Tag Archives: election

Engineering consent for fracking: Chris Smith and the ‘astroturf’ consultancy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Unless George Osborne gets new orders about his budget this week, it looks like, despite the bluster of the last year, the Government will not be announcing the results of the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Licensing Round this side of the election (perhaps they’re worried about legal action).

Despite this the Conservative’s token ‘green’, Tim Yeo MP, has been trumpeting the benefits of shale gas, based upon some spurious data produced by DECC which – as I outline in a new report for Talk Fracking this week – is based upon questionable results.

Arguably Tim Yeo’s trust in those results, expressed during the Parliamentary debate on the moratorium proposed by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, has been very much abused by DECC and shale gas’s supporters in government.

In fact, with less than two months to go before the election, and despite ‘fracking’ having been the major grassroots environmental issue of the last Parliament, all is quiet on the shale gas front.

In reality though this is just the calm before the post-election PR storm.

Coming our way – the fracking spin machine

Irrespective of who wins (or perhaps in the circumstances, who loses the least), after the election the UK public will face an onslaught of PR-orchestrated ‘spin’ to promote shale gas, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification (UCG) as the best thing since … well, anything!

In Scotland, a moratorium on ‘fracking’ was imposed days after the failure of the moratorium in Parliament (although, as I highlighted in my last Ecologist article, the wording of the moratorium doesn’t cover UCG).

As a result the pro-fracking company INEOS, recently heavily invested into unconventional gas, is planning to “love bomb” the Scottish public back into supporting fracking. And though in Scotland that campaign is just getting under-way, in England it’s already begun …

What?, hadn’t you noticed? – that’s because you weren’t meant to.

In the final case study of my recent report for Talk Fracking I examine the use of academics within the Task Force on Shale Gas – a body set up last September under the auspices of former New Labour minister, and more recently former head of the Environment Agency, Lord Chris Smith.

The Task Force claims to “provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny, discussion and information about shale gas exploration and production in the UK.”

Behold the Prince of Darkness … Edel who?

This is where the public relations ‘shadow play’ comes into its own. Not in the guise of Lord Chris Smith – who while head of the Environment Agency had behind the scenes meetings to thrash out how environmental regulations would be watered-down.

Not even the Task Force’s ‘expert panel’ members – many of whom have previously expressed support for shale gas and even outright hostility to the anti-fracking movement. And not even the oil and gas industry companies – who are funding the work of the Task Force.

The real players here – the people behind the scenes pulling the strings of the shadow play puppets – are Edelman, which acts as the Task Force’s secretariat.

Who are Edelman? That’s the really important question here – and the most prescient question to ask in relation to the Task Force’s future work on behalf of the public.

All modern businesses tend to specialise in certain fields. Edelman’s specialism is ‘grassroots engagement’ – creating industry-friendly front – or ‘astroturf’-groups to represent the benefits of controversial developments. Edelman has developed this technique in the US for its large American extractive and industrial clients over the last decade or so.

Their purpose is not to convince the public. They are there – as outlined in the recent US study Merchants of Doubt – to confuse the public so that they don’t know who to believe. Their aim is to create, as the original strategies developed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s outlined, an apparent controversy so they can get their point across.

They do not create unity or agreement on an issue, but instead seek to polarise the community to prevent the grassroots opposition holding sway over political decision-makers.

Neutralizing risk, pressurizing opponents

If you want to see how Edelman works, take a look at TransCanada’s alternative proposal for the stalled Keystone Pipeline – the East Energy Pipeline.

Even before the route was announced, TransCanada employed Edelman to carry out an assessment of how they could “drive an active public discussion about Energy East that gives Canadians reasons to affirmatively support the project in the face of organized opposition.”

The way this would be enacted is outlined in another study prepared a few months later by Edelman:

“The most effective way to counter any external challenge is to ready a robust campaign that comprises proactive and reactive communication activities. This approach strives to neutralize risk before it is levelled, respond directly to issues or attacks as they arise, and apply pressure – intelligently – on opponents, as appropriate.”

Their strategy also included a specific digital ‘grassroots advocacy’ proposal which – from Edelman’s US-based offices where they maintain a large interactive intelligence database – would organise an on-line campaign, using 35,000 recruited ‘activists’, to target conventional and social media with positive messages about TransCanada’s pipeline.

There was even a separate proposal for Francophone Québec – perhaps because Edelman’s research showed that French speaking Canadians were politically disposed to be “green” or “super-green”.

The difficulty for Edelman and their clients was that someone leaked these documents to Greenpeace Canada last November.

Edelman changes trains

Which brings us back to the Task Force on Shale Gas.

Up until the Task Force was created, Edelman had been running the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. The APPGs expenses were funded, like many other APPGs, by the industry – a similar group in fact to those who now support the new Task Force.

Trouble was, being comprised of politicians, the public paid little attention to any of the industry propaganda’ which the APPG circulated.

Then last Autumn, roughly coincident with the formation of the Task Force, Edelman dropped the APPG – handing the secretariat role to another agency with a track record of astroturfing on behalf of industrial causes, Hill and Knowlton.

Was the APPG a failing cause? Were politicians the wrong conduit to influence the public?

After all, in 2013 someone at one of the funders of the Task Force, Centrica, had written an email to the Department for Energy and Climate (DECC) office promoting shale gas stating that

“Our polling shows that academics are the most trusted sources of information to the public so we are looking at ways to work with the academic community to present the scientific facts around shale.”

Just few months before the dropping the APPG, Edelman employed Katie Waring, energy secretary Ed Davey’s former special adviser at DECC – perhaps indicating that a change of strategy was being planned.

With Edelman, has the Task Force lost all credibility?

The problem for the ambitions of Chris Smith is that the model of the Task Force – comprising experts doing research for the public, funded by industry and managed by PR agencies – has already been used in the USA. For example, the Center for Sustainable Shale Development.

It too was modelled as a ‘stakeholder group’ where academics, industry and the public could come together and research the impacts of shale gas – but which was shown to be a front group for the industry, and whose fossil fuel industry support increased when some non-industry members left.

Even with the panel of experts many of whom are pre-disposed to shale gas, and the industry financing, the involvement of Edelman is toxic to the future work of the Task Force.

Chris Smith has to come clean. Who thought up the concept of the Task Force? Who co-ordinated the early meetings and identified the key figures who would take part? And what has been the role of Edelman in that process?

If the Task Force exists “to provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny”, then a key part of that has to be accounting for the previous manipulative role of Edelman in controversial public issues – and whether that contaminates the Task Force’s role to serve the public interest.

A ‘fair and impartial platform’? Hardly!

In the USA almost 60 years ago the father of PR, Edward Bernays, stated in his influential book, The Engineering of Consent:

“Today it is impossible to overestimate the importance of engineering consent; it affects almost every aspect of our daily lives. When used for social purposes, it is among our most valuable contributions to the efficient functioning of modern society …

“The responsible leader … must apply his energies to mastering the operational know-how of consent engineering, and to out-maneuvering his opponents in the public interest.”

The Task Force on Shale Gas, in its composition, the background to its formation, and those who organise its work, has the appearance of an industry front group; organised by the company who specialise in such tactics to ‘engineer consent’ – Edelman.

Unless and until the process by which the Task Force was created is fully revealed, including who employed or commissioned Edelman in that role, then the Task Force cannot be considered – irrespective of its academic credentials – to be a fair and impartial platform to discuss unconventional gas and oil in Britain.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

 




391381

Engineering consent for fracking: Chris Smith and the ‘astroturf’ consultancy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Unless George Osborne gets new orders about his budget this week, it looks like, despite the bluster of the last year, the Government will not be announcing the results of the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Licensing Round this side of the election (perhaps they’re worried about legal action).

Despite this the Conservative’s token ‘green’, Tim Yeo MP, has been trumpeting the benefits of shale gas, based upon some spurious data produced by DECC which – as I outline in a new report for Talk Fracking this week – is based upon questionable results.

Arguably Tim Yeo’s trust in those results, expressed during the Parliamentary debate on the moratorium proposed by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, has been very much abused by DECC and shale gas’s supporters in government.

In fact, with less than two months to go before the election, and despite ‘fracking’ having been the major grassroots environmental issue of the last Parliament, all is quiet on the shale gas front.

In reality though this is just the calm before the post-election PR storm.

Coming our way – the fracking spin machine

Irrespective of who wins (or perhaps in the circumstances, who loses the least), after the election the UK public will face an onslaught of PR-orchestrated ‘spin’ to promote shale gas, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification (UCG) as the best thing since … well, anything!

In Scotland, a moratorium on ‘fracking’ was imposed days after the failure of the moratorium in Parliament (although, as I highlighted in my last Ecologist article, the wording of the moratorium doesn’t cover UCG).

As a result the pro-fracking company INEOS, recently heavily invested into unconventional gas, is planning to “love bomb” the Scottish public back into supporting fracking. And though in Scotland that campaign is just getting under-way, in England it’s already begun …

What?, hadn’t you noticed? – that’s because you weren’t meant to.

In the final case study of my recent report for Talk Fracking I examine the use of academics within the Task Force on Shale Gas – a body set up last September under the auspices of former New Labour minister, and more recently former head of the Environment Agency, Lord Chris Smith.

The Task Force claims to “provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny, discussion and information about shale gas exploration and production in the UK.”

Behold the Prince of Darkness … Edel who?

This is where the public relations ‘shadow play’ comes into its own. Not in the guise of Lord Chris Smith – who while head of the Environment Agency had behind the scenes meetings to thrash out how environmental regulations would be watered-down.

Not even the Task Force’s ‘expert panel’ members – many of whom have previously expressed support for shale gas and even outright hostility to the anti-fracking movement. And not even the oil and gas industry companies – who are funding the work of the Task Force.

The real players here – the people behind the scenes pulling the strings of the shadow play puppets – are Edelman, which acts as the Task Force’s secretariat.

Who are Edelman? That’s the really important question here – and the most prescient question to ask in relation to the Task Force’s future work on behalf of the public.

All modern businesses tend to specialise in certain fields. Edelman’s specialism is ‘grassroots engagement’ – creating industry-friendly front – or ‘astroturf’-groups to represent the benefits of controversial developments. Edelman has developed this technique in the US for its large American extractive and industrial clients over the last decade or so.

Their purpose is not to convince the public. They are there – as outlined in the recent US study Merchants of Doubt – to confuse the public so that they don’t know who to believe. Their aim is to create, as the original strategies developed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s outlined, an apparent controversy so they can get their point across.

They do not create unity or agreement on an issue, but instead seek to polarise the community to prevent the grassroots opposition holding sway over political decision-makers.

Neutralizing risk, pressurizing opponents

If you want to see how Edelman works, take a look at TransCanada’s alternative proposal for the stalled Keystone Pipeline – the East Energy Pipeline.

Even before the route was announced, TransCanada employed Edelman to carry out an assessment of how they could “drive an active public discussion about Energy East that gives Canadians reasons to affirmatively support the project in the face of organized opposition.”

The way this would be enacted is outlined in another study prepared a few months later by Edelman:

“The most effective way to counter any external challenge is to ready a robust campaign that comprises proactive and reactive communication activities. This approach strives to neutralize risk before it is levelled, respond directly to issues or attacks as they arise, and apply pressure – intelligently – on opponents, as appropriate.”

Their strategy also included a specific digital ‘grassroots advocacy’ proposal which – from Edelman’s US-based offices where they maintain a large interactive intelligence database – would organise an on-line campaign, using 35,000 recruited ‘activists’, to target conventional and social media with positive messages about TransCanada’s pipeline.

There was even a separate proposal for Francophone Québec – perhaps because Edelman’s research showed that French speaking Canadians were politically disposed to be “green” or “super-green”.

The difficulty for Edelman and their clients was that someone leaked these documents to Greenpeace Canada last November.

Edelman changes trains

Which brings us back to the Task Force on Shale Gas.

Up until the Task Force was created, Edelman had been running the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. The APPGs expenses were funded, like many other APPGs, by the industry – a similar group in fact to those who now support the new Task Force.

Trouble was, being comprised of politicians, the public paid little attention to any of the industry propaganda’ which the APPG circulated.

Then last Autumn, roughly coincident with the formation of the Task Force, Edelman dropped the APPG – handing the secretariat role to another agency with a track record of astroturfing on behalf of industrial causes, Hill and Knowlton.

Was the APPG a failing cause? Were politicians the wrong conduit to influence the public?

After all, in 2013 someone at one of the funders of the Task Force, Centrica, had written an email to the Department for Energy and Climate (DECC) office promoting shale gas stating that

“Our polling shows that academics are the most trusted sources of information to the public so we are looking at ways to work with the academic community to present the scientific facts around shale.”

Just few months before the dropping the APPG, Edelman employed Katie Waring, energy secretary Ed Davey’s former special adviser at DECC – perhaps indicating that a change of strategy was being planned.

With Edelman, has the Task Force lost all credibility?

The problem for the ambitions of Chris Smith is that the model of the Task Force – comprising experts doing research for the public, funded by industry and managed by PR agencies – has already been used in the USA. For example, the Center for Sustainable Shale Development.

It too was modelled as a ‘stakeholder group’ where academics, industry and the public could come together and research the impacts of shale gas – but which was shown to be a front group for the industry, and whose fossil fuel industry support increased when some non-industry members left.

Even with the panel of experts many of whom are pre-disposed to shale gas, and the industry financing, the involvement of Edelman is toxic to the future work of the Task Force.

Chris Smith has to come clean. Who thought up the concept of the Task Force? Who co-ordinated the early meetings and identified the key figures who would take part? And what has been the role of Edelman in that process?

If the Task Force exists “to provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny”, then a key part of that has to be accounting for the previous manipulative role of Edelman in controversial public issues – and whether that contaminates the Task Force’s role to serve the public interest.

A ‘fair and impartial platform’? Hardly!

In the USA almost 60 years ago the father of PR, Edward Bernays, stated in his influential book, The Engineering of Consent:

“Today it is impossible to overestimate the importance of engineering consent; it affects almost every aspect of our daily lives. When used for social purposes, it is among our most valuable contributions to the efficient functioning of modern society …

“The responsible leader … must apply his energies to mastering the operational know-how of consent engineering, and to out-maneuvering his opponents in the public interest.”

The Task Force on Shale Gas, in its composition, the background to its formation, and those who organise its work, has the appearance of an industry front group; organised by the company who specialise in such tactics to ‘engineer consent’ – Edelman.

Unless and until the process by which the Task Force was created is fully revealed, including who employed or commissioned Edelman in that role, then the Task Force cannot be considered – irrespective of its academic credentials – to be a fair and impartial platform to discuss unconventional gas and oil in Britain.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

 




391381

Will the badger cull cost the Tories the election? It certainly should! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




We are now just under 50 days from a general election and the badger cull issue has taken centre stage in a wider debate about wildlife protection and animal welfare, which could help decide the outcome.

The Labour Party have even put the badger on the front of their wildlife protection and animal welfare manifesto, as they make a clear election commitment to stop both the pilot culls and a wider national roll out of the policy should they form a Government.

With a recent MORI poll showing that badger culling was the 5th most common issue of complaint to MPs in 2014, both MP’s and prospective candidates know the disastrous policy is political poison on the door step during the election campaign. However, David Cameron is now stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to killing badgers.

Despite recently telling first time voters on Sky News that the badger cull is “probably the most unpopular policy for which I am responsible”, he cannot afford to lose the votes – and money – of landowners and farmers by dumping the policy this side of the election.

The answer? Easy! Let Liz Truss take the flak

So he’s playing for time by letting his Environment Secretary Liz Truss hold out the possibility of an extension of the policy should the Tories form another Government after 7th May, without making any concrete commitment on how this will be achieved.

On 3rd March after almost six months of avoidance and delay and a personal intervention from the Prime Minister, Liz Truss finally sat down with members of the Badger Trust Board to have a frank and open discussion on the badger cull policy.

Just how sensitive the badger cull issue has become was clear from the start, when Liz Truss suggested our discussions should remain private and off the record. This request was ludicrous in view of the level of public interest in our meeting and the fact that both the BBC and ITV News were waiting on the steps of DEFRA’s offices, to interview me the minute I left the building.

The meeting did not deliver any surprise U-turn on killing badgers, but it was noticeable how lacking in confidence and isolated the Secretary of State appeared when it came to defending the disastrous cull policy.

Despite trotting out the now familiar statements about following the advice of her Chief Vet Nigel Gibbens, on the need to control the spread of TB in wildlife as well as cattle, it was clear her heart was not really in it.

Nigel Gibbens, the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, was also very noticeable by his absence from the meeting, which sent a clear message that he is unwilling to enter into any further political controversy on the failed culling policy, this side of the General Election.

Policy in paralysis

And despite statements made at the NFU annual conference a few weeks week before, the Secretary of State was unable to give any clear commitment on a national roll out of the policy should the Conservatives form a Government after 7th May.

Bold statements from her predecessor about a 25-year cull rolled out to 40 new areas of England by 2020 were not repeated. With over £15 million being spent on just 2 years of culling in Somerset and Gloucestershire alone, this came as no great surprise.

The fact that Natural England are also considering revoking the Gloucestershire cull licence due to major failures in meeting cull targets, is also no doubt causing a major political headache for the Secretary of State.

The NFU sense the Government is losing its appetite for badger culling and this explains why their President Meurig Raymond, was willing to risk the reputation of the NFU by backing claims by livestock vet Roger Blowey that culling badgers in Gloucestershire has significantly lowered TB in cattle, without any supporting independent scientific evidence.

These claims also fly in the face of public statements from Nigel Gibbens, that any lowering of TB rates in cattle is down to tightening of cattle TB testing and movement controls, not badger culling or vaccination.

Owen Paterson might have been willing to throw caution to the wind to back the NFU’s claims on social media. But Truss knows she would be risking what little is left of DEFRA’s reputation for science based policy making, if she followed his example.

Badger cull has failed tax payers, farmers and wildlife

The level of incompetence, negligence and deceit surrounding the badger cull policy is staggering. The policy has cost huge amounts of public money, free shooting the killing method being tested has proved a disastrous failure, none of the badgers killed have been tested for TB, cull targets have been missed and many badgers have died long painful deaths.

What makes all this worse is that the Government together with the NFU developed a risk register for the badger cull policy in secret in 2010, which accurately foresaw all these failures. However this document was hidden from public view and was only released after a two year fight in the High Court, with the Badger Trust and the Information Commissioner joining forces against the Government on freedom of information grounds.

The badger cull policy has driven a wedge between the public and farming industry, led to a significant increase in the illegal persecution of badgers and proved a dangerous distraction from the need for more effective TB cattle testing systems and the introduction of a TB cattle vaccine.

Playing politics with wildlife has proved a dangerous game with no clear winners. The badger cull policy has failed tax payers, farmers and our wildlife and the vast majority of the public, MPs and scientists with expertise in animal health and disease control, now believe it should come to an end.

However the badger cull was a political policy agreed by David Cameron prior to the 2010 election to help win votes from the farming and landowning community.

Despite its catastrophic failure the Prime Minister is holding on to the wreckage for his political life and he will keep playing the badger blame game, as he needs every vote to remain in office after 7th May.

 

 

Dominic Dyer is CEO of the Badger Trust & Policy Advisor for Care for the Wild.

 




391303

Greens’ election debate victory as member surge approaches 60,000 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will include party leaders from  seven political parties in this year’s pre-election debates including the Greens, the Scots Nationalists and Paid Cymru.

The biggest loser from the move is UKIP, which had previously been the only one of the smaller parties to be recognised as a ‘major party’, triggering widespread protest – and head-scratching.

The broadcasters are now offering two debates involving the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru; and a single closing debate between the Prime Minister and the Labour leader. 

One of the seven-party debates will be hosted by the BBC, and the other by ITV, and Channel 4 and Sky will co-host the final two-party debate. Proposed dates for the debates are the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.

And the broadcasters are clear that they will ’empty chair’ any party leader that declines the terms on offer. “The party leaders have been formally invited to take part in these debates”, reads a formal statement. “If any decide not to participate the debates would take place with those who accepted the invitation.”

‘This is the Green Spring’

“The decision to include the Greens in two debates is an acceptance by the broadcasters that we now are in an age of multi-party politics”, said Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, who describes the current proposals as “fair and reasonable”.

“This groundbreaking decision serves the interests of both the electorate and British democracy. Our membership and polling surge demonstrates that when people hear about Green Party values and policies many embrace them.

“The political landscape is fracturing and fewer and fewer people want the business-as-usual politics offered by the traditional Westminster parties. This is the Green Spring.

“The fresh proposals means that Green Party policies that can bring real change to Britain – from bringing the railways back into public hands to a £10 minimum wage by 2020 to zero university tuition fees – will now be heard far more widely.”

Reacting to complaints of exclusion by Sinn Féin, the DUP and Respect, Bennett said: “I think it’s time to move on from the debate about the debates, and get on with the debate about the issues.”

The news is also welcomed by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, whose Leader Nicola Sturgeon said “the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will rightly show that politics beyond Westminster isn’t just an old boys club.”

Membership and poll success continues

Meanwhile the Green Party’s membership surge continues. As reported on The Ecologist, over 4,000 people joined the Greens in the space of two days last week when the ‘debate fever’ was at its height, pushing it above both UKIP and the LibDems on a single day.

By yesterday morning the Green Party of England & Wales had added more than 3,000 additional members, and the number of members now stands at over 48,000. On the basis of current trends, the party is likely to reach 50,000 members next week. Add that to the Scottish Greens’ membership of around 9,000 (up from 1,700 in September) and the Greens have over 58,000 members.

As well as showing support, the influx of members will also transform the Green Party’s finances. Even if the new members are only paying an average of £10 per year (reflecting a high proportion of students) an unscheduled £300,000 or so has reached the party’s coffers since January. That’s on top of a £300,000 donation by the campaigning fashion designer Vivienne Westwood a few days ago.

Opinion polls also show the Greens riding high. A 22nd January Yougov poll shows the Greens ahead of the LibDems with 8%, a lead of 1%, after briefly spiking at 10%. A Guardian/ICM poll published on 20th January shows the Greens on 9%, the highest recorded by ICM in more than 20 years, up 4% on the December figure.

But most interesting is the analysis of voters’ preferred outcome in the event of a hung Parliament, with the strongest support going to a Labour / SNP / Green coalition on 19% – more than any other arrangement. The least popular outcome was a minority Labour government, on 3%.

“The parties we used to relegate to the margins with the term ‘others’ are now moving centre stage”, Martin Boon of ICM told the Guardian. “The combined forces of all those outside the old LibLabCon triopoly has never been stronger during three decades of Guardian/ICM polling.”

But while the Greens are rightly celebrating their surge, they will now have to professionalise their act and prepare for far closer examination at both an individual and policy level, one Green Party veteran told The Ecologist:

“Finally the Greens have arrived on the mainstream political map, and this is something I have been fighting for for over thirty years”, he said. “But there is a cost to being taken seriously. Green policies will be scrutinised as never before and the same goes for Green politicians. The age of innocence is over.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389401

Greens’ election debate victory as member surge approaches 60,000 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will include party leaders from  seven political parties in this year’s pre-election debates including the Greens, the Scots Nationalists and Paid Cymru.

The biggest loser from the move is UKIP, which had previously been the only one of the smaller parties to be recognised as a ‘major party’, triggering widespread protest – and head-scratching.

The broadcasters are now offering two debates involving the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru; and a single closing debate between the Prime Minister and the Labour leader. 

One of the seven-party debates will be hosted by the BBC, and the other by ITV, and Channel 4 and Sky will co-host the final two-party debate. Proposed dates for the debates are the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.

And the broadcasters are clear that they will ’empty chair’ any party leader that declines the terms on offer. “The party leaders have been formally invited to take part in these debates”, reads a formal statement. “If any decide not to participate the debates would take place with those who accepted the invitation.”

‘This is the Green Spring’

“The decision to include the Greens in two debates is an acceptance by the broadcasters that we now are in an age of multi-party politics”, said Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, who describes the current proposals as “fair and reasonable”.

“This groundbreaking decision serves the interests of both the electorate and British democracy. Our membership and polling surge demonstrates that when people hear about Green Party values and policies many embrace them.

“The political landscape is fracturing and fewer and fewer people want the business-as-usual politics offered by the traditional Westminster parties. This is the Green Spring.

“The fresh proposals means that Green Party policies that can bring real change to Britain – from bringing the railways back into public hands to a £10 minimum wage by 2020 to zero university tuition fees – will now be heard far more widely.”

Reacting to complaints of exclusion by Sinn Féin, the DUP and Respect, Bennett said: “I think it’s time to move on from the debate about the debates, and get on with the debate about the issues.”

The news is also welcomed by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, whose Leader Nicola Sturgeon said “the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will rightly show that politics beyond Westminster isn’t just an old boys club.”

Membership and poll success continues

Meanwhile the Green Party’s membership surge continues. As reported on The Ecologist, over 4,000 people joined the Greens in the space of two days last week when the ‘debate fever’ was at its height, pushing it above both UKIP and the LibDems on a single day.

By yesterday morning the Green Party of England & Wales had added more than 3,000 additional members, and the number of members now stands at over 48,000. On the basis of current trends, the party is likely to reach 50,000 members next week. Add that to the Scottish Greens’ membership of around 9,000 (up from 1,700 in September) and the Greens have over 58,000 members.

As well as showing support, the influx of members will also transform the Green Party’s finances. Even if the new members are only paying an average of £10 per year (reflecting a high proportion of students) an unscheduled £300,000 or so has reached the party’s coffers since January. That’s on top of a £300,000 donation by the campaigning fashion designer Vivienne Westwood a few days ago.

Opinion polls also show the Greens riding high. A 22nd January Yougov poll shows the Greens ahead of the LibDems with 8%, a lead of 1%, after briefly spiking at 10%. A Guardian/ICM poll published on 20th January shows the Greens on 9%, the highest recorded by ICM in more than 20 years, up 4% on the December figure.

But most interesting is the analysis of voters’ preferred outcome in the event of a hung Parliament, with the strongest support going to a Labour / SNP / Green coalition on 19% – more than any other arrangement. The least popular outcome was a minority Labour government, on 3%.

“The parties we used to relegate to the margins with the term ‘others’ are now moving centre stage”, Martin Boon of ICM told the Guardian. “The combined forces of all those outside the old LibLabCon triopoly has never been stronger during three decades of Guardian/ICM polling.”

But while the Greens are rightly celebrating their surge, they will now have to professionalise their act and prepare for far closer examination at both an individual and policy level, one Green Party veteran told The Ecologist:

“Finally the Greens have arrived on the mainstream political map, and this is something I have been fighting for for over thirty years”, he said. “But there is a cost to being taken seriously. Green policies will be scrutinised as never before and the same goes for Green politicians. The age of innocence is over.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389401

Greens’ election debate victory as member surge approaches 60,000 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will include party leaders from  seven political parties in this year’s pre-election debates including the Greens, the Scots Nationalists and Paid Cymru.

The biggest loser from the move is UKIP, which had previously been the only one of the smaller parties to be recognised as a ‘major party’, triggering widespread protest – and head-scratching.

The broadcasters are now offering two debates involving the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru; and a single closing debate between the Prime Minister and the Labour leader. 

One of the seven-party debates will be hosted by the BBC, and the other by ITV, and Channel 4 and Sky will co-host the final two-party debate. Proposed dates for the debates are the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.

And the broadcasters are clear that they will ’empty chair’ any party leader that declines the terms on offer. “The party leaders have been formally invited to take part in these debates”, reads a formal statement. “If any decide not to participate the debates would take place with those who accepted the invitation.”

‘This is the Green Spring’

“The decision to include the Greens in two debates is an acceptance by the broadcasters that we now are in an age of multi-party politics”, said Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, who describes the current proposals as “fair and reasonable”.

“This groundbreaking decision serves the interests of both the electorate and British democracy. Our membership and polling surge demonstrates that when people hear about Green Party values and policies many embrace them.

“The political landscape is fracturing and fewer and fewer people want the business-as-usual politics offered by the traditional Westminster parties. This is the Green Spring.

“The fresh proposals means that Green Party policies that can bring real change to Britain – from bringing the railways back into public hands to a £10 minimum wage by 2020 to zero university tuition fees – will now be heard far more widely.”

Reacting to complaints of exclusion by Sinn Féin, the DUP and Respect, Bennett said: “I think it’s time to move on from the debate about the debates, and get on with the debate about the issues.”

The news is also welcomed by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, whose Leader Nicola Sturgeon said “the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will rightly show that politics beyond Westminster isn’t just an old boys club.”

Membership and poll success continues

Meanwhile the Green Party’s membership surge continues. As reported on The Ecologist, over 4,000 people joined the Greens in the space of two days last week when the ‘debate fever’ was at its height, pushing it above both UKIP and the LibDems on a single day.

By yesterday morning the Green Party of England & Wales had added more than 3,000 additional members, and the number of members now stands at over 48,000. On the basis of current trends, the party is likely to reach 50,000 members next week. Add that to the Scottish Greens’ membership of around 9,000 (up from 1,700 in September) and the Greens have over 58,000 members.

As well as showing support, the influx of members will also transform the Green Party’s finances. Even if the new members are only paying an average of £10 per year (reflecting a high proportion of students) an unscheduled £300,000 or so has reached the party’s coffers since January. That’s on top of a £300,000 donation by the campaigning fashion designer Vivienne Westwood a few days ago.

Opinion polls also show the Greens riding high. A 22nd January Yougov poll shows the Greens ahead of the LibDems with 8%, a lead of 1%, after briefly spiking at 10%. A Guardian/ICM poll published on 20th January shows the Greens on 9%, the highest recorded by ICM in more than 20 years, up 4% on the December figure.

But most interesting is the analysis of voters’ preferred outcome in the event of a hung Parliament, with the strongest support going to a Labour / SNP / Green coalition on 19% – more than any other arrangement. The least popular outcome was a minority Labour government, on 3%.

“The parties we used to relegate to the margins with the term ‘others’ are now moving centre stage”, Martin Boon of ICM told the Guardian. “The combined forces of all those outside the old LibLabCon triopoly has never been stronger during three decades of Guardian/ICM polling.”

But while the Greens are rightly celebrating their surge, they will now have to professionalise their act and prepare for far closer examination at both an individual and policy level, one Green Party veteran told The Ecologist:

“Finally the Greens have arrived on the mainstream political map, and this is something I have been fighting for for over thirty years”, he said. “But there is a cost to being taken seriously. Green policies will be scrutinised as never before and the same goes for Green politicians. The age of innocence is over.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389401

Greens’ election debate victory as member surge approaches 60,000 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will include party leaders from  seven political parties in this year’s pre-election debates including the Greens, the Scots Nationalists and Paid Cymru.

The biggest loser from the move is UKIP, which had previously been the only one of the smaller parties to be recognised as a ‘major party’, triggering widespread protest – and head-scratching.

The broadcasters are now offering two debates involving the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru; and a single closing debate between the Prime Minister and the Labour leader. 

One of the seven-party debates will be hosted by the BBC, and the other by ITV, and Channel 4 and Sky will co-host the final two-party debate. Proposed dates for the debates are the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.

And the broadcasters are clear that they will ’empty chair’ any party leader that declines the terms on offer. “The party leaders have been formally invited to take part in these debates”, reads a formal statement. “If any decide not to participate the debates would take place with those who accepted the invitation.”

‘This is the Green Spring’

“The decision to include the Greens in two debates is an acceptance by the broadcasters that we now are in an age of multi-party politics”, said Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, who describes the current proposals as “fair and reasonable”.

“This groundbreaking decision serves the interests of both the electorate and British democracy. Our membership and polling surge demonstrates that when people hear about Green Party values and policies many embrace them.

“The political landscape is fracturing and fewer and fewer people want the business-as-usual politics offered by the traditional Westminster parties. This is the Green Spring.

“The fresh proposals means that Green Party policies that can bring real change to Britain – from bringing the railways back into public hands to a £10 minimum wage by 2020 to zero university tuition fees – will now be heard far more widely.”

Reacting to complaints of exclusion by Sinn Féin, the DUP and Respect, Bennett said: “I think it’s time to move on from the debate about the debates, and get on with the debate about the issues.”

The news is also welcomed by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, whose Leader Nicola Sturgeon said “the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will rightly show that politics beyond Westminster isn’t just an old boys club.”

Membership and poll success continues

Meanwhile the Green Party’s membership surge continues. As reported on The Ecologist, over 4,000 people joined the Greens in the space of two days last week when the ‘debate fever’ was at its height, pushing it above both UKIP and the LibDems on a single day.

By yesterday morning the Green Party of England & Wales had added more than 3,000 additional members, and the number of members now stands at over 48,000. On the basis of current trends, the party is likely to reach 50,000 members next week. Add that to the Scottish Greens’ membership of around 9,000 (up from 1,700 in September) and the Greens have over 58,000 members.

As well as showing support, the influx of members will also transform the Green Party’s finances. Even if the new members are only paying an average of £10 per year (reflecting a high proportion of students) an unscheduled £300,000 or so has reached the party’s coffers since January. That’s on top of a £300,000 donation by the campaigning fashion designer Vivienne Westwood a few days ago.

Opinion polls also show the Greens riding high. A 22nd January Yougov poll shows the Greens ahead of the LibDems with 8%, a lead of 1%, after briefly spiking at 10%. A Guardian/ICM poll published on 20th January shows the Greens on 9%, the highest recorded by ICM in more than 20 years, up 4% on the December figure.

But most interesting is the analysis of voters’ preferred outcome in the event of a hung Parliament, with the strongest support going to a Labour / SNP / Green coalition on 19% – more than any other arrangement. The least popular outcome was a minority Labour government, on 3%.

“The parties we used to relegate to the margins with the term ‘others’ are now moving centre stage”, Martin Boon of ICM told the Guardian. “The combined forces of all those outside the old LibLabCon triopoly has never been stronger during three decades of Guardian/ICM polling.”

But while the Greens are rightly celebrating their surge, they will now have to professionalise their act and prepare for far closer examination at both an individual and policy level, one Green Party veteran told The Ecologist:

“Finally the Greens have arrived on the mainstream political map, and this is something I have been fighting for for over thirty years”, he said. “But there is a cost to being taken seriously. Green policies will be scrutinised as never before and the same goes for Green politicians. The age of innocence is over.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389401

Greens’ election debate victory as member surge approaches 60,000 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will include party leaders from  seven political parties in this year’s pre-election debates including the Greens, the Scots Nationalists and Paid Cymru.

The biggest loser from the move is UKIP, which had previously been the only one of the smaller parties to be recognised as a ‘major party’, triggering widespread protest – and head-scratching.

The broadcasters are now offering two debates involving the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru; and a single closing debate between the Prime Minister and the Labour leader. 

One of the seven-party debates will be hosted by the BBC, and the other by ITV, and Channel 4 and Sky will co-host the final two-party debate. Proposed dates for the debates are the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.

And the broadcasters are clear that they will ’empty chair’ any party leader that declines the terms on offer. “The party leaders have been formally invited to take part in these debates”, reads a formal statement. “If any decide not to participate the debates would take place with those who accepted the invitation.”

‘This is the Green Spring’

“The decision to include the Greens in two debates is an acceptance by the broadcasters that we now are in an age of multi-party politics”, said Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, who describes the current proposals as “fair and reasonable”.

“This groundbreaking decision serves the interests of both the electorate and British democracy. Our membership and polling surge demonstrates that when people hear about Green Party values and policies many embrace them.

“The political landscape is fracturing and fewer and fewer people want the business-as-usual politics offered by the traditional Westminster parties. This is the Green Spring.

“The fresh proposals means that Green Party policies that can bring real change to Britain – from bringing the railways back into public hands to a £10 minimum wage by 2020 to zero university tuition fees – will now be heard far more widely.”

Reacting to complaints of exclusion by Sinn Féin, the DUP and Respect, Bennett said: “I think it’s time to move on from the debate about the debates, and get on with the debate about the issues.”

The news is also welcomed by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, whose Leader Nicola Sturgeon said “the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will rightly show that politics beyond Westminster isn’t just an old boys club.”

Membership and poll success continues

Meanwhile the Green Party’s membership surge continues. As reported on The Ecologist, over 4,000 people joined the Greens in the space of two days last week when the ‘debate fever’ was at its height, pushing it above both UKIP and the LibDems on a single day.

By yesterday morning the Green Party of England & Wales had added more than 3,000 additional members, and the number of members now stands at over 48,000. On the basis of current trends, the party is likely to reach 50,000 members next week. Add that to the Scottish Greens’ membership of around 9,000 (up from 1,700 in September) and the Greens have over 58,000 members.

As well as showing support, the influx of members will also transform the Green Party’s finances. Even if the new members are only paying an average of £10 per year (reflecting a high proportion of students) an unscheduled £300,000 or so has reached the party’s coffers since January. That’s on top of a £300,000 donation by the campaigning fashion designer Vivienne Westwood a few days ago.

Opinion polls also show the Greens riding high. A 22nd January Yougov poll shows the Greens ahead of the LibDems with 8%, a lead of 1%, after briefly spiking at 10%. A Guardian/ICM poll published on 20th January shows the Greens on 9%, the highest recorded by ICM in more than 20 years, up 4% on the December figure.

But most interesting is the analysis of voters’ preferred outcome in the event of a hung Parliament, with the strongest support going to a Labour / SNP / Green coalition on 19% – more than any other arrangement. The least popular outcome was a minority Labour government, on 3%.

“The parties we used to relegate to the margins with the term ‘others’ are now moving centre stage”, Martin Boon of ICM told the Guardian. “The combined forces of all those outside the old LibLabCon triopoly has never been stronger during three decades of Guardian/ICM polling.”

But while the Greens are rightly celebrating their surge, they will now have to professionalise their act and prepare for far closer examination at both an individual and policy level, one Green Party veteran told The Ecologist:

“Finally the Greens have arrived on the mainstream political map, and this is something I have been fighting for for over thirty years”, he said. “But there is a cost to being taken seriously. Green policies will be scrutinised as never before and the same goes for Green politicians. The age of innocence is over.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389401

Greens’ election debate victory as member surge approaches 60,000 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will include party leaders from  seven political parties in this year’s pre-election debates including the Greens, the Scots Nationalists and Paid Cymru.

The biggest loser from the move is UKIP, which had previously been the only one of the smaller parties to be recognised as a ‘major party’, triggering widespread protest – and head-scratching.

The broadcasters are now offering two debates involving the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru; and a single closing debate between the Prime Minister and the Labour leader. 

One of the seven-party debates will be hosted by the BBC, and the other by ITV, and Channel 4 and Sky will co-host the final two-party debate. Proposed dates for the debates are the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.

And the broadcasters are clear that they will ’empty chair’ any party leader that declines the terms on offer. “The party leaders have been formally invited to take part in these debates”, reads a formal statement. “If any decide not to participate the debates would take place with those who accepted the invitation.”

‘This is the Green Spring’

“The decision to include the Greens in two debates is an acceptance by the broadcasters that we now are in an age of multi-party politics”, said Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, who describes the current proposals as “fair and reasonable”.

“This groundbreaking decision serves the interests of both the electorate and British democracy. Our membership and polling surge demonstrates that when people hear about Green Party values and policies many embrace them.

“The political landscape is fracturing and fewer and fewer people want the business-as-usual politics offered by the traditional Westminster parties. This is the Green Spring.

“The fresh proposals means that Green Party policies that can bring real change to Britain – from bringing the railways back into public hands to a £10 minimum wage by 2020 to zero university tuition fees – will now be heard far more widely.”

Reacting to complaints of exclusion by Sinn Féin, the DUP and Respect, Bennett said: “I think it’s time to move on from the debate about the debates, and get on with the debate about the issues.”

The news is also welcomed by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, whose Leader Nicola Sturgeon said “the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will rightly show that politics beyond Westminster isn’t just an old boys club.”

Membership and poll success continues

Meanwhile the Green Party’s membership surge continues. As reported on The Ecologist, over 4,000 people joined the Greens in the space of two days last week when the ‘debate fever’ was at its height, pushing it above both UKIP and the LibDems on a single day.

By yesterday morning the Green Party of England & Wales had added more than 3,000 additional members, and the number of members now stands at over 48,000. On the basis of current trends, the party is likely to reach 50,000 members next week. Add that to the Scottish Greens’ membership of around 9,000 (up from 1,700 in September) and the Greens have over 58,000 members.

As well as showing support, the influx of members will also transform the Green Party’s finances. Even if the new members are only paying an average of £10 per year (reflecting a high proportion of students) an unscheduled £300,000 or so has reached the party’s coffers since January. That’s on top of a £300,000 donation by the campaigning fashion designer Vivienne Westwood a few days ago.

Opinion polls also show the Greens riding high. A 22nd January Yougov poll shows the Greens ahead of the LibDems with 8%, a lead of 1%, after briefly spiking at 10%. A Guardian/ICM poll published on 20th January shows the Greens on 9%, the highest recorded by ICM in more than 20 years, up 4% on the December figure.

But most interesting is the analysis of voters’ preferred outcome in the event of a hung Parliament, with the strongest support going to a Labour / SNP / Green coalition on 19% – more than any other arrangement. The least popular outcome was a minority Labour government, on 3%.

“The parties we used to relegate to the margins with the term ‘others’ are now moving centre stage”, Martin Boon of ICM told the Guardian. “The combined forces of all those outside the old LibLabCon triopoly has never been stronger during three decades of Guardian/ICM polling.”

But while the Greens are rightly celebrating their surge, they will now have to professionalise their act and prepare for far closer examination at both an individual and policy level, one Green Party veteran told The Ecologist:

“Finally the Greens have arrived on the mainstream political map, and this is something I have been fighting for for over thirty years”, he said. “But there is a cost to being taken seriously. Green policies will be scrutinised as never before and the same goes for Green politicians. The age of innocence is over.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389401

Greens’ election debate victory as member surge approaches 60,000 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will include party leaders from  seven political parties in this year’s pre-election debates including the Greens, the Scots Nationalists and Paid Cymru.

The biggest loser from the move is UKIP, which had previously been the only one of the smaller parties to be recognised as a ‘major party’, triggering widespread protest – and head-scratching.

The broadcasters are now offering two debates involving the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru; and a single closing debate between the Prime Minister and the Labour leader. 

One of the seven-party debates will be hosted by the BBC, and the other by ITV, and Channel 4 and Sky will co-host the final two-party debate. Proposed dates for the debates are the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.

And the broadcasters are clear that they will ’empty chair’ any party leader that declines the terms on offer. “The party leaders have been formally invited to take part in these debates”, reads a formal statement. “If any decide not to participate the debates would take place with those who accepted the invitation.”

‘This is the Green Spring’

“The decision to include the Greens in two debates is an acceptance by the broadcasters that we now are in an age of multi-party politics”, said Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett, who describes the current proposals as “fair and reasonable”.

“This groundbreaking decision serves the interests of both the electorate and British democracy. Our membership and polling surge demonstrates that when people hear about Green Party values and policies many embrace them.

“The political landscape is fracturing and fewer and fewer people want the business-as-usual politics offered by the traditional Westminster parties. This is the Green Spring.

“The fresh proposals means that Green Party policies that can bring real change to Britain – from bringing the railways back into public hands to a £10 minimum wage by 2020 to zero university tuition fees – will now be heard far more widely.”

Reacting to complaints of exclusion by Sinn Féin, the DUP and Respect, Bennett said: “I think it’s time to move on from the debate about the debates, and get on with the debate about the issues.”

The news is also welcomed by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, whose Leader Nicola Sturgeon said “the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will rightly show that politics beyond Westminster isn’t just an old boys club.”

Membership and poll success continues

Meanwhile the Green Party’s membership surge continues. As reported on The Ecologist, over 4,000 people joined the Greens in the space of two days last week when the ‘debate fever’ was at its height, pushing it above both UKIP and the LibDems on a single day.

By yesterday morning the Green Party of England & Wales had added more than 3,000 additional members, and the number of members now stands at over 48,000. On the basis of current trends, the party is likely to reach 50,000 members next week. Add that to the Scottish Greens’ membership of around 9,000 (up from 1,700 in September) and the Greens have over 58,000 members.

As well as showing support, the influx of members will also transform the Green Party’s finances. Even if the new members are only paying an average of £10 per year (reflecting a high proportion of students) an unscheduled £300,000 or so has reached the party’s coffers since January. That’s on top of a £300,000 donation by the campaigning fashion designer Vivienne Westwood a few days ago.

Opinion polls also show the Greens riding high. A 22nd January Yougov poll shows the Greens ahead of the LibDems with 8%, a lead of 1%, after briefly spiking at 10%. A Guardian/ICM poll published on 20th January shows the Greens on 9%, the highest recorded by ICM in more than 20 years, up 4% on the December figure.

But most interesting is the analysis of voters’ preferred outcome in the event of a hung Parliament, with the strongest support going to a Labour / SNP / Green coalition on 19% – more than any other arrangement. The least popular outcome was a minority Labour government, on 3%.

“The parties we used to relegate to the margins with the term ‘others’ are now moving centre stage”, Martin Boon of ICM told the Guardian. “The combined forces of all those outside the old LibLabCon triopoly has never been stronger during three decades of Guardian/ICM polling.”

But while the Greens are rightly celebrating their surge, they will now have to professionalise their act and prepare for far closer examination at both an individual and policy level, one Green Party veteran told The Ecologist:

“Finally the Greens have arrived on the mainstream political map, and this is something I have been fighting for for over thirty years”, he said. “But there is a cost to being taken seriously. Green policies will be scrutinised as never before and the same goes for Green politicians. The age of innocence is over.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389401