea that we should revert to a pre-industrial way of life and claim that it’s about the environment.

Oh, and the ‘nuclear waste’ problem is only a semantic problem. It’s not waste, it’s fuel, it still has up to 95% of the original energy in it. We have a nuclear fuel surplus.

Cause they are no fun. where as UKiP are a laugh a minute.

I do love how UKIP are being taken down. If anyone who was going to vote for them still is then god help us.

Anti nuclear power. Anti capitalist. Anti free market economics.

Controlling centrists who shouldn’t be in “control” of a piss-up, let alone an entire country.

Green Power? Ne Bedankt.

Worrying about putting your nation at a competitive disadvantage by voting green in national elections is a valid concern, however, in the European elections the measures apply to everybody in the free-trade area so the playing field remains level. It’s the perfect opportunity to vote with my conscience rather than the economic interests of my nation.

Why wont people vote green?

The Green Party’s greatest handicap imo is that it is consistently ignored by the media.

In the last European elections of 2009 they received more votes than the BNP and yet all the fuss was about the BNP winning two seats (the Green Party also won two seats)

In the local elections of 2009 the Green Party won more than twice as many councillors as UKIP, but you could be forgiven for not realising that in light of the UKIP-centric media.

The Green party leader is called Natalie.

Thats not a strong female leaders name. What would her nickname be? The green lettuce lady?

UKIP have similar issues.

“Nigel the Impaler”

isn’t going to strike fear into any Romanian’s heart.

yeah vote green get dope cafes

DU405 Cannabis would be removed from the 1971 Misuse of drugs act. The possession, trade and cultivation of cannabis would be immediately decriminalised, roughly following the Dutch model. The trade in Cannabis would be the subject of a Royal Commission (see below), with a view to establishing a fully legalised, controlled and regulated trade. Small-scale possession of drugs for personal use would be decriminalised.

“Nigel the Impaler”

isn’t going to strike fear into any Romanian’s heart.

Ravage Farage?

Can I vote for mikewsmith?

It’s a free country I vote for the party I think will run the whole country best. Can’t see green policies working if they can’t run the economy