h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, sorry for my rather pathetic cheap shot about veggies, Dr. Zen.

I just wish the Green party would grow up a bit. And I reckon far more people would vote for them if they faced hard facts about nuclear power.

"Maybe it's just semantics, but I'd include ugliness as a constituent part of the craziness. It's not crazy to want the world to be as the tree hugging wing of the Green Party think it is, but it's very crazy indeed to want it to be as the BNP think it is."

BNP policies could result in deportations. Ugly.
Green policies could result tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
Uglier.

From what I've seen of elections in the past 15 years ... I believe it comes down to two questions:

- Do we like the current ruling party?
- If not, is there a viable alternative?

For that reason the BNP, LibDems, Greens or any other small party will not be in power for a long time.

Which is why we need rational electoral reform.

oops ... ambiguous ... I mean "will not be elect to power in a long time" ...

"BNP policies could result in deportations. Ugly.

Green policies could result tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
Uglier."

You're being a bit dishonest with that "could result in" phrase. BNP policies support deportations as a means to an end.

All past governments have been committed to deportations of illegals. It's disingenuous to raise that as an ugly spectre.
The "could" I was trying to refer to was the potential threat "we" suspect them of wanting to carrying out of forced deportation of those with full legal rights to live here. Which is not something they are at least publicly trying to get elected on.
The Greens are trying to get elected on policies that if enacted as outlined in their manifesto would result in tens of thousand of avoidable deaths. Through poorer nutrition, bogus health "therapies", increased relative poverty, energy shortages...

It's "could" in the case of the Greens because even if they were did get into power the extent to which reality would stop them from carrying out there policies is as great as that it would stop the BNP from delivering.

"BNP policies could result in deportations.

Green policies could result tens of thousands of avoidable deaths."

Again, you're being dishonest about that phrase - but we already have tens of thousands of avoidable deaths - the benefits of the research into medication that we already have are limited to very few people. And that isn't the fault of the Greens - how many countries have them in government?

The BNP want the deportation of nationals.

If you want to check out Greens in denial about nuclear energy you should take a look at Ireland's Green party: the energy minister there is Green and he brought a law through the parliament to prohibit nuclear energy in Ireland and then another one to establish a connection to the British grid so the super-Green, non-nuclear Irish can buy nuclear powered energy from the British... crackin!


Regarding the question whether the Tories can and/or should be win the next election my respective answers would be; yes they can and, as far as I can see, at this stage, there's no reason why they are any less deserving than Labour (who're the only other party likely to be able to form a government).

The greens must be getting somewhere to be discussed as a party to vote for. I might have a look at 'em.

Remember that you're voting for your local MP. Has your MP done a good job? A decent MP can do a decent job regardless of (and, in many cases, despite) their party.

King Bomba, kindly don't throw accusation of dishonesty around that are so transparently hypocritical.

If wish to make rebuttals of my position then kindly go to the effort of using your brain and posting something intelligible. You deserve nothing but ridicule, but I shall be polite.

Repetition of your claim to my dishonesty of phrasing does not make it any more true after my refutation of it than was before.
Your claim that extra avoidable deaths are not relevant by virtue of our having other avoidable deaths is inane and dishonest.
Your dishonesty is compounded by "the benefits of the research into medication that we already have are limited to very few people" which is simply an outright lie.

Thank you - hypocrites are two for a penny, but transparency is a rare trait indeed!

'Your dishonesty is compounded by "the benefits of the research into medication that we already have are limited to very few people" which is simply an outright lie.'

Well, you tell me. Why are people dying from diseases which you, and I, and a number of lucky others, can buy cures for at under £1?

There are many reasons.

One of those reasons is anti-science policies. AIDS denialism. Use of bogus vitamin "treatments". Homeopaths Without Borders.

Do you think that endorsing anti-science policies here in the UK is mandated by the lack of access to the benefits of science and resultant suffering elsewhere in the world?

If so, then it is not that I have been dishonest, but that your opinions are best ignored.


Now, what you could have done instead of calling me dishonest and bringing in the poor state of healthcare elsewhere in the world. As a non sequitir. Would be to point out that I had overlooked the potential for people deported or otherwise "repatriated" by the BNP from the UK to die from illnesses they would not have had they remained in their native UK.
Which brings the BNP back up to parity in ugliness stakes. One party treats people like animals and the other party wants to deny people treatment to protect animal "rights" when billions of people are suffering from illness and don't have the even the basic rights their voters take for granted.

Shall we move on to why UKIP and the Natural Law Party are deluded fools?

Jack, I think your attitude towards the Green party is mistaken for several reasons. First of all, you've picked just one policy out of many and judged it on the basis of how many deaths it will cause. You don't use this criterion to judge what the other parties do, I'm sure. Second, you're not counting the total effect, only the effect of one policy in isolation. The Greens may well lead to health improvements, even with a ban on animal testing, because they would promote economic equality - and economic inequality is highly correlated with health and mortality stats. There's also the effect of climate change which will have huge effects on mortality, amongst other things. Thirdly, you're missing a basic aspect of politics - it would be crazy to only vote for a party you agreed with 100% on, because then you'd never vote for anyone.

There are things, major things, I disagree with the Greens on (and their animal testing policy is one of them), but it's still worth voting for them. The strongest signal that voting for the Greens sends is that you're interested in environmental issue, most importantly climate change. If large numbers of people started voting Green, it would be clear to everyone that it was because of climate change, and not because of their policies on animal testing.

Remember, at this point in time a vote for the Greens is not a vote for the Greens to be in power - there's no chance of that happening at this election. It is rather a vote that does two things: (1) it says that you other parties cannot continue to ignore the issue of climate change in the way you are doing at the moment, it will cost you votes, and (2) it helps to build the Green party for future elections. The message to other parties is important because, by costing them votes, it forces them to change their policies in a more environmentally friendly direction. This is the best and most immediate way of achieving a change in climate related legislation in the short term. On the second point - you may not want to build the Green party because you disagree with them on this one issue, but that's misguided. Part of what you get when you build a party is a say in what their policies should be - especially if you play an active role, but even if you play a passive one. As more and more people join the Green party who disagree with policies like the one on animal testing, the more likely it is that they will change it (this is already happening, and they are going to review this policy at their next conference - the outcome of that will depend on how many people there are at that time who disagree with the policy).

I don't vote Green because I want their programme as they outline it today to be enacted, I vote for them because they're the only ones taking environmental issues and social justice seriously, and therefore I want them to become a bigger force, improving some of their less sensible policies on the way. I know for a fact that there are significant currents within the Green party who want to change the policy on animal testing, for example, and are just waiting to get enough support to push it through.

Move wherevere you want, Jack.

Your logic was faulty.

Hi, Dogster.
I touched on a number of policy areas including animals rights, healthcare, energy, trade and agriculture.
The body count got a mention to highlight the ugly consequences of the anti-science bias of their incoherent and impracticable manifesto.
I think the party manifesto is something people are to ready to ignore when they endorse it at the ballot.
I still contend that it is as crazy as the BNP manifesto. Just a different kind of crazy. The BNP promise to improve economic equality, and keep the NHS safe. It doesn't mitigate endorsing the .
I understand too well that one can't vote party one agrees with a hundred percent. But one should not overlook that a vote for party is awarding a mandate to deliver on their manifesto. If they win they decide which promises to prioritise and how to deliver. If they increase their support they come away with a mandate to persist in the same vein.

I understand that many people vote on the basis of sending a message to major parties. It's damned inefficient way of delivering a message.
And you've no idea how it is interpreted at the receiving end or if received at all.

Voting for a party does not give a you say in what their policies should be. A vote for a party at the election is a vote for their manifesto, all of it.

Do you think you vote at elections for the Greens has caused them for moment to reconsider their position on animal testing? Of course not. Because you gave it your endorsement.

It's unreasonable of you to ask that I change my attitude toward the Greens based on the good intentions of the wiser membership. I judge the party by the intentions in declares in it's manifesto. When the manifesto changes my attitude may need to.

I don't accept that the Green Party does take environmental issues seriously. Yes they are energised over it. But their policies are not serious policies. They are against nuclear. They want to cut funding to nuclear research. Does that include fusion research? They are against GM crops. What about genetically modified bacteria that produce fuels?
If they were not so anti-science then perhaps they could be taken seriously on the environment, their core issue.
And they could be awarded the benefit of the doubt on how realistic some of their other fantastic goals are. Until then they will be judged by the company they keep.
I see that them as barrier to getting change sooner rather than later, drawing activists that don't have such daft ideas away from contributing to the shaping the future of say LimDem policies.

Read more widely, Jack.

My regrets on your traumatic brain damage.