I had a good rant in the comments.
"You sass that hoopy, Peter Tatchell? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is!
Antifrank & Commanderkeen:
The rational behind the GP's opposal to new nuclear generation capcity is laid out in detail on their website. Its really not hard to find. For example, if you go to the popular internet search engine Google, and type in the words "green party" and "nuclear power", you will be presented with a list of web pages containing information on the subject.
I can't find any reference to electoral reform on the GP website, which confuses me. I was under the impression that they advocated proportional representation- although I admit I can't remember where I got that from.
Personally I advocate the Single Transferable Vote, as does the Electroal Reform Society of The UK.
You confuse me. You call these policies regressive but suggest no alternatives. You claim that the bogeyman of "climate chaos" is being overhyped as asylum seekrs and Islamic terrorism has but you must admit that there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that climate change is a threat to our way of life that Asylum seekers and terrorism cannot come close to matching.
Ignoring your Greenpeace cheap-shot, why should the use of quotas be regressive? If Labour are already using them then its technically an unchanged position and not regression. This also ignores the fact that the quots advocated by the GP are often binding targets for international agreements on such matters as renewable energy, fish catches, congestion reduction, etc. - all of which are very different from Labour's "targets" for their politicians to be 25% competent at their jobs or 5% honest? ( I should have mentioned exam targets or hospital waiting lists- Adam Curtis has something to say on the latter- but I couldn't resist returning the cheaps-shot).
I don't know what you're talking about on the Investment topic- kindly elaborate.
As for eco-taxes, this is surely a straw man as all taxes are, essentially, eco-taxes. The GP policy involves the direction of tax revenue towards encouraging innovation and development in a field that will become crucial to the wellbeing of our nation in the next fifty years. If you want taxes to be spent supporting our arms exporters, nuclear power stations, paying thebouses of the CEOs of rail service providers, etc. instead of developing our country then you are free to vote for the conservatives at the next election. Many of us, however, feel otherwise.