Tag Archives: ukip

Greens overtake UKIP and Libdems – over 4,000 new members in 2 days! Updated for 2026





Massive media exposure over the televised debates for the 2015 election has propelled Green Party membership forward by 4,043 people in 48 hours to reach a total of 44,713.

This now puts membership of the UK’s three Green parties ahead of both UKIP, which claimed 41,514 members on Monday this week, and the LibDems, who claimed 44,576 members as of November 2015.

Back in April 2014 the LibDems reported a “membership surge” with numbers rising by about 1,000 a year – but now the Greens have gained four as many members in two days.

The Green Party of England and Wales now has 36,687 members, and (this morning’s figures) the Scottish Greens have 8,026 members and the Green Party in Northern Ireland has 322 members.

The Greens defeated the LibDems in the 2014 Euro-elections and are now polling at their highest levels ahead of a General Election since 1989, a breakthrough year in which they won 15% of the vote in the Euro-elections.

TV debate debate works to Green advantage

The #Greensurge gathered new momentum as the political controversy over Green participation in the pre-election TV debates ran as yesterday’s top Westminster story on the BBC and other news outlets.

Last week Ofcom made a provisional decision to exclude the Green Party from the general election debates. However the Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the decision as unjust and pledged that he would not participate so long as the Greens were excluded.

Cameron and Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, clashed on the issue at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. Miliband accused Cameron of making a “pathetic excuse” for not participating: “He has run out of excuses, he is running scared of these debates and in the words of his heroine Margaret Thatcher ‘he is frit’.”

But Cameron retorted: “You cannot have two minor parties taking place without the third minor party … Why’s he so chicken when he comes to the Greens? … When he looks at the Green Party, why’s he so scared?”

The argument carries conviction since the Greens are committed to a number of left-wing policies – including the return of private public service monopolies such as railways to the public sector, and the launch of a reflationary ‘Green New Deal’ – which most Labour supporters would love to see Miliband adopt.

Miliband evades the real debate

Miliband also refused to discuss the substantive question of whether the Greens should be in the pre-election debate, despite being challenged to support the Greens by their leader Natalie Bennett.

“Staging the debates without the Prime Minister might score a point but would not serve the public, who rightly expect the political parties and the broadcasters to find a format that is acceptable to all concerned”, Bennett wrote to the three party leaders.

“As a substantial majority of the British public would like to see the Green Party included in the debates, an alternative way forward would be for you to agree to this. This is the way forward which serves both democracy and the electorate best.”

On 13th January YouGov revealed polling that puts the Green Party of England and Wales at second place among 18-24 year-olds, tied with the Conservatives on 22% – comfortably ahead of both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP.

Its polls have also shown the Green and LibDems roughly tied for fourth place for voting intention for several months, with the latest poll putting the Greens at 7% compared to the LibDems at 6%. YouGov polling also shows strong public support for the Greens joining the debates

The Green Party of England and Wales is standing candidates in at least 75% of seats in May 2015 – 50% up on 2010.

 


 

Join the Green Party of England & Wales.

 




389101

Greens overtake UKIP – 2,000 new members in 24 hours Updated for 2026





Massive media exposure over the televised debates for the 2015 election has propelled Green Party membership forward by 2,000 people in 24 hours to reach a total of 43,829.

This now puts membership of the UK’s three Green parties ahead of UKIP, which claimed 41,514 members on Monday this week. And it’s fast approaching the LibDems, who claimed 44,576 members as of November 2015.

Back in April 2014 the LibDems reported a “membership surge” with numbers rising by about 1,000 a year – but now the Greens have gained twice as many members in a single day.

And according to the Green party’s press office, “membership continues to surge at an unprecedented rate today”. In other words, the Greens are set to overtake the Libdems in a matter of days.

The Green Party of England and Wales now has 35,481 members, the Scottish Greens have 8,026 members and the Green Party in Northern Ireland has 322 members.

The Greens defeated the LibDems in the 2014 Euro-elections and are now polling at their highest levels ahead of a General Election since 1989, a breakthrough year in which they won 15% of the vote in the Euro-elections.

TV debate debate works to Green advantage

The #Greensurge gathered new momentum as the political controversy over Green participation in the pre-election TV debates ran as yesterday’s top Westminster story on the BBC and other news outlets.

Last week Ofcom made a provisional decision to exclude the Green Party from the general election debates. However the Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the decision as unjust and pledged that he would not participate so long as the Greens were excluded.

Cameron and Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, clashed on the issue at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. Miliband accused Cameron of making a “pathetic excuse” for not participating: “He has run out of excuses, he is running scared of these debates and in the words of his heroine Margaret Thatcher ‘he is frit’.”

But Cameron retorted: “You cannot have two minor parties taking place without the third minor party … Why’s he so chicken when he comes to the Greens? … When he looks at the Green Party, why’s he so scared?”

The argument carries conviction since the Greens are committed to a number of left-wing policies – including the return of private public service monopolies such as railways to the public sector, and the launch of a reflationary ‘Green New Deal’ – which most Labour supporters would love to see Miliband adopt.

Miliband evades the real debate

Miliband also refused to discuss the substantive question of whether the Greens should be in the pre-election debate, despite being challenged to support the Greens by their leader Natalie Bennett.

“Staging the debates without the Prime Minister might score a point but would not serve the public, who rightly expect the political parties and the broadcasters to find a format that is acceptable to all concerned”, Bennett wrote to the three party leaders.

“As a substantial majority of the British public would like to see the Green Party included in the debates, an alternative way forward would be for you to agree to this. This is the way forward which serves both democracy and the electorate best.”

On 13th January YouGov revealed polling that puts the Green Party of England and Wales at second place among 18-24 year-olds, tied with the Conservatives on 22% – comfortably ahead of both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP.

Its polls have also shown the Green and LibDems roughly tied for fourth place for voting intention for several months, with the latest poll putting the Greens at 7% compared to the LibDems at 6%. YouGov polling also shows strong public support for the Greens joining the debates

The Green Party of England and Wales is standing candidates in at least 75% of seats in May 2015 – 50% up on 2010.

 


 

Join the Green Party of England & Wales.

 




389101

The other reason I joined UKIP – to save our nightingales! Updated for 2026





Following a fantastic campaign – which the Airports Commission said generated more representations than any other – the Thames estuary airport pie-in-the-sky proposal promoted by the Mayor of London was categorically ruled out on the 2nd of September.

Unfortunately, two days later, Medway Council’s own planning committee attacked the Hoo peninsula with its own threat – a very serious threat – to build approximately 5,000 houses at Lodge hill, a bird sanctuary in my constituency.

Two days after we had had the dreadful threat of the Thames estuary airport ruled out, we had this other one to deal with. Five days later, Medway Council had to refer the application to the Secretary of State to consider whether it should be called in.

The rules are clear – minister must call in the plans

The criteria used for planning application call-ins used to be called the ‘Caborn criteria’. Three of those criteria appear to be met very clearly by this application to the extent that a call-in is required.

The first relates to conflicting with national policies on important matters, notably the protection of sites of special scientific interest – and, indeed, the whole integrity of our system of environmental protection.

The second relates to having significant effects beyond the immediate locality. It could even have an effect as far away as west Africa, where the nightingales that are the cause of this area becoming an SSSI spend the British winter.

There could be an impact on Essex, because the planning committee of Medway council has, in its wisdom, accepted a proposal that the nightingales can be told to go to an alternative location somewhere in Essex.

We do not have much in the way of detail, but this clearly suggests significant effects beyond the immediate locality. Perhaps most importantly, approving the proposal or failing to call it in and seeking to nod it through with a green light could have impacts on other SSSIs across the country.

The third criterion is where the development would give rise to substantial cross-border or national controversy. Having been at the centre of such controversy during the recent Rochester and Strood by-election, I can vouch for that.

Medway Council assured – ‘there will be no call-in’

On 25 September, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recused himself from considering the application on the basis that he is a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Two days later, I recused myself from the Conservative party and was determined to fight a by-election partly on this issue. Since the Secretary of State recused himself, the matter has been considered by the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis).

He wrote to me on 15 October, and I was glad to hear that no ministerial decision had been taken on whether the matter should be called in. He criticised what he described as my claim that such a decision had been taken.

Of course, that was not my claim. It was a claim made by the deputy leader of Medway council, Councillor Alan Jarrett, in a meeting of Conservative councillors. His statement was that it had apparently been communicated to him by the Government that the proposal would be green-lighted and would not be called in.

That led to another councillor present at the meeting, Councillor Peter Rodberg, leaving the Conservative group and joining me in UKIP.

‘Just keep quiet until after the election’

He says – and this is borne out by another councillor who has spoken to me, and who remains a Conservative – that at the end of the meeting, after the councillors had been told that the Government would green-light the proposal, Councillor Peter Hicks, who represents Strood Rural, said that they should keep quiet about it until after the election.

It was a pleasure to learn from the Minister that he was dealing with the issue of the call-in properly. He clearly recognises that he is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and – at least in terms of the time that he has already devoted to the issue and the correspondence that he has issued – he appears to be performing his duties with diligence.

His most recent letter was written on 8 December to Councillor Rodney Chambers, the leader of Medway Council. I understand that since this Government have been in office no more than a dozen applications have been called in each year, whereas under the last Government about 30 a year were called in, but I am not aware of any precedent for such a letter.

A most irregular correspondence

The Minister wrote asking for Medway Council’s views, and in particular the views of the planning committee that had considered the application on 4 September, on a number of representations that had been received, including representations from the RSPB and Natural England.

Unfortunately the Minister did not attach the representations that he said he had attached to the letter, and, as far as I know, they have not been published. The letter is peculiar, however. It is not clear whether Medway Council’s views were being sought, or the views of the planning committee, or both, and it is not clear how any conflict between them should be resolved.

The planning committee meeting was, of course, on the record, so the extent to which it has considered – or, one suspects, not considered – the matters that it should have considered should have been made clear either in its decision notice or in the record of that meeting.

I therefore question the credibility and reliability of any ex post facto justifications that Medway Council may now produce for its decision, and any statement in which it purports to have abided by the national planning policy framework.

Only one reasonable conclusion to this sorry affair

Given that letter, given that at least three of the criteria for call-in were clearly met, and given the statement by the deputy leader of the Council that the proposal would be green-lighted in the light of communications that he at least believed were taking place within the Government or among those who he thought could speak for them in respect of there not being a call-in, I think it is clear that the safest and, indeed, the only appropriate option is for the Government to call in the application, appoint an inspector, and give proper consideration to what is, in my view, an incredibly damaging application.

This application would result in the pulling together of several villages into a single conglomeration, and would cause a Site of Special Scientific Interest to be almost completely built over, which would undermine the whole system of environmental protection in this country.

It should now be considered by an inspector and then by the Secretary of State, and, hopefully, turned down as a result.

 


 

Mark Reckless is the UKIP MP for Rochester and Strood.

This article is an extract from a speech by Mark Reckless MP to the House of Commons on 18th December 2014, also reproduced on his own website.

 




388441

UKIP uncut – acoloytes of America’s far-right corporate gunslingers Updated for 2026





Few if any of those electing the UKIP candidate in yesterday’s Rochester by-election knew of the party’s links with American right-wingers who support corporations’ rights above those of both people and planet.

But as an Ecologist investigation reveals, the party and three of its elected MEPs have links with the powerful by shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the associated Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank reported to have received millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests.

ALEC is a truly American phenomenon: it’s a right-wing corporate lobbying group which shortcuts the traditional nuances of persuasion by drafting bills and encouraging lawmakers across the 50 states to sign up to them wholesale, and push them through their legislatures.

Typically 1,000 such bills are introduced every year, and several hundred are enacted.

The ‘charity’ that’s anything but charitable

And although it’s registered as a charity – giving it huge tax breaks and enabling it to anonymise much of its income – ALEC is not on the side of the angels.

ALEC-drafted legislation has provided fossil fuel industries with enormous subsidies; imposed connection surcharges on small ‘rooftop’ solar power generators; promoted the anti-evolution, pro-creationism agenda of extreme evangelical groups; stripped away restrictions on Americans’ right to carry guns; and even includes ‘Jim Crow’ laws to get poor Black voters off electoral registers.

Yet three UKIP MEPs have chosen to put their names to official ALEC correspondence.

One of the signatories, Roger Helmer MEP, UKIP’s energy spokesperson, has also spoken at numerous Heartland Institute climate change denial conferences including the 7th – taking place in May 2012 (see photo and Youtube presentation).

The conference was sponsored by nearly 60 organisations that had collectively received nearly $22m from Exxon Mobil and the Koch oil billionaire family since 1998, according to a Desmogblog analysis.

Heartland Institute is one of the US’s main organisations that denies climate change and promotes the interests of the fossil fuel industries which are among its principal funders.

It also has close links to big tobacco, having received both funds and support from Philip Morris, Altria and Reynolds American. And it strongly supports the privatisation of public services including health care provision and education.

‘I think the global warming theory is bad science’

Like Heartland, ALEC does all it can to challenge the global scientific consensus on climate change – its ‘model’ climate change bill suggested global warming is “possibly beneficial” to the planet.

Climate change deniers are encouraged to “educate” lawmakers by claiming there is no scientific consensus on the issue. Its most recent meeting in Dallas saw one of its speakers deliver a presentation dismissing the International Panel on Climate Change as being “not a credible source of man-made economics”.

ALEC’s incoming national chair, the Texan Republican Phil King, has said: “I think the global warming theory is bad science.” At a recent ALEC meeting in Dallas, Heartland’s President Joseph Bast led a workshop featuring a presentation arguing that:

  • “There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.”
  • “There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.”
  • “Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.”
  • The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “is not a credible source of science or economics.”
  • “The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.”

The presentation also reveals how Heartland Insitute works in partnership with ALEC – whose role is to draft legislation implementing Heartland’s right-wing agenda, and push it out to state legislatures. Draft bills would expedite fossil fuel developments, cut renewables out of energy markets and even “lift regulation of nuclear power”.

In the US, thanks to the strength of the Tea Party, this kind of extremism is tolerated and even celebrated. In Britain it would be challenged and ridiculed – which is why the deepening links between a British political party and UKIP needs highlighting.

Now here’s a funny thing … UKIP MEPs signing ALEC’s letter

The latest indications about Nigel Farage’s party’s anti-environment attitudes followed Google’s withdrawal from ALEC after a prolonged campaign by Forecast the Facts that denounced the contradiction of Google stated views on climate change and other issues, and ALEC’s legislative agenda.

Google’s Eric Schmidt’s conclusion that ALEC’s views on climate change are “hurting our children and our grandchildren” was greeted with condemnation by ALEC’s supporters – following which over 200 US legislators put their name to an angry letter to Google.

The letter blames “misinformation from climate activists” for Google’s decision. Instead it points to ALEC’s climate change policy, which suggests climate change only “may” be causing global warming, as evidence that it is upholds a moderate view. That just about says it all.

Scroll right down to the bottom of the letter, and you can spot something odd: three UKIP MEPs have also added their names. The three British signatories are those of south-east MEP Janice Atkinson, the West Midlands’ Bill Etheridge – and Roger Helmer.

It is Helmer who holds the key to all this, for he has perhaps the deepest relationship with ALEC of any other British politician. The group appointed Helmer ‘Adam Smith Scholar’ back in 2005.

He was also a member of its ‘international task force’ and boasts of having “developed close relationships with conservative political groups in the USA”. Since then he has pursued a bold policy on green issues that makes him one of Britain’s leading climate change deniers.

He spent £9,000 on a poster campaign attacking the “Great Climate Myth” in 2010. The poster suggested actions to address global warming were “probably unnecessary, certainly ineffectual, ruinously expensive”. After the campaign attracted inevitable criticism he insisted he was speaking for a majority of British voters.

The following year he appeared at ALEC’s annual meeting in a workshop called ‘benefit analysis of CO2‘. Not the most fascinating of meeting titles, you might say. In fact this was an alteration from its original name: ‘Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2‘.

Helmer is also a supporter of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE), whose ideological position of fossil fuels and climate change is identical to that of Heartland and ALEC – and a personal friend of its Executive Director Marita Noon (see photo).

‘Big Green tells lies’

Now Helmer is advocating an energy policy for Britain based on “proven technologies” including coal and gas. In his speech to the party’s conference in Doncaster this year, titled ‘Big green is obscene’, he told delegates:

“‘Big green’ hates industry, hates capitalism. ‘Big green’ campaigns against jobs and growth and prosperity. Oh, and by the way, ‘big green’ tells lies.”

Helmer’s speech focused on energy security, and argued that UKIP’s focus on energy independence, which includes repealing the 2008 Climate Change Act, contrasted with that of the Westminster parties.

“We in UKIP have carved out a distinctive position on energy that puts clear purple water between us and them. Look at what the old parties are doing, look at the Lib-Lab-Con policies. They slavishly follow Brussels diktats. They want a massive waste of resources on renewables. They want to cover the country in wind farms and solar arrays and they are wedded to green taxes, levies and subsidies. Now compare our position. UKIP’s policy has one clear objective: secure affordable energy for households and industry.”

In one recent blog, ‘Roger Harrabin’s new normal‘, he opines: “CO2 is just one minor factor amongst many in a vast and chaotic climate system which is poorly understood and very difficult to model. CO2 is not even the most serious greenhouse gas. Both water vapour and methane have a bigger effect – and we can do nothing about water vapour until we can stop the winds blowing over the ocean.”

UKIP – ALEC’s bridgehead across the Atlantic?

ALEC and Heartland may well be willing to assist UKIP’s cause – and with Helmer’s long-standing links with the American ‘charity’, they have already established a bridgehead across the Atlantic.

The involvement of Atkinson and Etheridge provides evidence that UKIP’s links with ALEC – and by extension with American corporate, fossil fuel and right-wing evangelical and ‘Tea Party’ interests – are only deepening as the party’s influence increases.

But there is something a little illogical about this. UKIP’s big-picture goal is a bid to achieve independence from the European Union – but in backing the agenda of ALEC and Heartland it appears only too keen to turn us into vassals of unaccountable American corporations.

Helmer’s response to these concerns is to dismiss them outright. “When will these people understand?” he asks. “We don’t want to leave the EU to join something else – we want to leave the EU to regain our independence.”

Resisting any kind of big government, promoting free-market rhetoric whatever the cost and, above all else, undermining the rationale behind acting on climate change … Helmer has a lot in common with ALEC.

UKIP’s ‘special relationship’ with ALEC, Heartland and CARE needs watching closely as the party’s influence in Britain and Europe gathers momentum.

 


 

Alex Stevenson is parliamentary editor of politics.co.uk, and a regular contributor to The Ecologist.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




387082

Excluding Greens from TV debates would make a mockery of democracy Updated for 2026



Next year’s TV debates could be a slap in the face to millions seeking a progressive political voice. And politics will only be the worse off for it in an era of alienation and disenfranchisement.


There’s a stitch-up being planned. One that could affect the outcome of next year’s General Election in the UK.

The main broadcasters are planning to exclude the Green Party from the televised election debates in 2015 – while including Nigel Farage’s UKIP, and the increasingly threadbare Lib Dems.

The decision was announced earlier this week, and it has rightly led to outrage from across the political spectrum. When you look at the figures, the plan to exclude the Greens becomes simply unbelievable.

Greens enjoy serious democratic representation

There are two ways in which broadcasters might reasonably judge whether a party should be take part in the election debates. First, by the level of representation the party enjoys.

The Greens have the same number of MPs as UKIP – one. The party has also held it for far longer than UKIP’s Douglas Carswell, a Tory defector: Caroline Lucas won her seat in 2010 and has proved a formidable force in Parliament, and popular among the public.

We, including the Scottish Greens, also have two MSPs in the Scottish Parliament (that’s two more than UKIP), and three MEPs (many fewer than UKIP’s 24, but triple the Lib Dems’ single member). The Greens also came third in the last London mayoral election.

In local authorities the Greens have 170 principal authority councillors across England and Wales, including two London Assembly members, and 14 councillors in Scotland. That’s not as many as UKIP with its 357 councillors, but still an impressive number that demonstrates broad-based, nationwide support.

Visible popular support

The other reasonable way to judge whether a party should participate in election debates is to go by the level of support that seems likely in future elections, based both on recent election outcomes, and opinion polls. So how do the Greens shape up there?

In the European elections UKIP led the field with 27.5% of the vote. But the Greens came in fourth place with 7.9%, a whole percentage point ahead of the Lib Dems with their 6.9%. That 7.9%, incidentally, reflected the votes of 1,255,573 people across the UK.

As for the opinion polls for the 2015 General Election, many show the Greens level pegging with the Lib Dems, at around 5-7%. This follows monumental growth in membership over the past five years, including a 56% boost in 2014 alone to over 21,000 members, and 1,000 new members in the last week.

In short, all the numbers show that the Greens represent a broad, substantial, nationwide constituency of progressive voters that are turning out to support us in elections in growing numbers.

And in 2015, many more will have the change to vote Green, with the Party contesting three quarters of UK constituencies – up 50% from 2010.

A deliberate close-down of choice?

But of course, the numbers don’t say it all. What is really at issue is the exclusion of choice – an attack on the principle of democracy. If Farage appears without the Greens, what we will have are TV debates between four ‘austerity parties’ all battling over the same political ground. The phrase ‘sham election’ comes to mind.

Not only that, but it will be composed of four parties who all support fracking, back ‘free trade’ deals like TTIP that threaten health and environmental protections, who advocate either grossly insufficient measures to tackle the enormous reality of global warming, or (in the case of UKIP) deny it altogether.

Who else is to advocate Green policies like:

  • the return of our railways to public ownership?
  • the abolition of the UK’s £100bn Trident nuclear weapons system?
  • a Living Wage for all, alongside plans for a national minimum wage of £10 per hour by 2020?
  • the scrapping of plans for a Hinkley C nuclear power station that looks like costing taxpayers and electricity customers over £30 billion?

Only the Greens are challenging the neoliberal ‘free market’ consensus of the ‘grey’ parties. And without a strong Green voice being heard in the debates, we will only have an establishment stitch-up. It’s vital that the thousands, if not millions, of Green voters – or potential supporters – are represented. If not, can we really say we live in a democracy?

In short, without the Greens, there is no one to present an unequivocally pro-environment, pro-people viewpoint. Next year’s TV debates could therefore represent a slap in the face to millions seeking a progressive political voice. And politics will only be the worse off for it in an era of alienation and disenfranchisement.

This isn’t about moaning. We are not trying to deny UKIP or the Lib Dems their right to be heard. Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who enjoy significant levels of support, should also be included. Democracy isn’t just about who you vote for – it’s about representation. That has to include Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If not, what kind of a union are we?

The new political reality must be recognised

Siobhan MacMahon, Co-Chair of the Young Greens, put it right when she said: “The obvious truth from the proposed TV debates is that broadcasters are struggling to adapt to the new political reality that we face in the UK, with five or more parties all staking legitimate claims to featuring in the debate.

“The Greens have been unfairly excluded from that process, despite receiving over a million votes in the European Elections and beating the Lib Dems into fourth place.”

That’s why the Young Greens – as well as calling for fair debates – are also leading the way calling for a series of youth debates among young party leaders from across the spectrum. With the Greens becoming the third party of young people, polling around 15% and doubling in size in 2014 alone, we are in a good place to pioneer such calls for experimentation in democracy.

The debates could be online – via newspapers, YouTube and other media – as well as on radio or TV. Nothing is written in stone. What is right is that they should happen. Young people deserve a voice too as those who will clear up the mess of the current lot in power.

Either way, the fact that over 168,000 have signed a petition calling for broader party representation on the TV debates shows just how strongly people feel. And they’re going to be very angry if they are ignored.

And it’s not just the poltically engaged that believe this. A YouGov poll showed that (excluding ‘don’t knows’) 60% of voters agree that the Green Party Leader, Natalie Bennett, should be included in the debates.

It’s time the media and political leaders to wake up to the multi-party country we have become.

 


 

Josiah Mortimer sits on the national committee of the Young Greens.

The petition: Include the Green Party in the TV Leaders’ Debates ahead of the 2015 General Election!

 

 




385516