Vote me

Too late now. I got 323 votes which is about twice Labour, but only a fifth of the Tories so I’m still safely kept away from the mighty levers of political power on the county council. Whew. Unlike Simon Sedgwick-Jell in the Abbey ward of the city who is now the first Cambridge Green councillor. Though astonishingly, in another place we seem to have managed to lose to Broon – truely an outstanding accomplishment in these dark days.

Which brings me on to… no, not these dark days, not just yet. I mean our party policies. Apparently they are bad. Though I have to confess that I haven’t read them. Perhaps I’ll be like that would-be clergyman, possibly apocryphal, from the 18xx’s, who studied theology happily for many a year at university, but when asked to subscribe to the 39 articles for his ordination was finally forced to read them, said “I can’t agree with that!” and walked out.

OK, what doesn’t the Times like? But did you also know that its manifesto pledges “an immediate ban on the harmful use of animals (including but not only primates) in research, testing and education”, and the abolition of all zoos?. Oh well, animals, always a good one to argue about. I’m not sure I have a firm policy on this myself: probably I’d say that if you’re going to eat fluffy lambs, or at least not ban eating them, then banning putting them inside cages doesn’t make sense (nb the Times is being a bit economical with the truth, since a full quote is “The abolition of zoos (except for the benefit of the animals concerned) and the use of animals in circuses;”)

Some of the Greens’ proposals are staggeringly extreme sounds promising. Apparently we want to ban all experiments on embryos (hey! Timbo (not not the Dark Lord) turns out to be a UKIP wacko). But I don’t see that in the manifesto. Nor would I consider it desperately extreme if it was. Complementary therapies within NHS provision would be a bit wacko too (especially combined with no regulation for practitioners), but again it isn’t in the manifesto as far as I can see.

So, nothing very exciting that I can see, I don’t think I’ll have to walk out after all. Anyway, there is a whole pile of stuff there that wouldn’t survive contact with actual power. If I was a scientist reading that manifesto my main complaint would be that the word “science” isn’t mentioned once.

As for climate change: The Labour government now proposes a target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, which works out at about 2.5% per annum. The EU has agreed to 20% by
2030, or 30% if other industrialised countries agree to make reductions. Neither target is adequate. Based on the latest scientific predictions, an industrialised country such as the UK needs to reduce emissions by 90% by 2030.
Well, we aren’t going to reduce our emissions by 90% by 2030. If that is necesssary, then we’re stuffed, so we may as well give up and pollute to our hearts content, secure in the knowledge that we’re doomed. No? Indeed not. So lets not be silly. Lord knows whose predictions they are referring to.

Comments

  1. #1 PeteB
    2009/06/07

    Some more coverage

    http://www.layscience.net/node/581

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/01/european-elections-science-stem-cells-gm

    (I think it was a standard set of questions submitted to all parties – and the responses they provided)

  2. #2 Alexander Ač
    2009/06/08

    In Slovakia, the Green Party proposals are maybe worse than in Britain. (though I voted for them…)

    Now the basic question is, can we manage to govern and regulate an increasingly complex world with peak oil and climate change? Are we not prescribed to collapse to the level, that is manageable (or if you want, sustainable?)

  3. #3 Adam
    2009/06/08

    There’s a few more specifics at some of the links, eg Holforwatch:

    http://holfordwatch.info/2009/06/01/green-party-health-policy/

  4. #4 Dunc
    2009/06/09

    The thing I always find strange is that the people who whine and moan about how terribly irrational the policies of the Greens are never even seem to look at the policies of all the other parties. Are we supposed to be held to some higher standard of rationality than everybody else in the entire world? Does the phrase “double standard” ring any bells?

  5. #5 Dunc
    2009/06/09

    Ah, cack, missed a close italic. Need more tea.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!