Tag Archives: green

Join the politics of the future! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This has been a momentous year! A year in which the Green Party has taken its place at the forefront of UK politics. A year in which young people in particular have embraced our message of hope and real change.

A year in which nearly 300,000 people joined together to help ensure we took our place in the national leadership debates. A year in which we are matching, and often exceeding, the Lib Dems, a party of government, in national polls.

And a year in which we have become the third largest political party in England and Wales! In the space of 12 months we have grown from 13,000 members to 55,000. Our membership has quadrupled!   

And one thing that the green surge means is that more than 90% of you will have the chance to vote Green on the 7th of May. For some that means the first ever chance to vote Green. 

Your vote can change the face of Britain!

In just nine weeks’ time, you will have in your hands something miraculous … the possibility of a peaceful political revolution. Your vote can change the face of Britain. It can end the failed austerity experiment, end the spiteful blaming of the poor, the sick, the vulnerable for the mistakes of the wealthy.

This election can be a turning point in history. The moment where we can deliver a better Britain, a Britain which works for all its people … A Britain which cares. 

Vote for what you believe in, vote for the policies of hope not fear, vote for policies that work for the common good not just the few, and Britain could be a very different country on the 8th of May. It is time for Green Politics – the politics of the future – that delivers:

  • a living wage: jobs that workers can build a life on, with support for those who need it;
  • public services run for the good of all – our railways run not for shareholders but for passengers, our NHS not handed over to profiteers but kept in public hands;
  • social housing, council housing, to meet our housing needs;
  • the means for everyone to live within the limits of our one planet – because it’s the only one we’ve got.


A society fit for people and our communities

No one should be living in fear of being unable to put food on the table. No one should be forced into debt just for trying to get an education.

No one should be worrying about a fracking drill burrowing into the heart of their community.  No one should fear being left destitute by Iain Duncan Smith’s punitive benefit sanctions. 

The politics of the future is not a politics of transaction, that discredited politics which offers selected individuals and groups a bribe of short-term, unsustainable personal advantage.

History tells us that is now the old politics, the tired politics, the failed politics. The Green Party is offering instead a society working for all of us; for the many, not just the few; a society in which those who can contribute do so, and no one in need goes without.

It asks voters to make a choice that will deliver a society fit for themselves, their communities, and their children.

#GreenSurge

That’s why the Green surge is much more than just a hash tag – although a highly successful hash tag it has been – the green surge is much more than just membership numbers. That’s why people are becoming engaged with the Green Party. 

I have seen the Green surge on the ground, around the country, from a village hall in Ilkley, Yorkshire, to an enormous, snaking queue of hundreds at Exeter University, to a Valentine’s Eve Friday night crowd at the London School of Economics. 

And of course we saw it last May with the election of Molly Scott Cato as the first Green member of the European Parliament in the South West – and boy, hasn’t she delivered for her voters! 

The Green surge is the result of your hard work as Greens. It’s thanks to you in this hall, and to all of the Green Party members and supporters up and down the country – to your commitment, your belief, your dedication and your hard work – that we approach the General Election as a central player in UK politics. 

And of course, it isn’t just Green Party. Up and down the country, campaigns demanding a new politics are getting stronger, bigger, more effective. There’s People’s Assemblies, Occupy Democracy, the anti-fracking movement and the fossil fuel divestment campaigns: the tide is growing, the demand for change is louder and clearer.

We’re fighting back

At last, the people are fighting back! Five years ago we made a huge breakthrough with the election of Caroline Lucas as the first Green MP, and she’s given Brighton a spectacularly good local voice and a national impact far beyond any other MP. Caroline has led the debate on issues from railway ownership to statutory Personal and Social Education.

She’s led the debate on parliamentary transparency and she has put her freedom on the line to oppose fracking. Because Caroline shows what voting Green delivers: passion, sensitivity and courage. 

On May 8, just imagine, a strong green group of MPs at Westminster – able to build on and expand Caroline’s work. A group which would never, ever support a Conservative Government. A strong group of Green MPs – in a parliament where they could have a huge say, a huge impact – that is a real opportunity to start to deliver a new kind of politics.

We know that the way things are in Britain is not sustainable. Continuing as we are is not an option. Since 2007, food prices have risen 22% but wages have fallen 7%. Almost seven hundred thousand people are listed as ‘in work’, despite having no guaranteed hours week-to-week.

It’s time to end the scourge of zero hours contracts. Almost half the new jobs created since 2010 are for the self-employed, yet nearly 80% of self-employed workers are living in poverty. I applaud the growing number of individuals who contribute to, who volunteer in, who run, food banks.

But individual charity is no substitute for collective justice. This the outcome of the years of Blair, of Brown, of the Cameron / Clegg Coalition and austerity Britain – this is the record of George Osborne’s ‘long term economic plan’.

The Green Party are calling time on the politics of low wages, job insecurity and fearing the food bank. We are calling time on privatisation – the sell-off and the handing over – of public assets into private hands.

We must treasure the natural world – not trash it!

We are calling time on the trashing of our natural world – the world on which everything, depends. Our economy, our lives, our future depend on society, which in turn depends on the Earth and its resources.

That puts a huge weight, a huge responsibility on our shoulders – a responsibility we have to meet in the next few years. We know now the damage we are doing to the Earth, as we didn’t know in the past. We have to be up to the task.

The whole ideology of Thatcher and her successors, be it Blair, Brown or Cameron, has failed. Change has to come. The market is short-sighted and short-term. It is blind. It is senseless. It works for the 1%, it fails the rest of us. All in it together? I don’t think so.

The current model of economics and society has served only those with power and wealth. In austerity Britain, the super rich grabs more than anywhere else in Europe. We must be first and foremost citizens, paying fairly to common funds to look after the poor, the weak, the old and the sick. 

Everybody contributes what they can and everybody benefits from that. This is what the politics of the future will look like, what the Green Party will deliver. The old politics, the failed politics of letting the market rule has to end.

Save our NHS! Save our social care!

There’s nowhere that’s more obvious than in our NHS. The insidious but rapid infiltration of the profit motive into our health service, the dreadful, senseless PFI schemes that have deliver despair and threaten bankruptcy, must be reversed.

The market costs us big time. In 2010 the Health Select Committee reckoned it consumed 9% of total NHS costs – well over £10bn a year. As Caroline has already said – we will repeal the Health and Social Care Act, which is damaging and threatening the health service.

And we will go further – we will replace it with an NHS Reinstatement Bill that removes the market mechanism from our NHS. But of course there is another side to care. Free healthcare is the very cornerstone of our NHS. Whether you are rich or poor you have the right to the best that is available.

That’s something the Green Party will restore – and extend. For that same principle should apply to social care – the support and services that you need to lead a fulfilling life should be available when you need it, free at the point of use. 

We believe that to be a decent, humane, caring society, social care must be free. We believe those who have the most should contribute to help pay for social care. We need a range of new taxes aimed at making Britain a more equal society.

We would introduce a new wealth tax, rigorously clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion and introduce a financial transaction tax – a Robin Hood Tax, and we are not ashamed to say that those on incomes above £100,000 should pay more income tax.

Providing Free Social Care for the Over 65’s means security and freedom from fear, suffering and loneliness for many, and it means 200,000 new jobs and training places. 

We will consult experts, users, and care workers on its exact design – but our manifesto will include this as a core pledge: social care is not a privilege, it is a right! 

Register to vote – now!

We know that the younger generation – many of whom are supporting the Green Party – have it tough. But we acknowledge, we stress, that isn’t the fault of their elders. 

In a Britain of solidarity, in a Britain of community, in a Britain of care, we all need to look out for each other. Of course – and I cannot stress this enough – we can only do this if you, the people of the UK have your say on May the 7th.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of each and every person who can vote registering to do so and making their voice heard. The deadline is April 20th, but please don’t wait – register today. Only then can you deliver the politics of the future, help us deliver for the Common Good.

There are people who want to see business-as-usual politics continue. People who are happy with politicians who learnt nothing from the global economic crash. People who’ve quietly forgotten the scandal of MPs expenses. Who are resigned to the failed austerity experiment, to low wages and to the swift demise of public services.

Those people will probably vote for the parties of yesterday. To counteract them, you need to use your vote. At this election, if we all vote Green, we can change Britain. Together we can create the society we all deserve a society that cares, a society that works for all of us. 

Vote for the party that cares. Vote for the common good. Vote for the politics of the future. Vote Green.   

 

 

Natalie Bennett is the leader of the Green Party of England & Wales.

This speech was delivered to the Green Party’s spring conference on Friday 6th March 2015. See original here.

 

 

 




391048

Straw homes are a cheap and green fix for the housing crisis Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The UK construction sector must reduce its energy consumption by 50% and its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

So radical changes are needed to the way we approach building houses. Straw could be a critical part of the transition towards a low-carbon future.

The thermal insulation value of a typical straw bale wall meets the requirements of even the most demanding performance specifications.

Recent research led by the BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials at the University of Bath has shown that straw bale buildings reduce energy bills by 90% compared to conventional housing stock.

The manufacture of cement, used in concrete, is responsible alone for up to 8% of all industrially produced greenhouse gas emissions. Using natural materials such as straw, often directly from the field and with little further processing, significantly reduces this impact.

Traditionally, the environmental impact of construction materials has been significantly less than the impact of occupation (heating, cooling and so on) over the lifespan of the building. However, in modern energy efficient buildings the proportion attributable to that ’embodied’ in the fabric of the building is expected to increase to at least 90%.

Measures to reduce the impact of the embodied energy and carbon will deliver even more environmentally friendly buildings.

A natural building material

Straw is just the dried stalks of plants stripped of their grain. You don’t really ‘make straw’ – it’s a co-product of grain production, an established and essential agricultural process. So using straw doesn’t displace land required for essential food production.

In the UK more than 7m tonnes of straw remains after the production of wheat, and up to half this amount is effectively discarded due to its low value – simply chopped up and returned to the soil.

As an average three-bedroom house needs 7.2 tonnes of straw, the ‘leftover’ could be used to build more than 500,000 new homes – a city the size of Birmingham could be built each year using discarded straw.

Straw is also a low-cost material. But more importantly, as a plant it captures and stores atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. By using more and more straw in buildings we are creating a natural carbon storage bank.

Though the bible references using straw for bricks – and thatched roofs – have been common for centuries, modern straw construction was developed when mechanical baling machines were first used in late 19th-century Nebraska.

Stacked like large bricks, straw bales can be used for modest loadbearing as well as non-loadbearing walls. The oldest surviving straw bale building is around 100 years old.

But straw has never caught on as an alternative to bricks, concrete or timber. There are concerns about its poor durability, fire resistance, the way it attracts mice and rats and, as one of the three little pigs found out the hard way, its lack of structural integrity.

The answer – high precision pre-fabricated ‘bales’

Straw bales aren’t currently made to the same levels of tolerance and specification as bricks or cement. The fact they’re generally slightly different sizes combined with the need to keep bales dry during construction has meant most builders would not, until recently, consider straw bales a viable solution for anything. Other than perhaps for enthusiastic self-builders.

However, the development of prefabricated wall panels using straw bale for insulation has now provided the opportunity to market straw to the mainstream construction industry.

Prefabrication, or off-site manufacture, means that wall panels can be made to a very high specification in a factory, protected from variable weather conditions that would otherwise inhibit on-site building with straw.

A prefabricated product can be certified as fit for use by industry bodies, making it much more acceptable to builders, financiers and insurers. It also radically reduces site construction times, with houses able to be erected in ten weeks instead of around 16 weeks for more conventional buildings. It seems the time has arrived for straw bale construction.

For the past ten years the University of Bath has been working with a local company, ModCell, to develop prefabricated straw bales. We started out looking at straw as a low-carbon cladding solution and soon moved on to developing panels that could bear heavy loads. Now, we are able to make low-energy prefabricated straw bale houses.

 

Bath’s own straw house. The panels from 00:09 onwards are all prefab straw and lime plaster.

Officially approved for the formal construction sector

The panels have been subjected to fire tests, thermal transmittance tests, accelerated weathering tests, acoustic tests, simulated flooding and impact testing. We’ve even tested the structures in a simulated hurricane force wind, in what has been termed the ‘big bad wolf’ test: the panels and prototype BaleHaus passed with flying colours.

These panels have now been granted certification. This in turn means insurers will cover straw houses and home-buyers will be able to obtain mortgages.

Hayesfield School in Bath, EcoDepot in York and the School of Architecture at the University of the West of England have all made use of these panels. Certification means the housing market can now use straw too, with LILAC in Leeds completed in 2013 and now a new development in Bristol due for completion later this year, with proposals for larger schemes already in planning.

Modern prefabricated straw bale houses are affordable, deliver excellent levels of energy efficiency in use for the home-owner or occupier and provide a genuine sustainable solution by using a cheap and widely available agricultural co-product.

Other similar prefabricated systems using straw bale construction have been developed in Australia, Belgium and Canada. Entire communities, towns or even cities built from straw bales. And why not?

 

 

Pete Walker is Director, BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials at the University of Bath.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




390068

The Greens need coherent policies on population and immigration Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Those famous electoral TV debates are getting closer – and it’s intriguing to imagine the dialogue between UKIP leader Nigel Farage and the Green leader Natalie Bennett.

One big area of disagreement is of course immigration, and the Greens’ immigration policy is, in their own words “liberal” – which in practice means absolutely no constraint or restriction on who enters the or stays in the UK.

Specifically, the Green Party “will progressively reduce UK immigration controls” and give non-Europeans the same free-movement rights as Europeans. That is, everyone is free to move in.

In my opinion, Bennett will struggle to defend this policy in debate with the populist Mr Farage, given the large scale immigration it would be certain to provoke if implemented any time soon. Even committed Greens will find it unrealistic – except as a very long term aspiration.

More cynically – has the Green Party given any thought to what the electoral consequences will be when their open door policy becomes widely known? As Mr Farage will surely make sure it does?

People look to the Greens for the promise of a long-term sustainable future for their descendants and the UK, as well as the Earth itself. So a policy that appears to actively negate that aspiration – by encouraging overpopulation and cultural instability – must undermine the party’s credibility in many voters’ eyes.

The population question

As a green (Oxford Ecology Movement) candidate in the 1979 general election I can quote our policy at the time: “The national aim is a replacement birth-rate in the short term, followed by a gradual reduction over the next 1 or 2 centuries to 20-30 million in Britain, achieved through education and popular consent.”

The Green population policy today is less specific, worthy but lacking in substance –  focussed more on global than UK issues, which enables the more political and controversial issue of the UK population (and the link to immigration) to be fudged.

The main thrust appears to be that we’ll need to look at population at some undefined future date (PP101, 103), but in the meantime we can have as many children as we like (PP106) and let everyone in who wants to come (PP111), provided we keep half an eye on “economic and environmental pressures”.

It is all very vague and woolly, and while it implies the need for an eventual limit, there is no thinking about what a sustainable population for the UK might be, thus also no means to achieve it, even if lip-service is paid to population being a proper subject of public debate (PP107).

There is a medium-term aim (PP120) “to promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK ­ … to increase awareness of the issues not to set specific population targets.” But to discuss a sustainable population for the UK without having any idea of what you are aiming at seems, for a Green policy, worse than pointless.

Surely the essence of the green approach to life and humanity is long-term sustainability? So difficult issues like actual numbers and how to achieve them need to be openly and clearly discussed.

The emphasis is however on world population limits. Indeed some local Greens have suggested to me that as long as the total world population is stabilised, it doesn’t matter how people are distributed. So it’s OK for lots of people to flood into nice rich UK as this will result in fewer poor people somewhere else.

So apparently we should ignore our own interests in order to altruistically solve those of others currently less fortunate. It’s a noble wish, but surely each country needs to have policies that at least safeguard their own viability?

The debate must be allowed to take place

Fortunately the Green population debate is far from over. In recent posts on The Ecologist, Biff Vernon has argued for a population policy by stealth focussed on women’s status and health in poor countries, while Simon Ross from Population Matters argued that evading the core issue is dishonest and that in any case we have issues here in the UK.

Rupert Read, the Green prosective candidate for Cambridge, has also thrown his hat in the ring, in an Ecologist article that outright opposes mass immigration: “We Greens need to be absolutely and resolutely pro-immigrant – while turning against large-scale immigration.“

The Ecologist‘s founding editor Edward Goldsmith would probably have sided with Read and Ross. As he wrote in 1989 in ‘The population explosion‘, “A growing population is not intolerable per se but because of the increasing impact it must have on the natural environment. This impact is greatly magnified by the increase in material consumption made possible by economic development.”

But not only does the Green Party today have no coherent population policy, there is a campaign within the party to denigrate and censor the one UK organisation that does, Population Matters.

Already banned from advertising in Green World, the activist promoting this exclusion, Adam Ramsay, has also recently persuaded my local party in Oxfordshire to prevent Population Matters from having a stall at our annual Green Fair, a popular fund-raising event held in December, with stalls from all manner of ethical-ish small traders, wildlife/animal welfare groups, and various right-on campaigning groups.

Ramsay’s views are online on two blogposts on Green European Journal and Bright Green Scotland with vigorous counter-argument and comments under each, taken up also by Derek Wall on Another Green World.

Ramsay’s arguments at the Oxford meeting were emotive – he invoked supposed population bogeyman Thomas Malthus (see Wikipedia for a balanced view), the 19th century Irish potato famine, a Swiss population group using the term ‘lebensraum‘ (‘living space, biosphere’, but used by Nazis and therefore bad).

And all that before he finally got round to two of Population Matters’ policies that are said to clash with what is acceptable to the Green Party: means-tested benefit on 3+ children and “no net immigration”.

Natural partners, not enemies

Apart from the two policies just mentioned, Population Matters’ aims closely match those of the Green Party – resources, pollution, energy usage etc – so why not try to work together?

In their 2015 manifesto Population Matters specifically state that they don’t want to increase poverty, hence their 3-child policy is flexible, and “no net immigration” isn’t a ban on immigrants as opponents like to make out, but an attempt to limit immigration to the numbers leaving, currently over 300,000 annually!

Thus there is plenty of room to ‘agree to differ’ on these themes, and in any case, as already discussed, I would suggest the Green Party needs to take a long hard look at their own shortcomings in this area. Most particularly there is no defensible case for the censorship and bans that these campaigners are so keen to enforce.

The Oxfordshire party has 700 members, but the decision was taken at a business meeting attended by about 25 people, with 12 voting for the ban, 5 against and several abstentions. Should important decisions affecting potential allies be taken so cavalierly ?

Both immigration and population are widely misunderstood. Immigration, or rather calls for it to be curtailed, is all too often seen in a racial or racist context. Clearly that motivates some, but we should not all be tarred with that brush – from a sustainability perspective, it makes no difference whatever what colour, race or religion extra people are.

They are, simply, people – and with our 413 people per square kilometre, England has recently overtaken The Netherlands as the most densely populated country in Europe – excluding city states. Wales, Northern Ireland and especially Scotland are less heavily settled.

For a long-term future any country needs to be fundamentally self-sufficient in food – we shouldn’t have to rely on imports, as in the long run there may not be surpluses available to buy – though exchanges are of course acceptable. Oats for bananas, anyone?

At present UK population levels this would only be possible if a lot more grain went into people’s mouths rather than meat animals, or a lot more land was (re)converted to high-intensity arable, itself unsustainable long-term. Also we have a responsibility to the planet’s other life, so we need wild space for both that life and for our own wellbeing.

Hence ever-increasing overcrowding is not desirable. I have heard local Greens pointing out that as there are some places more densely settled than England, then we can take more people. But that begs the question – why should we? do we want to? what good will it do us?

We can’t just wait for the global ‘demographic transition’

I’m not for a moment suggesting that population should elbow out the other major issues facing us all – ecosystem destruction, per capita consumption and related CO2 emissions and other pollution being obviously among the most serious, with their additive impacts on global warming and climate change.

However tackling the consumption / pollution aspects without including the population factor smacks of wilful blindness to the facts. The ‘demographic transition’, whereby increasing affluence reduces birth rates, has no doubt delayed the crunch point, but more importantly has lulled people into a false sense that population will somehow solve itself if we can sort out poverty across the planet.

Goldsmith was in fact trenchant on that point: “To seek to reduce population by systematically encouraging economic development is thus self-defeating since it can only increase natural consumption and thus environmental destructiveness.”

And it shouldn’t be forgotten that most of the last century’s massive world population growth arose from medical advances reducing infant and other death rates, not from increasing birth rates. It therefore makes sense to actively encourage a balancing reduction in birth rate, something that is a cultural block in many places.

Some cultures have responded quite rapidly with a demographic transition, but others, Egypt for example, have failed to do so, producing populations dramatically unbalanced with disproportionate numbers of young people and numerous negative knock-on effects from that including unemployment and wider disaffection.

In some developed countries like Japan and Italy where birth-rates have dropped, there is panic in conventional economics about the opposite problem: a preponderance of the elderly, seen as dependent on the workforce.

Hence there is a tendency to promote pro-natalist policies, or increased immigration, to offset the numbers of pensioners. In practice this is what has been happening in the UK, as millions of immigrants have flowed in over recent decades, many from Asia or Africa bringing in addition a tendency to higher birth-rates.

Having your cake and eating it

The Green Party rightly opposes “economic order that supposes the need for an ever-growing younger population to support the retired” (PP114) yet supports unrestricted immigration and “that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice” (PP106).

But this is having your cake and eating it. There is ample evidence that increasing population exacerbates the already severe human impacts on the environment and the planet’s carrying capacity. Indeed as Jonathan Porritt points out,

“we are already using 50% more resources than the Earth can sustainably provide, and unless we change course very fast indeed, even two planet Earths will not be enough to meet our burgeoning economic demands (on a business-as-usual basis) by 2030.”

Addressing consumption alone is only taking half-measures, and won’t stop the crunch. There are limits to growth, both economically and in population – why are we still ignoring these when the basic issues were thrashed out ad nauseam in the 1970s, not least by Goldsmith.

We don’t know exactly where these limits are, and finding out should be a priority, but with ‘known unknowns’ it is advisable to follow the precautionary principle, particularly when its the one and only home planet that is at issue!

And the Green Party should not be afraid to say so!

 

 

Anthony Cheke is a retired sometime professional ecologist and later bookseller. Author of ‘Lost Land of the Dodo, an ecological history of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues’. Green parliamentary candidate in the old Oxford constituency as a co-founder in 1979 of the Oxford Ecology Movement, formed to contest that year’s general election largely as a consciousness raising exercise (and then deliberately disbanded). We were to the left of the then Ecology Party and developed the ‘citizen’s income’ later adopted by the Green Party, and stressed the importance of reducing inequality – going further than the recent book ‘The Spirit Level’ by recommending a range of roughly 3:1 for highest to lowest disposable incomes.

 




390040

Live long, die green and recycle your discarded body Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




My mother died recently and at the funeral home I was asked if I had any ideas what kind of coffin she would like. For some reason I said something environmentally friendly.

These words came out of my mouth more out of nervousness than anything previously discussed with my mother. Duly the undertaker showed us a catalogue of wicker coffins and we chose one made of banana leaves.

I often think of my carbon footprint – I have not owned a car in more than 15 years, for example – but I had never thought about my ‘green obligations’ in death.

My mother may not have requested an environmentally friendly coffin, but she did state she wished to be cremated. Due to the lack of space in the UK around 80% of people request cremation – and if we think about green space being at a premium this makes ecological sense.

But cremation has its downsides

However the energy required to cremate a single person is equal to the energy they would use in a month if they were alive. In the UK this translates to a yearly energy consumption of a town of 16,000 people. In Asian countries where cremation is very popular there is considerable interest in using solar power to reduce such energy consumption.

Another problem with cremation is air pollution, which obviously depends on the filtering system being employed. Until recent times cremations were one of the major sources of mercury pollution in the UK due to the amalgam fillings in people’s teeth.

A group of environmental NGOs recently called on the EU to curb mercury emissions from human cremation. Furthermore, the clothes worn and use of embalming fluids may also increase air pollution.

Humans have buried their dead for at least 100,000 years. Therefore, not wishing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I looked into different burial options. A woodland burial initially appealed to me. However, I would only really approve of this if it resulted in the maintenance of a high-quality conservation area and wildlife refuge.

And I wonder if it became popular enough if it could result in major reforestation of the UK. But bodies would still be rotting in the ground releasing globally warming methane gas.

Surely, there must be greener options than a standard burial or cremation? Coming from a family of fishermen I thought about burial at sea, as the fish could recycle my body quickly. But there are only three registered places in the UK and only around 50 such burials per year.

As a biologist, I find the idea of becoming fish food strangely appealing. This is not a new idea: I remember reading of man who macabrely wished the meat from his body fed to the residents at Battersea Dogs Home. Not surprisingly this strange offer was declined.

Sky burial – very green, but would it be allowed?

As a conservationist the idea of recycling my body after death appeals: some Asian cultures have what are called sky burials, where a dead human body is laid out on a mountain top for scavenging animals such as birds of prey to feed on.

From a biological point of view I cannot see anything wrong with this, providing deceased people do not have contagious diseases. Burials in the ground are more to do with people not wishing the body disturbed by animals than hygiene considerations – hence being buried six feet.

Unfortunately, as much as I like to imagine my deceased body on the top of Ben Nevis being recycled by golden eagles, I can never see it being allowed in the UK.

I suppose what really appeals to me is being fully recycled in a short time-frame. The problem is that cremation does not fully recycle the body and burials can take years for the recycling process to occur.

Thus, if my body could be fully recycled quickly into the nutrient cycles, thereby allowing the burial plot to be constantly reused then I may have found a biologically acceptable method to dispose of my body when the time comes.

Fast composting ticks all the boxes – but it’s not yet on offer

A company in Sweden has tested a concept of eco-burial on dead pigs (pigs are good models for the human body), whereby the animal is frozen in liquid nitrogen at -196℃, which makes the body become brittle and disintegrate.

In the case of a human, the disintegrated body would be filtered for metals (such as tooth fillings) and then buried in a shallow grave.

In tests with pigs the remains become rich compost in six to twelve months. Plus this sort of eco-burial does not release greenhouse gases such as methane (from traditional burials) or carbon (from cremations) into the atmosphere. The only problem being it is still in development.

 

 

Robert John Young is Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Salford.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




389972

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