To be fair, if people can forgive Labour I’m sure they’ll forgive the Lib Dems.

I think Nick Cohen’s piece in the Observer is probably more apposite than Grayson’s. The LD’s are a busted flush; their only residual usefulness is in (hopefully) getting electoral reform kick started, even if it is only AV to start.

Clegg and his ilk won’t be missed, and the party isn’t likely to recover from the self inflicted wounds of the last few months. Those on the centre left of the LD’s may as well start planning their escape route now, and let Clegg and his clueless cabal migrate to where they really belong, the wet wing of the Tory party.

“Extensive polling of 2,000 people who voted for Nick Clegg’s party in May suggests just 54 per cent will back the Lib Dems in five years’ time. Some 22 per cent of Lib Dem voters say they will chose Labour.”

Labour had better hope they don’t change their minds before then.

“around 57% of their supporters say they were protest votes”

Not actually surprising. There seems to be an assumption among Lib Dems that loads more people would vote for them under a fair voting system. They always seem to ignore the fact that tactical voting might actually get them more votes than they would under PR.

According to UK Polling report – the 2,000 Lib Dems interviewed were in seats Lib Dems won.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

It also suggests that around half of those don’t plan to vote lib dem next time. (for context that would leave Clegg himself with a majority of just 3,000 if nothing else changed. (and in fact, those half would be likely to vote for some one else and so maybe erode that 3,000 further).

As some of us have said before – the lib dems are facing catastrophy in next year’s elections – their desperate attempt to paper over that with a vote on AV is disgraceful and probably won’t work (convention is referenda should not happen on election days)

Also – with the Lib Dems now polling less than 10% more often – it would be nice to see how this benefits the greens – though little polling has been done on the benefits of lib dem collapse for “other” parties.

The greens are too anti-science for me. I simply no longer have a party that represents my interests.

Depressing state of affairs, I’m sure you’ll agree.

If Nick Clegg really cares about the future of the LibDems, now is the time for him to take responsibility for the broken tuition fees pledge and resign.

5 Nick

Ditto… it is profoundly sad

Nick

No one has a party that represents their interest fully. Politics isn’t a super-market – it’s a hamper and you have to accept that along with a nice juicy ham, there is also a jar of pickle you don’t much like.

Agree that the Greens need to get over some of their anti-science too – it is something that many greens know and want to change.

Interestingly though, while the Lib Dems were in opposition, am I to take it that you did indeed think they were the party for you? I ask because I’m keen to learn what happened between May that has upset so many lib dems so thoroughly.

I say that because there is a little studied phenomenon attached.

Clegg said they would work with the tories. He was up front and honest about it. And obviously the tories were going to be the bigger partner and their agenda would be the basis of that deal, rather than the lib dem manifesto.

So it suggests people voted lib dem despite their party’s stated aspiration. Indeed it suggests a degree of “realism” in that they assumed he was probably lying for the sake political expedience. But it was thus “realism” attached to the naivety of believing only the bits they didn’t like were lies – rather than realising he was thus lying at an election and so comfortable doing so, and so might be lying about things like tuition fees. (ironically, we had cause to believe that lie as he sought to have opposition to fees dropped as a lib dem policy – but the party over-ruled him.)

So it is a fascinating demonstration of the extent to which people are still naive about their politics – while at the same time as being knowledgably cynical – indeed selectively naive and cynical.

Galen

I address that question to you too. I’m keen to find out more about it as I don’t doubt that we all do it to varying degrees. This stark confrontation of it is unusual – but plenty of people vote labour and tories knowing the gloss over the truth or hint at things only for expedience to some extent – while choosing to believe other things said, often with less cause.

I once declared on a chat page in my “sig” that I am a nazi. – to see whether people overlooked my utterly sane views as lies and attacked that one as truth. It was the reverse principle – believing what you don’t like when it is an opponent – and disbelieving what you do like – but the mental gymnastics are te same.

I emailed the LD membership dept. a few days ago to check that my membership would not be auto-renewed. This is the reply:

* “Your credit card will not be auto-debited and I have also actioned your resignation.”

No “sorry to see you go”. No “could you perhaps tell us why you do not wish to remain a member”. It gave me the impression that they’d thrown the towel in.

Unlike many, I don’t see this as a cause for gloating and sneering. The loss of a viable third party is a loss to everyone.

bluerock

no cause for gloating – but cause for planning ahead if you happen to like an alternative potential third party…

@ margin4error:

> no cause for gloating – but cause for planning ahead if you happen to like an alternative potential third party…

And that planning must include ejecting Clegg & Co. to rebuild the party. The betrayal of trust makes their position as leaders of the party untenable. Get rid of them and rebuild – but no matter how well that process is done, it will be a *long* time before people forget what happened in 2010.

@ 8

“Agree that the Greens need to get over some of their anti-science too – it is something that many greens know and want to change.”

I’m pretty sure the Greens are only anti-science because they know their market niche. Under PR and possibly even AV, that would probably change.

I thought the findings on whether LibDem voters thought they had or hadn’t made a difference were the most interesting bit – four times as likely to say made the fees policy worse as that they improved it, and mostly that they have not had an influence (even on issues – such as environment and Europe – where they have a fair claim to have done so, as well as on issues like spending where they clearly haven’t).

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/12/have-libdems-made-difference-their-own.html

@ 5. Nick:

> The greens are too anti-science for me. I simply no longer have a party that represents my interests.

[sigh] This same evidence-free accusation is made whenever the Green Party is mentioned. Perhaps you can be the first person to state exactly which of their policies is “anti-science”. Please provide exact quotes or link to credible source.

Rather than being “anti-science”, the Green Party is probably driven more by science than any other – which is exactly why they are so focused on environment. This includes opposition to GMO crops and nuclear power. There is wide-ranging evidence that both these technologies are harmful and unnecessary. We have better, safer, more equitable solutions available.

~~~

@ 8. margin4error:

> Agree that the Greens need to get over some of their anti-science too – it is something that many greens know and want to change.

Same as above. And can you quote any of the “many greens” you refer to?

8 & 9 m4e

I’m aware that no one party is likely to reflect every belief or preference I have; ’twas ever thus. The issue for many people like me who “lent” their support to the LD’s is whether their actions both in entering the coalition in the first place, and then their decisions since, are acceptable.

In my case, the answer is a resounding no on both counts. I realise (and accepted at the time) that I was likely to be in the minority WRT the wisdom of entering a coalition with the Tories at all. Everything that has happened since reinforces my belief that it was a mistake both tactically and strategically.

The LD leadership forced too few concessions from the Tories, and those they received were trifling. They received NO major cabinet positions, and far too little in the way of ability to direct Coalition policy. As proponents of electoral reform, they should have insisted in STV rather than AV, and a cabinet which reflected the relative % of popular votes NOT the gerrymandered relative number of seats.

Headline issues like tuition fees, cancellation of Trident, repeal of New Labour’s authoritarian civil liberties legislation and a more progressive approach on taxation and cutting the deficit should have been made absolute conditions for a Coalition agreement. I don’t accept these weren’t achievable; if Clegg and his team had had any guts, they would have gotten more in return for their support.

If the Tories (or Labour for that matter) had refused, the LD’s could easily have responded to any attacks about them causing destabilising uncertainty by saying that their price was known, and forcing a fresh election. It is at least as likely that they would have benefitted from such a principled stance as it is that they would have suffered for it, and one is tempted to ask those who disagree….how do they think it would have been worse than their current situation exactly?

Clegg and his team have become (as I predicted) Cameron’s lightning rod; they take all the flack, whilst allowing him to keep the baying carpet biters of the Tory right in check. They have played fast and loose with their principles, and the very future of their party; why else are so many defecting, leaving, or saying they wont vote for them again?

Like many, I won’t be sorry to see Clegg and his fellow travellers given their com-uppance. I do however hope that their cowardice and lack of principles does not lead people to vote “no” to AV in the referendum next year just to give the LD’s and Coalition a bloody nose; that would represent the greatest let down of all.

@15: This same evidence-free accusation is made whenever the Green Party is mentioned. Perhaps you can be the first person to state exactly which of their policies is “anti-science”. Please provide exact quotes or link to credible source.

OK, how about this.

15 Blue Rock

Plenty of people, including me, who are otherwise inclined to look quite positively on the Greens, would see opposition to GMO’s and nuclear power as more than enough evidence that they are guilty as charged.

I’m all for a huge boost in alternative energy production, and in non-GMO methods of increasing food production, but to maintain that nuclear power and GMO’s are beyond the pale, and not potentially useful as at least part of the solution to current problems just isn’t realistic. I’d rather put up with the manageable problems of nuclear power than see lots of (generally) poor countries inundated by rising sea levels.

“Extensive polling of 2,000 people who voted for Nick Clegg’s party in May suggests just 54 per cent will back the Lib Dems in five years’ time. Some 22 per cent of Lib Dem voters say they will chose Labour.”

What about the 24 per cent?

Presumably they’ll vote Tory, which is why Clegg doesn’t look overly concerned.

As long as the lost LD votes split between Lab and Con, the LDs will remain the natural party of (coalition) government.

@17. Phil Hunt

> OK, how about this.

What about “this”? You’ve linked to a long, meandering article that links to multiple other articles. It’s vague to the point of being indecipherable. However, let’s pluck out a few things:

* Green Party = “…in favour of increased funding for research on methods of integrated conventional and holistic treatments for cancer.”

Response = “…alternative medicine by definition is medicine that has been proven not to work…”

See what they did? Jumped from the Green Party’s science-based recommendation of “increased funding for research on methods of integrated conventional and holistic treatments” to labelling it “alternative medicine”. It’s a non sequitur strawman!

* “The whole point of research is you don’t know what you will find.”

Read the preceding text from the Green Party that they are referring to. They’ve produced another non sequitur / strawman.

* “I wonder if “unconventional ideas” is code for woo?”

I wonder if the author has sex with goats? Maybe the Green Party really just means unconventional ideas when it states “unconventional ideas”? Why would we not want to pursue novel thinking to solve problems? Without that approach we’d still be sitting in caves.

Compare it to Tory policy that wants research based on whether an accountant can see immediate profit coming from it. Charles Darwin would have been fucked for funding under a modern Tory government.

* “So all science will have to go through the bureaucratic obstacle of an ethics board.”

Why would anyone object to scientific oversight to ensure technology will not cause harm? The author sounds like a libertarian who believes the free market takes care of all problems.

* “So scientists will have to justify their research to Green Party placemen who understand nothing about science.”

This blanket claim is not supported by the text it refers to. It is a misrepresentation. The Green Party policy is not suggesting anyone who wants to invent a new ballpoint pen needs to go through some ethics committee – but if the technology has potential for harm (e.g. GMO crops, nuclear technology), it will be subject to public consultation by a wide range of experts and non-experts. Note: you do not need to know how to build a nuclear bomb to know it is potentially very bad for society.

* Green Party = “…integrate science teaching with everyday life. Science education itself should be less specialised and more interdisciplinary, and should foster a socially and environmentally responsible attitude in scientists.”

Now look at the idiotic, sneering response to that perfectly reasonable and sensible educational policy: “Oh wonderful, political propaganda in science lessons. Just what we all need.”

* Green Party= “Technological aid to the third world should be appropriate and should avoid exploitation and the generation of dependency.”

Here’s the response: “So poor countries shouldn’t use computers unless they can manufacture them themselves?” Non sequitur bullshit strawman.

The article you have produced is a prime example of the sneering misrepresentation that some people produce when discussing the Green Party. It’s not rational critique, it is ideologically-driven, scientifically-illiterate ranting.

@18. Galen10:

> …opposition to GMO’s and nuclear power as more than enough evidence that they are guilty as charged.

You, like so many, simply assume you are right about these subjects. You offer no evidence or argument. The reality is that there is wide-ranging evidence for the harm caused by GMOs – both to the environment and to socio-economics.

Similarly, there is very compelling evidence about the wide-ranging problems with nuclear – especially the economics of it and the problem of what to do with the waste for the next few thousand years. Some people are happy to sweep it under the carpet for future generations to suffer, some of us are not so selfish.

* Open letter from British scientists and energy experts: “There are viable and pragmatic energy futures: where offshore wind, waves, tides, biomass and photovoltaics collectively offer the potential to harness enormous energy resources. …the nuclear option is the dearest and riskiest of gambles.”

Signed by:

* Dr Paul Dorfman – Warwick Business School
* David Elliott – Emeritus Professor, Energy and Environment, The Open University
* Professor Tom Burke – Founding Director, E3G; Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges
* Professor Andy Stirling – University of Sussex
* Stephen Thomas – Professor of Energy Policy, University of Greenwich
* Brian Wynne – Professor of Science Studies and Research Director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, University of Lancaster
* And 24 others

The reality is that nuclear will actually make climate change *worse* because it cannot be built quickly enough and takes valuable funding away from renewable technologies that can be rapidly scaled and deployed. Fortunately, that is already happening. Renewables are being deployed, nuclear is not to any significant extent (outside of China, India and a couple of other Asian countries). And where new nuclear is being deployed – see Finland + France – it is once again demonstrating that it is slow and complex to build and keeps going billions over budget and years over schedule.

You have failed to show how the Green Party is “anti-science”.

Chervil@19

The Tory figure is 5%

It’s a “taking everything into account, who are you most likely to vote for” question of 2010 LD voters in LD-held seats.

LibDems 54%
Labour 22%
Tory 5%
Another party 8%

That leaves 11% not accounted for. One can assume they are uncertain/anxious about the LibDems (though may stay) but that they are probably more likely to also go to Labour, and then as likely to go Green or elsewhere as Tory.

If this was an all LibDem voters national poll, that would very roughly be worth an increase of 4-5% of national vote share to Labour and about 1% to the Tories, ie narrowing the 2 party gap from 36-29 (8) to about 3 points, purely from this scattering of LD support.

This poll is different from other national polling, as it is LibDem supporters *in LibDem held seats*. It is reasonable to suppose these are likely to prove stickier than other LibDems (local MP, strategic/tactical environment). So while 54% in this poll are most likely to vote LD again, the party is retaining 33%-55% of its support in most polling. Labour already has one-in-three May 2010 LibDems nationally, in typical polls where LibDem support has halved.

Llosing half of *these voters* would be catastrophic electorally, while the party could lose significant amounts of support elsewhere for less harm.

There are two points really.

The first is that the figures aren’t as bad as the raw data suggests. They don’t take into account shy libdems, the stage in the electoral cycle, or the popularity of a named local MP rather than the party.

The second is that it doesn’t matter if the LDs lose a third of their MPs. As long as Lab and Con remain more or less tied they’ll continue to be in government after the next election.

The question is, who will they be in government with? It could be with Labour, but only if Labour first find a leader with some strength and credibility (as opposed to one who trails along behind protestors whilst shouting abuse).

21 Blue Rock

If I could be bothered internet trawling, it wouldn’t be hard to come up with just as many links that “proved” the opposite of the ones you posted….. to be honest I just can’t be arsed getting into a sterile duel of posting competing lists of links that support our chosen viewpoint.

There are plenty of other forums for doing that, and this probably isn’t the place. It is an unexceptional view that the Greens have a way to go convincing people that they aren’t anti-science and contain an element of back to the pre-industrial age wishful thinkers. That’s not to say that they don’t have some decent policies (as the article you slate above also points out)….. but as previous threads on this very site have discussed, even your “leaderene” has form vis a vis talking up quackery like homeopathy.

@24. Galen10:

Shorter Galen10: “I’ve got nothing but ranty rhetoric. I just know I’m right no matter what the evidence or lack of it shows.”

Pathetic – but absolutely typical of the scientific illiterates who always come crawling out with the same lies and bullshit regarding Green Party policy.

So, still not a shred of evidence that the Green Party are in any way “anti-science”.

25

Pfft.. as opposed to the unanswerable peer reviewed evidence you have presented that GMO’s and nuclear power are totally wrong?

Give the people on here some credit: if they want to inform themselves of the relative merits of Green Party policy on science generally, or those 2 specific items in particular, they are quite a liberty to do so. You and I cut and pasting screeds of links to other sites isn’t going to change the debate.

From my own reading, perusing the various parties policies, and discussions on threads like this one, I’m more than convinced that the Green Party contains an anti-scientific element.

There’s plenty of evidence… are you saying it is all made up? Or are you just doing what you accuse me of….deciding you are right because your belief in the Green Party tells you so?

@26. Galen10

> Pfft.. as opposed to the unanswerable peer reviewed evidence you have presented that GMO’s and nuclear power are totally wrong?

The challenge was not for me to demonstrate the Green Party’s *science and evidence-based arguments* against GMO and nuclear are correct. The challenge was for *you* to provide evidence their policies are “anti-science”. You have failed.

> There’s plenty of evidence… are you saying it is all made up?

What evidence? I’m stating the *fact* that you have failed to provide any evidence. All you’ve produced is ranting rhetoric. Typical of the scientific illiterates who confuse their love of technology with understand the consequences of it.

@10

Unlike many, I don’t see this as a cause for gloating and sneering. The loss of a viable third party is a loss to everyone.

Agreed. The principles on which the Liberal Democrats stood at the last election are good ones and I know there are many in the party who still believe in them.

But principles without action mean nothing.

“…understand the consequences of it.” -> “…understanding the consequences of it.”

P.S.

> I’m more than convinced that the Green Party contains an anti-scientific element.

What convinced you? Provide evidence. Do you understand the concept of providing evidence to demonstrate your claims?

Or is your attitude based on an idiotic preconception that Green Party = hippies = stupid? That seems to be the common thread amongst people like you.

And this is about official Green Party policy – not the fact that there might be an idiot who is a member. There are no shortage of idiots in every party – see global warming deniers in the Tories for a mountain of examples.

29 Blue Rock

All you have to do is google Green Party and anti-science.

Have a look at the stuff on there, including not a few threads on this very site providing chapter and verse of Green Party policy which can be seen as nothing other than anti-science. It’s not just me sitting here making it up because I think you’re a bunch of hippies… altho I can see how trying to dismiss any criticism in that way would fit your comfortable, lazy pre-conceptions.

@30. Galen10

> All you have to do is google Green Party and anti-science.

All you have to do is google ‘Green Party and not anti-science’.

See how that stupidity works?

There’s a reason you cannot produce anything other than your tedious, evidence-free rhetoric. Any guesses what it is?

So if the Greens were not or are not anti-science why did we have this story under the helpful headline of:

The Greens have changed their approach to science

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/23/the-greens-have-changed-their-approach-to-science/

by Jim Jepps
February 23, 2010 at 8:45 am

“There has been an ongoing “re-evaluation” of Green Party policy around scientific evidence recently. This came about mainly due to a few journalists helpfully letting us know that there was some deeply dodgy stuff in policy.

It certainly came as a shock to many of us who had not thoroughly read our voluminous policy documents.

This conference saw the first swath of re-orientating our policy on a more science friendly footing. We passed the motion on abolition of the science pledge – a policy so offensive to scientists and ‘technologists’ that it makes me wince just to think of it. Anyway, it’s gone. Hurray.

Health
The headlines in this are that we state that we “will not make judgements on individual treatments or medicines” as that is the job of regulators and scientists which replaced a very specific and somewhat rigid list of treatments we, apparently, like in favour of others.

We have removed the idea that health research will have a “particular emphasis” on “holistic treatments” and “complementary therapies”. We removed the statement that “vivisection is of questionable value and incompatible with ecological philosophy” replacing it with a section calling for “a thorough evaluation of animal tests” which seems difficult to disagree with as it happens already.

We previously had the difficult situation where we appeared to state that alternative therapies did not require the same kind of regulation as more conventional medicines. Conference amended this to ensure that all medicines are properly regulated and subjected to the same controls “based on the best clinical evidence available”. We also deleted a long section on “natural medicines”, whatever they might be.

Bizarrely, we did have a policy that opposed some stem cell research (but not using adult stem cells) and appeared to be, and maybe even was, the sort of thing George W. might have approved of.”

@32. Richard W:

> So if the Greens were not or are not anti-science why did we have this story under the helpful headline of: The Greens have changed their approach to science

Excellent. Someone has provided a link.

However, you have not demonstrated the Green Party is “anti-science” by pointing at the title of one article that describes how the party has altered policies to be more scientifically correct.

In fact, you have demonstrated the opposite of what you claim. You have shown that the Green Party – like science itself – adjusts policy and opinion when new evidence is introduced or errors are demonstrated.

Compare this to e.g. the Tories who recently announced they don’t need science to make decisions on drugs policy. *That* is anti-science.

The “Green Party is anti-science” canard is nothing more than lazy propaganda from people who are very often scientifically illiterate themselves.

33

OK, so would you care to clarify your party’s position WRT to the issues detailed in the (numerous) threads just on this site which refer to the the questionable scientific basis of many of the Green Party’s stated policy positions?

Oh, and by the way, stop hiding behind the fact that no one can be bothered indulging you in your silly little game of “who can cut and paste the most links from the internet and pretend it’s a debate”, and coming up with the breathtakingly childish conclusion that this somehow supports your viewpoint.

@34. Galen10

Provide evidence that the Green Party’s policies are “anti-science”.

Repeat: Provide evidence. Do you understand the concept of providing evidence to demonstrate your claims?

I’m beginning to suspect you’re just a bit simple.

Why are the greens anti-science?

I’m actually considering putting together a full blog article going through their own policy website (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/index.html) and marking out all the policies I just can’t stomach, in the hopes that we can open some debate and get them changed. A short list of the first few areas would look like:

PB305 (philosophical)
PB431 (seriously, that’s just wrong)
PB461 (pastoral romanticism)
AG209 (GM is a technique, not a demon, and most of the problems of GM are neutralised by their other policy statements),
AG503 (this obsession with ‘natural’ is unhealthy)
AG623 (see AG209; personally, I like my insulin, among other things. we’re 10,000 years too late for the cautionary principle)
AR402 (slippery slope to eugenics)
AR405 (fur is not inherently worse than leather)
AR408 (animal research is invaluable, GTFO)
AR414 (pastoral romantics often forget hunting is a good source of ethical meat)
AR420 (this is a promising area of research, with no serious ethical problems above those of meat-eating)
CJ112 (mob rule)

not all of those are scientific, of course. I haven’t managed to get all the way through the policies (there are quite a lot of them), and to be fair, there are an awful number of their policies I /do/ agree with. And I know it’s a hamper, not a supermarket – the question is whether I can hold my nose enough to vote for them, and whether I have enough chance of being heard above the rest of the party to change the more ridiculous areas of policy

Also, why did I vote for liberal democrats?

A few main reasons – a vague sense of fuzzy “they’re not anti-poor” sentiment, they voted against the Iraq war, they opposed many civil liberties fails in opposition, and they had their heads screwed on about the tertiary education situation. Oh, and they promised electoral reform, and honest politics.

They’re still doing well-ish on civil liberties (they’ve missed a trick by not coming out in favour of wikileaks), they did major climb-downs on electoral reform. Honest politics is now utterly laughable, and they’ve voted /for/ a policy directly in opposition to their heads-screwed-on party position on tuition fees.

As for the anti-poor thing… well, I just can’t work out if they’re indifferent or hostile.

35

I refer you to my learned colleague’s post @36 above. Rather than throw around cheap shots about whether I’m too stupid to understand what evidence is, rather than just to busy (and bored with your holier than thou attitude) to bother trawling the internet, perhaps you’d like to provide a detailed defence of some of the points detailed in Nicks post?

No?

Thought not you know-nothing luddite troll.

As it happens, that ridiculed article linked to earlier seems to have taken my approach.

List a policy proposed by the greens in full, then explain in as few words as possible why it’s a bad idea.

I think – although I’m not entirely certainy – that PB431 is enough all by itself to utterly discredit the green’s claims to be pro-science. Technology is about applying science to make life easier for people. Yes, when one person can plough a field in ten minutes, that makes general farm labourers obsolete. But that means fewer horrific maimings, and – with a very good education policy combined with the sort of approach to community that the more sensible aspects of the green’s policy aspires towards, means less human lives full of drudgery. Good times, etc.

@36. Nick:

> (philosophical) … (seriously, that’s just wrong) … (pastoral romanticism) … (GM is a technique, not a demon…) … (this obsession with ‘natural’ is unhealthy) … (mob rule)

You’ve basically just vomited up your knee-jerk reactions to random selection of policies that demonstrate nothing apart from the fact that you *really* do not like Green Party policies. There is no *science* in your response – further strengthening my claim that those who keep claiming the Green Party are “anti-science” are scientifically illiterate themselves.

> I’m actually considering putting together a full blog article going through their own policy website…

Let’s hope you do a massively better job than you just did and you make some attempt to inject some *science* in your attempt to show that Green Party policies are “anti-science”. You have failed here.

@38. Galen10:

You’ve already demonstrated you are incapable of forming a coherent, evidence-based argument. No need to labour the point.

If you voted lie Dem last time ,and you vote for them again next time you must be an idiot.

Because they do the opposite of what the campaign for. So if you voted Lie Dem , because you did not want VAT to go up to 20% then you have learned a hard lesson.

The Lie Dems are toast, which is why they are now very dangerous because they have nothing to lose. They might as well trash the place because they know they won’t be back for decades.

@39. Nick

> …PB431 is enough all by itself to utterly discredit the green’s claims to be pro-science.

Nope. That’s just you making an assertion without a shred of evidence or science. You do realise your opinion is not necessarily unassailable fact?

> Technology is about applying science to make life easier for people.

Is that all technology is? How about nuclear bombs? Do they make life easier for people? How about DDT? How about Thalidomide? Did they make life “easier” for people?

You’re actually demonstrating what I see in almost every person who tries to claim anyone who is opposed to GMOs, nuclear, etc. is “anti-science” or a “Luddite” – you have constructed a fantasy world where technology will solve every problem you can dream of without any detrimental effects. You do this because you are ignorant of science and ignorant of the consequences of uncontrolled deployment of science and technology.

Still waiting for someone to show how Green Party policies are “anti-science”.

@ 41
In terms of the evidence you want, page 41 of their manifesto says they would immediately ban harm to animals for research purposes:
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/resources/Manifesto_web_file.pdf

The very fact that they say that this ban will be “immediate” doesn’t exactly suggest that it will be carefully thought out to avoid harming scientific progress.

The manifesto doesn’t seem to mention alternative medicine aside from a brief statement that “complementary” treatments will be available on the NHS if they are cost-effective and have been shown to work. Of course, “shown to work” is not exactly the same as “proved to have superior efficiacy to placebo in double-blind trials”. As cost-effective and (genuinely) treatment-effective drugs are ALREADY allowed on the NHS, this does kinda suggest that they’re in favour of letting alternative meds through with less scientific rigour than other drugs.

BTW, Galen is far from the idiot you suggest he is. You might find that out if your responded to his posts rather than just insulting him.

@ 43

“Is that all technology is? How about nuclear bombs? Do they make life easier for people? How about DDT? How about Thalidomide? Did they make life “easier” for people?”

Only one of those is actually a fair example. Nukes arguably make the world a better place by preventing outbreaks of total war. DDT is still used to improve agricultural yield. You’re right about thalidomide, but in fairness I don’t think Nick is trying to argue that scientists never make mistakes, or that they’re immune to corruption.

@44. Chaise Guevara:

> In terms of the evidence you want, page their manifesto says they would immediately ban harm to animals for research purposes:

No, that is not the evidence I want – you have simply stated that it is. It says they will ban *harming* animals, not that they would ban research.

The scientific evidence of efficacy of testing animals to develop medicines for humans shows that it is far from certain that animal testing is necessary or beneficial. Also, modern science provides many alternative to using live animals to test on. Who is “anti-science” again? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Animal_testing

> …avoid harming scientific progress.

I would want to see *evidence* that it would substantially harm science. Also, sometimes *ethics* supersede science. Or perhaps you think we should perform any barbaric procedure on any animal just because we are ‘superior’ and because we can?

> Of course, “shown to work” is not exactly the same as “proved to have superior efficiacy to placebo in double-blind trials”.

How do you know that is not exactly what is meant? You’ve assumed a definition to suit your argument without evidence. We could play the semantics game and parse words all day but it’s a little pointless and tedious.

> …this does kinda suggest that they’re in favour of letting alternative meds through with less scientific rigour than other drugs.

No, that’s just an evidence-free conclusion that you made up.

> BTW, Galen is far from the idiot you suggest he is. You might find that out if your responded to his posts rather than just insulting him.

Is that all that happened? I just insulted him? Or did I repeatedly request evidence and he repeatedly ducked the challenge and offer nothing but tedious rhetoric that he was right? Civil, good-faith debate requires more than refraining from calling someone an idiot.

> Only one of those is actually a fair example.

Wrong. Keep reading.

> Nukes arguably make the world a better place by preventing outbreaks of total war.

You said it: arguably. And as each successive theocracy and tinpot dictatorship get their nuclear weapon, the argument becomes harder and harder to maintain.

And the final definition of “total war” is the one where a thermonuclear device is detonated over every major city in the UK. That would be pretty fucking total.

> DDT is still used to improve agricultural yield.

No, it is not. You are woefully misinformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Restrictions_on_usage

> …I don’t think Nick is trying to argue that scientists never make mistakes, or that they’re immune to corruption.

I never suggested he was – that’s a strawman you have just built yourself. I replied to what Nick wrote – you should do the same for me. Nick claimed technology “is about applying science to make life easier for people.” I provided examples to demonstrate how wrong that answer is and why the Green Party are absolutely correct to provide ethical oversight for science and technology – more now than ever as corporations attempt to control the food chain with their patented crops.

So, still not a shred of *evidence* that the Green Party policies are “anti-scientific”. This is playing out like every other time I’ve had this ‘debate’ – the scientific illiterates are actually those who unquestioningly accept the corporate propaganda that “science and technology is all good all the time.”

This does all seem to have become a bit… confrontational. But to me, it’s really simple. Banning resarch into xenotransplantation is anti-science. Banning animal experimentation is anti-science. Opposing technological development without a clear idea of how that developed technology will be used is anti-science. Speaking of which, opposing GMOs and GM techniques is anti-science.

That’s because i think – and it’s not intellectual posturing for me, i thought long and hard before delving into my first experimental mouse’s guts to find its schistosome-infected liver. I thought even harder before transfecting a tobacco plant with GFP to learn more about the science behind the technology – all those examples are things that science is justified in approaching. I might be wrog, of course. I’m not infallible.

Anti-science, here,does not mean denying the value of the scientific method, like promoting homeopathic remedies for animals would (i don’t think that’s current green party policy, it’s just an example). it means opposing scientific research or technological advances without a *very* good reason. Knowledge is worth having for its own sake, of course, and its value is only increased by being able to apply it in a variety of ways. Ethics are the main *very* good reason, of course.

The policy on xenotransplantation is one i actually read, ‘though my phone doesn’t like cut ‘n paste. Apparently treating animals like organ-transplant factories is morally worse than treating them like spare-rib factories, or steak & kidney pie factories. Not sure why that would be.

In addition to that questionable assertion, apparently it’s too dangerous due to viruses potentially jumping the species barrier.

Well, no. Apart from the obvious uses of xenotransplantation, the research also providess fundamental – and invaluable – knowledge of how human and animal immune systems work. The virus problem might be insurmountable, but it might not be. if we don’t research it, we won’t know.

Is that in-depth enough for you? I must admit, i’m not sure what you’re after here – you’re obviously exasperated by the greens-are-anti-science meme, which probably goes a long way to explaining your attitude towards me.

All i can say is, again, i agree with /huge/ swathes of Green policy. Crime & justice, climate change are two policy areas i went over today with substantial head-nodding, I also love the citizen’s allowance jobbie. From my point of view, the anti-science ‘vibe’ seems to come from a feeling of wanting to keep humanity at a certain level of technological and scientific development. No GM, no nuclear. Blanket-disowning a technology that has already revolutionised insulin production (saving many pigs from death in the process, i might add) is in no way pro-science. As for nuclear power – i guess it’s a vote-winner. Maybe if you could show a Green plan that added up (http://withouthotair.com/ style) for energy, that opposition would be acceptable – but i’ve never seen one. instead (and the libdems were guilty of this too) it’s all vague handwaving about solar and wind without drawing a map and showing where it’s all going to go, and how many hours a day we can expect to have electricity for.

Even then, surely you can’t in good conscience oppose /experimental/ reactors?

Your examples of scientific discoveries used to ill effect are useless without discussing proportions. The vast majority of scientific discoveries that end up integrated into everyday life, i would think, don’t end up being such disasters.

Also, when are the green party going to update LP450 (mobile phone radiation)? Is the precautionary principle going to be invoked until COSMOS reports in 20 years?

(For those not familiar with this area, a respected study recently concluded that there was no evidence that mobile phone radiation is the evil, certainly not in the short to medium term. There’s now a much longer-scale study being undertaken to investigate long-term effects, but the expectation is there won’t be any. I’m a subject in this new study, called COSMOS).

And addressing a point you made about a point I nade about animal experimentation – are you familiar with how most of our fundamental knowledge of human vision is gained? We glue primates heads to posts, saw off the top of their skulls, then poke around while providing stimuli to them. We then use the knowledge gained from this fundamental research to work on restoring sight to people.

It’s not pleasant, and the primates suffer a lot. We probably disagree on whether it’s morally justifiable to do it. Right now, unfortunately, there is no other way to gather the required information.

Now i’m wondering if there’s actually space in the green party for someone like me, who happens to think that kind of research is justifiable? Would i be run out of party conference? Or would reasoned debate about it be possible? Answers on a postcard, and I’m not beig smarmy here.

Thanks for the responses Galen and Nick.

I guess perhaps my question was misplaced. It would seem from your answers that it was not the deal with the tories that turned you against them, (a deal they said they would do) but the complete incompetence they showed in arriving at such a poor deal.

Blue Rock

I am not, never have been, and never will be a liberal. As my old grandad (among many others) said – if the liberals ever meant what they said, we wouldn’t have needed a labour party.

I want to see the Greens rise – and plan to capitalise on the lib dem colapse presently under-way. They could be a much more valuable third party in english politics – as they are left rather than centre with some good ideas.

But saying that, I can’t deny they have an anti-science instinct that troubles me. Their jumping on the “phone masts give you headaches and hurt your kids” daily mail bandwagon was ridiculous. Their support for alternative medicines as anything other than a personal choice for individuals only betrays their rather well-to-do but somewhat hippyish support base.

The party needs to grow up if it is to displace the libdems as the third party over the next decade.

@47. Nick:

> This does all seem to have become a bit… confrontational.

I imagine it could given my resolute insistence that people provide *evidence* for their claims. Evidently some do not like this part of a debate about science.

> Banning resarch into xenotransplantation is anti-science.

That is not a Green Party policy.

> Banning animal experimentation is anti-science.

That is not a Green Party policy. Either we discuss *exactly* what they advocate or you’re demonstrating what I claim to be true: those who accuse the Green Party of being anti-science are scientifically illiterate – and I’d add ideologically driven.

> Opposing technological development without a clear idea of how that developed technology will be used is anti-science.

Where do they advocate that? We could all make strawmen and declare ourselves victorious – but what would be the point?

> Speaking of which, opposing GMOs and GM techniques is anti-science.

No, that’s your evidence-free opinion. Again. Also, another strawman. There’s a pattern forming.

> …it’s not intellectual posturing for me…

Fascinating. Let’s stick to evidence – if you or anyone can ever produce any – of the Green Party being “anti-science”.

> it means opposing scientific research or technological advances without a *very* good reason.

And the *very* good reasons have been offered. You may not think they are good enough – but the common theme amongst those who attempt to portray the Green Party as “anti-science” is that they consider anything that impedes corporations making profits is “anti-science”.

> …you’re obviously exasperated by the greens-are-anti-science meme, which probably goes a long way to explaining your attitude towards me.

I’m not in the least exasperated. More amused at the inability of all you to produce a shred of evidence to prove your accusation.

> …the anti-science ‘vibe’ seems to come from a feeling of wanting to keep humanity at a certain level of technological and scientific development.

Ah, it’s been down-graded to a “vibe” now. No, the Green Party are not intent on having us all sit in yurts, wearing nettle-dyed jumpers. They have science-based opposition to technologies bring harm to the planet or have the potential to do so. They employ the cautionary principle as opposed to the ‘profits are god’ principle employed by many.

> No GM, no nuclear.

Wrong. No GMO food crops. We don’t need them. It is not a blanket opposition to GM research. The constant misrepresetation makes it almost seem as though there is a lack of honesty involved.

I’ve already provided evidence that many scientists agree with Green Party policy on nuclear. There is massive evidence that nuclear is the most expensive, most dangerous and dirty solution to abandon fossil fuels.

> Maybe if you could show a Green plan that added up (http://withouthotair.com/ style) for energy, that opposition would be acceptable –

Mackay’s book is *not* the unassailable truth on energy generation – even though the nuclear fan club treat it as such. It is one man’s opinion and has many errors, flawed or obsolete assumptions and a very strong anti-renewable bias throughout.

> …i’ve never seen one.

I wonder how hard you have looked?

* Shifting the world to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030 – here are the numbers. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html + http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/PDF%20files/JDEnPolicy24Jan2010.pdf

* The Combined Power Plant. How Germany will provide 100% renewable electricity by 2050. http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/index.php?id=27

* Europe could be 100% renewable by 2050. A “super-smart” grid powered by solar farms in North Africa, wind farms in northern Europe, hydro-electric from Scandinavia and the Alps and a complement of biomass and marine energy could render carbon fuels obsolete by 2050. Nuclear energy not needed. http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/News-Releases/Come-sun-rain-or-high-wind-Europe-could-create-a-100-renewable-electricity-supply-by-2050-e5e.aspx

I have more if you need them. Also, multiple reports show that nuclear would be the most expensive, slowest and most risky strategy to decarbonise society.

Also, the IEA’s most recent global assessment predicts nuclear power’s global share will move from 6% in 2008 to 8% in 2035. It is and will remain a niche energy source.

> Your examples of scientific discoveries used to ill effect are useless without discussing proportions.

Ah, yes – the handwave off of the *examples* I provided because the damage did not meet some arbitrary level that you have decided is significant.

> The vast majority of scientific discoveries that end up integrated into everyday life, i would think, don’t end up being such disasters.

Did I say otherwise? Did the Green Party? Or are you just battling a strawman?

> Also, when are the green party going to update LP450 (mobile phone radiation)?

No idea – but they’ve demonstrated they respond to science, so I’ve no doubt that will happen.

> …a much longer-scale study being undertaken to investigate long-term effects, but the expectation is there won’t be any. I’m a subject in this new study, called COSMOS).

Hold on. You were just mocking Green Party policy – now you’re saying there is still uncertainty in the science and you have an “expectation”? Who is “anti-science”?!

Re. neuroscience / primate vivisection – opposition to that *still* does not make the Green Party “anti-science” – they have simply moved the slider away from ‘science at any cost!’ to ‘science without causing suffering to sentient beings.’ Some of us agree with that.

> …would reasoned debate about it be possible?

If you were reasonable and addressed the Green Party’s policies and not strawmen, yes. However, just because someone says “no vivisection of primates ever” does not make them “anti-science” – it just means they have some compassion and empathy.

> Answers on a postcard, and I’m not beig smarmy here.

A response in this forum is fine – preferably addressing exactly what me or the Green Party have actually said.

@49. margin4error

> I am not, never have been, and never will be a liberal.

Good for you.

> As my old grandad (among many others) said – if the liberals ever meant what they said, we wouldn’t have needed a labour party.

And Labour have never lied through their teeth? The Tories? The problem with old folks is they often have intractable views. Life ain’t black and white.

> …I can’t deny they have an anti-science instinct that troubles me.

Your vague rhetoric troubles me.

> Their jumping on the “phone masts give you headaches and hurt your kids” daily mail bandwagon was ridiculous.

Here’s what their policy says: “LP450 There are legitimate concerns regarding the effects of mobile phone and TETRA mast radiation upon human health. In accordance with the precautionary principle, these concerns should be taken seriously in the relevant planning decisions.”

I’d say your rhetoric is more reminiscent of the Daily Mail than the Green Party’s perfectly reasonable policy statement.

The hubris of people has caused death and suffering ever since we created fire. I’m happy that we take a science-based precautionary principle towards technology.

> Their support for alternative medicines as anything other than a personal choice for individuals only betrays their rather well-to-do but somewhat hippyish support base.

Which policy is this stated in? Or is it another evidence-free “instinct” you have?

> The party needs to grow up if it is to displace the libdems as the third party over the next decade.

The party needs to keep debunking the false claims that permeate the internet from people who make accusations but cannot substantiate them when challenged.

So, thousands of words and not a single shred of evidence that the Green Party are “anti-science”. Same as always.

LP450 is out of step with the science. F’rinstance,

http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c3077.full
http://www.mthr.org.uk/documents/MTHR_report_2007.pdf

(The other study I was thinking of, and COSMOS, are mostly focused on mobile phone usage, rather than proximity to phone masts, I now realise).

What are these “legitimate concerns” ? Why aren’t they specified in the policy? Are you really going to invoke the precautionary principle for another 20 years?

@52. Nick

> LP450 is out of step with the science. F’rinstance,

Excellent. You’ve produced some science.

The first paper says “no problems!” That’s good – but one paper published 10 months ago is not necessarily an all-clear to build mobile masts everywhere and anywhere. The mean distance of base stations was 1km from test subjects. That does not mean the same results would be seen if a tower was built 10m from someone’s bedroom.

The MITHR report is full of cautious language, caveats and acknowledges that research is being conducted elsewhere and “will keep developments under review.”

So, it’s possible that GP policy is overly cautious given recent findings – although I’m not familiar with this subject and I did not write GP policy so do not know what evidence they base it on. However, their policy does not call for a ban or anything draconian, simply “…these concerns should be taken seriously in the relevant planning decisions.” Wow! The Luddites!

> Are you really going to invoke the precautionary principle for another 20 years?

Why do you keep asking this – especially now that you’ve realised COSMOS is not for mast radiation? Is there any evidence that the Green Party have refused to amend policy in the face of conclusive evidence? Given that we have already established that they amend policy in response to science, there is no reason for your question other than to try and insinuate that the Green Party are intransigent with respect to science.

So, there is still no evidence that the Green Party are “anti-science”. Again: the Tories have shown clear evidence they favour ideology over science with their proposal to remove scientists from drugs policy. Perhaps this anti-science witch hunt would be better directed at the current government?

Humm, I didn’t spot your response last night – apologies. Mind you, i find some of your denials startling.

Banning research and practiced of xenotransplantation is green party policy AR420. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfssar.html and anti-science.

Banning animal experimentation is green party policy AR407, AR408 (same page – ‘all experimentation and research which harms animals’) and is anti-science.

A general principle of not pursuing technological advances (PB430,PB431,caveat-ridden though they are, are this – http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspb.html) is anti-science. It is probably linked to the pastoral romanticism element. Lives with better technology are better than lives without it. We have not yet reached (and probably never will reach) a level where we can rest on our laurels here. Green party policy is to do that unless the technology is desirable. It’s a painful difference.

GMOs and GM are useful and widely-used techniques already. My insulin example (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3963132, or there’s a summary on wikipedia) probably would not have happened under green party policies AG623, AR410 & AR412. Presumably the previous treatment would also be banned, leaving insulin-dependent people in a bit of a bind. GM in agriculture is a different area, of course, and ‘though i have no objections in principle myself, it’s not necessarily anti-science to oppose that as a general position, issuing permits for anything +ve. In medicine, I’ve been involved in extremely slow and wasteful efforts to improve yield of a variety of medicinal plants solely necessitated by the prevailing anti-GM feeling. It’s depressing.

Energy-wise, i looked, and did not find, within the green party. McKay’s book isn’t unassailable, and i never said it was – just something in that style, laying out assumptions and generation capacity to be built. The pwc report is interesting, but there’s no indication that it’s green party policy. as you seem so fond of saying. In *europe*, nuclear is currently 30% of capacity, according to said report. Hardly niche, and not that easy to replace. I’m not wedded to nuclear, but ruling it out as an option without laying out a Plan That Adds Up(tm)(c) is not something i can do.

Also, that report suggests using north africa to source loads of solar. I was there recently, and wouldn’t trust them any further than the current cartel of oil people. Who we trust far too much. One of the major pulls of green energy is localism and self-sufficiency of supply (not the raison d’etre, of course, but extremely desirable) – the pwc report offers none of that.

If you’re going to pick a few examples of where science & technology has been applied with unintended consequences to argue that we should be hugely more cautious about deployment, yes, i am going to talk about the numbers (you forgot to mention asbestos, by the way). You can’t build policy from isolated examples – that really is unscientific. It’s not a matter of handwaving, it’s a matter of quantifying risk. Asking the question ‘all else being equal, how likely is a new scientific discovery to lead to widespread human misery’? You can’t answer that from your isolated examples, and you can’t use those isolated exaples to justify a default-deny position.

Your precautionary principle is too precautionary. The mobile mast study was 2007, looks good enough to me. Green policy is still not updated. It’s like you’re opposing this technology without a very good reason, or something. What are they waiting for?

The vivisection example seems to be right in there. I class opposing the research as anti-science, and it seems to bear out my observation that are differences are in alternative interpretations of ethics. You can move the slider too far, you know, to the point where it impedes genuine, worthwhile and justifiable scientific research. In so doing, you become anti-science, disclaimers to the contrary.

Now, you called strawman a lot in your response @50, and a lot of /this/ response is me repeagting exactly what i said with a link to the relevant green policy. I suspet your responses, if any, to the first three points at least will be covered by my previous paragraph, and an extended debate on the ethics of animals in science, while roaringly good fun, is probably going to come up against beliefs, rather than science, on both sides.

Maybe worth waiting for that blog post before doing that in depth – i feel we’ve somewhat derailed this comment thread.

@54. Nick

> …i find some of your denials startling.

I find your (collective) inability to reply to what I’ve written and what Green Party policy says, tedious and suggestive of ideological bias.

> Banning research and practiced of xenotransplantation is green party policy AR420. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfssar.html and anti-science.

OK. Like I said, I did not write GP policy so don’t know every line.

However, it is *still* not “anti-science”. The Green Party have made a moral judgement: “Treating nonhuman animals as “spare part” factories is both immoral and inhumane…” and written policy accordingly.

> Banning animal experimentation is green party policy AR407, AR408 (same page – ‘all experimentation and research which harms animals’) and is anti-science.

Banning *harm* to animals is not “anti-science” – it is moral and humane.

Basically, you’ve drawn a line where any policy that impedes science in any way – no matter the moral arguments – is “anti-science”. Maybe we can find someone who thinks we should perform vivisection or harvest the organs of people below a certain IQ – would you support that? If not, we can call *you* “anti-science”.

> A general principle of not pursuing technological advances (PB430,PB431,caveat-ridden though they are, are this – http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspb.html) is anti-science.

You see “anti-science”, I see philosophical statements that hold truth. There is nothing “anti-science” in acknowledging that science and technology does not always benefit people, society and planet – it is a statement of fact. *You* are in denial and in thrall to technology if you cannot see that.

*You* have made a judgement that science and technology should be allowed to bulldoze ahead no matter the cost to society and planet. Some people see the folly in that.

> It is probably linked to the pastoral romanticism element.

Nah, that’s just your lazy attempt to dismiss valid arguments.

> Lives with better technology are better than lives without it.

Where does the Green Party say we should not have “better technology” – within the bounds of being moral and humane and not treating sentient animals in a barbaric manner?

> Green party policy is to do that unless the technology is desirable. It’s a painful difference.

You want *undesirable* technology? Yes, that is a “painful difference”.

> GMOs and GM are useful and widely-used techniques already.

If you’re referring to GMO crops, that’s just GMO corporation propaganda that ignores the *facts* that GMOs have failed to deliver on yield promises, have increased pesticide use and promoted spread of pesticide-resistant weeds, have decimated insect and wildlife populations, have introduced herbicide resistant genes in to wild species. And GMO crops have caused harm to society with corporations exerting control over the entire food chain. The harm done by GMO crops is there for everyone to see – if they choose to open their eyes from the ‘technology at all costs’ fantasy.

Also, note that 1 million+ people recently signed a petition to ban GMO in Europe. We live in a democracy – as much as that annoys some people when the majority don’t agree with them.

> My insulin example (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3963132, or there’s a summary on wikipedia) probably would not have happened under green party policies AG623, AR410 & AR412.

That’s your evidence-free supposition. And once again you are ignoring the moral case put forward: “The Green Party is opposed to the harmful use in education of animals and of animal-derived materials where the animals have been killed specifically for this purpose.” Some put people agree with this *moral* argument – that does not make it “anti-science”.

> Energy-wise, i looked, and did not find, within the green party.

Does any party lay out a detailed technical, fully-costed plan for decarbonising society? No.

> The pwc report is interesting, but there’s no indication that it’s green party policy. as you seem so fond of saying.

Quote where I have said that *once*. When someone starts completely misrepresenting what the other has said, it’s a clear sign they have lost the argument.

> In *europe*, nuclear is currently 30% of capacity, according to said report.

I never said otherwise. It is a *world* report and that is what I quoted.

For Europe, nuclear will remain virtually flat as renewables are rapidly expanded:

* European Commission report projects that 41% of all energy installations in the next 20 years will be wind. Another 23% will come from other renewables like solar, biomass and hydro. 17% of new capacity to come from gas, 12% from coal, 4% from nuclear and 3% from oil. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/09/wind-and-solar-the-action-continues?cmpid=rss

> I was there recently, and wouldn’t trust them any further than the current cartel of oil people.

Ah, the brotherhood of man on display! Can’t trust those Arabs, those darkies are always stealing stuff!

> (you forgot to mention asbestos, by the way).

I forgot nothing. I offered a few *examples*. Your invective regularly employs this tactic of arguing against something I did not say or imply.

> Your precautionary principle is too precautionary.

Thanks for your *opinion*.

> The vivisection example seems to be right in there. I class opposing the research as anti-science,

Yeah, we’ve already done this: you see no problem treating sentient animals in a barbaric manner. Good for you. Some of us don’t agree with that. Some of us think it should be consigned to history.

> Maybe worth waiting for that blog post before doing that in depth – i feel we’ve somewhat derailed this comment thread.

I hope you can produce something better than the strawmen, non sequiturs and the foundation you’ve built your case on that any restriction on research because of ethical or environmental factors is “anti-science”. You, like most of the ‘anti-green’ brigade, appear to look at the results – some perceived benefit or financial gain – and excuse any cost that comes as a result. Some of us think that curtailing corporate profits to protect people and planet is not “anti-science”, it is *sane*.

“Whenever a neocon stops fantasizing long enough to admit there is a problem, he turns Hegelian and excuses every horror as a stone along the difficult road of progress.” Mariam Lau

P.S. Given that you have admitted you have a vested interest, this one is also appropriate:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

56

Your evasive and verbose replies aren’t doing anything to address Nick’s specific points, which come directly from Green Party documentation. Other than de-railing the thread, you are just making yourself look like what most of us already suspect you are: a trollish mono-maniac.

@57. Galen10:

You do realise everyone can read my replies and see I have addressed point-by-point everything directed at me?

My earlier assessment of you being a bit simple is strengthened.

58

I think we can safely leave the audience to figure out which of us is intellectually challenged: you haven’t “answered” the 3 major points put to you by Nick at all, and obviously never will. You are an obvious troll, whose only answer to those he disagrees with is to try and flood the thread with screeds of clap trap, whilst assiduously avoiding the issue.

Any reasonable person, (which your posts above amply demonstrate counts you out) would accept that there are significant concerns that there are elements of the Green Party platform which most of us would regard as anti-scientific. You scream and shout about there being no evidenc, and that it’s all a vicious anti-Green plot, and then compund your obscurantism by failing to adequately respond to the 3 specific instances provided by Nick, other than to attack his view as being just his opinion, with opinions of your own.

Blue Rock

You seem under the illusion I’m attacking the Greens. I like the greens, I have voted for them in the past and may do so again in future. Hence I would like them to start work at deplacing the yellows as the third party.

But because of this illusion you seem to be overly hostile. You also seem rather beligerant when people present evidence of their view. Indeed policies listed highlighting some unwillingness to accept evidence (masts for example) or their willingness to back without evidence (alternative medicines for example) appear to be completely ignored by you as an explanation of some one’s view.

You instead declare those policies un-illustrative, claim some alternative meaning for their wording, or simply say you find the policy perfectly reasonable.

Which is fine. A Nazi might find a policy of slaughtering the jews perfectly reasonable. A communist might consider the USSR un-illustrative. A capitalist might claim the banking collapse was because of government interference.

But it doesn’t actually make your case. It just convinced readers that you are beligerant and that people like Nick know more.

So – how do you square theses with a postive outlook for science?

ST220 – the creation of ethics boards to evaluate and either pass or ban all research activity in the UK according to government dictat on what it deems ethical, before the research has even been conducted and its full potential is unknown.

or ST363 – this would place a moratorium on the release of GM organisms whther they have been found to be safe or not – and would place a ban on the import of such organisms from abroad.

Genuinely – how do you view those as something other than anti-science?

@59. Galen10:

You’ve demonstrated that you are are one of those internet pissants who is incapable of forming evidence-based arguments, and when faced with them eventually resort to calling other people “trolls” because you have no coherent response. You’re ten a penny.

*sigh*

Just… wow.

What’s wrong with being civil? Come to that, what’s wrong with checking whether or not the greens actually oppose research into xenotransplantation before baldly asserting that they are not? What’s wrong with reading the entirety of my post and taking the entirety of it into account before responding?

The greens misjudge the ethical questions around xenotransplantation. Their misjudgement causes them to put forward an anti-science policy. I covered the specifics of that misjudgement back in 47.

Yes, you can argue that they haven’t actually misjudged the ethics of it – although not very successfully, to me. Whether you accept their ethical judgement or not is what will decide whether you consider that policy to be anti-science. As I said in the tail end of 54.

You can insult my interpretation of the ethics of it if you like, but that doesn’t get you anywhere, since “the greens are too anti-science for me” necessarily means that I judge their policies using my ethical code. My attitudes to animal rights and animal welfare are not barbaric – they simply don’t agree entirely with yours.

I’m not fond of all this “appeal to the audience” stuff, since I was actually trying to talk /to you/, BlueRock. It’s unfortunate that you felt you had to engage me in such a confrontational way, and I really don’t think I’m any the wiser about green policy in general as a result of this discussion.

I’m not really sure if I should respond to the remainder of your post; I think the above does enough to show that “the greens are too anti-science for me” is an entirely valid comment for me to have made, and that your assertion it is not the case is invalid as a result. With the caveats just outlined, of course.

Can we agree on that?

61

I refer you to the posts above by Nick and m4e which (once again) you have refused to adequately address. Could it perhaps be because you are incapable of responding to evidence based arguments, other than by personal attacks?

@60. Margin4error:

> You seem under the illusion I’m attacking the Greens.

I’m under no illusions – I’m responding to the arguments presented – such as they are.

> I like the greens, I have voted for them in the past…

One very common propaganda tactic is to claim you support X and then smear X.

I’m not suggesting that you are necessarily doing that, but your evidence-free claims that you have voted for the Green Party have nothing to do with your accusation they are “anti-science”.

> …you seem to be overly hostile … beligerant [sic] …

Thanks for your opinion. I’ll continue responding to any arguments presented – or, if they want to start with trolling and pointless insults like Galen10, we can play that game.

> …unwillingness to accept evidence (masts for example)

No such thing has been proven. I have already addressed this in detail.

> …back without evidence (alternative medicines for example)…

No such evidence has been presented. Each person responding in this thread keep repeating the same pattern. It makes it appear that you are dishonest and ideologically-driven.

> A Nazi might…

lol. Now you’re comparing opposition to vivisection on sentient animals with the Nazis?! Sit down, son, you just lost this argument!

> It just convinced readers that you are beligerant [sic] and that people like Nick know more.

Can you provide evidence that you have been assigned to speak for everyone on the internet?

> ST220 – the creation of ethics boards to evaluate and either pass or ban all research activity in the UK according to government dictat [sic] on what it deems ethical, before the research has even been conducted and its full potential is unknown.

Your paraphrasing of that policy – with its emotive “government dictat” – is a misrepresentation. There is nothing “anti-science” in a policy that makes ethics part of the scientific process.

> ST363 – this would place a moratorium on the release of GM organisms whther they have been found to be safe or not – and would place a ban on the import of such organisms from abroad.

OMG! The Green Party wants scientific research done *before* releasing GMOs in to the environment, rather than relying on Monsanto telling us it’s OK! The Luddites!

Who is the “anti-science” group in all of this?!

Blue Rock

ST220

My “misrepresentation” is not paraphrasing – it is my summary of the consequences of a policy put in terms I feel it deserves. ST220 does result in ethics boards that can ban scientific study according to government rules. That is entirely it’s point.

I invited you to square that policy with the party being pro-science.

The invite still stands.

ST363

Was that silly monsanto reference paraphrasing? Or was it your summary of the policy? I do get confused

Either way you offer no justification for the lack of distinction between those proven to be safe and those as yet unproven to be safe. (let alone those proven not to be)

I invited you to explain how the party might square such a blanket ban (moratorium) regardless of scientific evidence, with a willingness and desire to follow evidence and a respect for scientific work?

The invite still stands.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/29/green-party-science seems to work out as a decent article – and one that BlueRock knew about back when it was published, judging by the comments.

Shame s/he didn’t feel like sharing it with us :/

@62. Nick:

> *sigh* Just… wow.

I know how you feel. For me, it’s the constant stream of strawmen, evidence-free claims and pointless rhetoric.

> What’s wrong with being civil?

I might ask the same of you with your strawmen and misrepresentations.

> …what’s wrong with checking whether or not the greens actually oppose research into xenotransplantation before baldly asserting that they are not?

I admitted my mistake and responded. What’s your problem with that? Does one corrected error invalidate everything else?

> What’s wrong with reading the entirety of my post and taking the entirety of it into account before responding?

I clearly have. What do you think I have not responded to?

> The greens misjudge the ethical questions around xenotransplantation.

Thanks for your opinion. I’m more interested in facts and science.

> Their misjudgement causes them to put forward an anti-science policy.

Thanks for your value judgement of where the line between science and ethical behaviour should be drawn. Many people disagree with you.

> I covered the specifics of that misjudgement back in 47.

I responded to them.

> Whether you accept their ethical judgement or not is what will decide whether you consider that policy to be anti-science.

Correct. It is a *value* judgement on ethics and morality. *You* do not get to define the Green Party as “anti-science” simply because you think it’s hunky dory to cut up sentient beings for human benefit.

> You can insult my interpretation of the ethics of it if you like, but that doesn’t get you anywhere…

You can condescend me if you like, but that doesn’t get you anywhere.

> …“the greens are too anti-science for me” necessarily means that I judge their policies using my ethical code.

Once again: correct. You have now admitted what I have been arguing throughout. The Green Party are not “anti-science” – it’s just that some people use that label in place of “I have no ethical or moral problems with barbarity visited on sentient animals if it benefits me.”

> My attitudes to animal rights and animal welfare are not barbaric – they simply don’t agree entirely with yours.

That argument has been used when people were defending bear-baiting, badger-baiting, dog-fighting, etc.

> It’s unfortunate that you felt you had to engage me in such a confrontational way…

It’s unfortunate that you have persistently misrepresented me and the Green Party and given every appearance that this is an ideological issue for you – not one of science and evidence.

> …“the greens are too anti-science for me” is an entirely valid comment for me to have made…

Perfectly acceptable – it is your opinion based on moral and ethical judgements on how we treat animals, environment and other people.

> …your assertion it is not the case is invalid as a result.

False. The invalid assertion is that the Green Party are “anti-science” when they have clearly demonstrated their policies are science-based. You have admitted that *you* consider them anti-science based on value judgements regarding ethics and morality – which has been my argument from the outset.

67 Nick

I suspect you and m4e are wasting your breath: Blue Rock’s penchant for demanding evidence doesn’t apparently apply to his “weltanschauung”. He’s been given ample opportunity to respons to specific points and can’t resist the atavistic itch to go for the jugular of anyone who disagrees with his manichaean certainty that he is right. With ranters like him on their side, the Greens are going to need all the help they can get convincing people who are justifiably concerned about the whackier aspects of the Green Party platform.

It’s strangely reminiscent of oldandrew and his determined defence of the Catholic church and his hobby horse about LC being biased against it and him: no amount of evidence is going to convince people like him or Blue Rock….

@64. Galen10:

Continuing to lie does not make you appear any less of a weak-minded pissant.

@66. Margin4error:

> My “misrepresentation” is not paraphrasing – it is my summary of the consequences …

Indeed. Your summary that makes it appear like mindless ideology intended only to stifle scientific progress. That is a misrepresentation.

> I invited you to square that policy with the party being pro-science.

I am still waiting for you – or anyone – to distinguish “anti-science” from “ethical and moral judgements I do not agree with”.

> Was that silly monsanto reference paraphrasing?

Do you have any knowledge of how GMO crops are tested and who controls most of that testing?

> Either way you offer no justification for…

Remember what this debate is about? *You* proving that the Green Party is “anti-science”. No evidence for that has been provided. It’s not about me proving a case against GMO.

> I invited you to explain how the party might square such a blanket ban (moratorium) regardless of scientific evidence…

What scientific evidence? You have provided none.

You appear to be attempting the tactic of switching the argument to me proving GMOs are bad – and if I do not, every other argument is null and void. I guess that might persuade some people and distract from the fact that you have failed to prove your case.

You are free to prove argument that you have failed to do so far: “the Green Party are anti-science”. In your own time.

P.S. You might want to read Nick’s admission that he believes the Green Party is “anti-science” based on his moral and ethical value judgement that butchering sentient animals for our benefit is acceptable. Disagreement with that does not make me or the Green Party “anti-science”.

70

Continuing to avoid the issues by plastering the threads with screeds of opnion and trying to pass it off as evidence doesn’t make your any more convincing.

As other posters have noted, your penchant for hurling abuse about and being overly aggressive makes it rather easy for people to make a judgement about whether to take you seriously or not.

67. Nick:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/29/green-party-science

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no.

> …one that BlueRock knew about back when it was published, judging by the comments.

Sorry, I don’t memorise every article that I have ever responded to. Not that the fact that article exists and I added a comment alter anything that has been discussed in *this* thread.

However, that article demonstrates that the Green Party have and do respond to scientific evidence. QED: they are not “anti-science”.

> Shame s/he didn’t feel like sharing it with us :/

Shame that you feel the need to start insinuating… whatever it is that you are… rather than just responding to arguments and evidence.

Several thousand words and not a shred of evidence that the Green Party are “anti-science”.

@72. Galen10

From the first comment you have demonstrated your inability to provide evidence-based arguments – and now demonstrate your ability to lie and troll. Well done you!

73

“However, that article demonstrates that the Green Party have and do respond to scientific evidence. QED: they are not “anti-science”.”

No, sorry..it demonstrates no such thing which given your tenuous grasp of what constitutes “evidence” comes as no great surprise. The article does indeed give the Greens some credit, but only insfar as it applauds it moving away from explicitly looney policies to more wishy washy wording, pace ditching outright support for alternative medicine for this:

“”make available on the NHS complementary medicines that are cost-effective and have been shown to work.”

….which of course is none of them, they just aren’t honest enough to say so, as Caroline Lucas’ recent actions discussed on earlier threads here have amply demonstrated.

As others have said, and many articles and blogs like that in the Guardian example note, any movement that the Greens have made away from previously ridiculously “out there” positions, but it still leves them with questions to answer…. not that you are capable of doing it of course, or indeed not that you would recognise the difference between an opinion and objective evidence if it jumped up and bit you in the arse (still..at least that might stop you talking out if it eh?)

Blue Rock

What is this debate about? It was about me wanting the greens to capitalise on the lib dem collapse. One challenge to that is the greens becoming more comfortable with, and inclined towards scientific study and evidence.

You challenged that view.

Yet I say it because of the two policies above (and others, but we’ll stick with the two) that are likely to make the greens un-vote-worthy to some people (as said at the start of the thread)…

those two policies demonstrate an unwillingness to accept scientific evidence that something is safe – and an unwillingness to allow scientists to investigate and study freely that which may yield a better understanding of the world, by suggesting banning study that a green government would deem unethical.

That is pretty conclusive an explanation of why some of us conclude they are anti-science.

Interestingly you havn’t attempted to counter those causes of our conclusion. As such you somewhat accept the causes and thus accept our conclusion while disliking that conclusion and so attacking it without debating the causes.

@75. Galen10

Empty, ranting rhetoric does not improve with repetition.

If you now want to join in an evidence-based debate, you need to produce some *evidence*.

@76. Margin4error

You’re not saying anything new that I have no already responded to.

You continue making the same false allegations. It provides more evidence to my assertion that you are not driven by science and evidence but an ideological hatred of Green Party ehtics and morality.

77

I just did…or haven’t you adjusted your medication sufficiently to allow you to read?

Green Policy is explicitly to allow the use of complementary medicine on the NHS, and is thus anti-scientific, since complementary medicine has not been shown to work.

We await your response with interest.

78

No, you still haven’t addressed the specific 2 points m4e highlighted. Put up or shut up.

@Galen10:

You’ve already demonstrated that you’re hysterically angry and dishonest. No need to labour the point.

If me stating that the greens have misjudged the ethics of xenotransplantation (leading to them being anti-science) is an opinion, then your stating that they have got the ethics of xenotransplantation right (leading to them not being anti-science) is also an opinion, and exactly equivalent in terms of value.

All else being equal, of course.

As it happens, the points I made in 48 (not 47, d’oh) providing support for my statement were not answered by you at any point. You stated that the greens didn’t oppose xenotransplantation, then acknowledged that was incorrect, but you by no means answered the points I raised.

Anyway. We were so close to agreement, but it was spoiled at the last moment:

> > …“the greens are too anti-science for me” is an entirely valid comment for me to have made…
> Perfectly acceptable – it is your opinion based on moral and ethical
> judgements on how we treat animals, environment and other people.

> > …your assertion it is not the case is invalid as a result.
> False. The invalid assertion is that the Green Party are “anti-science” when
> they have clearly demonstrated their policies are science-based. You have
> admitted that *you* consider them anti-science based on value judgements
> regarding ethics and morality – which has been my argument from the outset.

My argument was never that their policies are not science-based, but rather that some of their policies are too anti-science for me. That this involves a value judgement is clear, and not a form of admission. Have we been arguing two completely different things at each other?

Oh, and we haven’t shown that these policies are “science-based” – they’re plainly ethics-based. For them to be science-based, the ethics would need to have a strong scientific foundation. Being value judgements, they do not.

As for wife-beating – I was just posting an article that investigated the current status of the Green Party’s science policy. It seemed relevant to our interests, and if I’d read it 8 months ago, I would have remembered it for this particular debate. No insinuations, no agenda. So relax.

blue rock

I vote green. I started this conversation with this comment…

“with the Lib Dems now polling less than 10% more often – it would be nice to see how this benefits the greens – though little polling has been done on the benefits of lib dem collapse for “other” parties.”

And my first response to you on anything was

“no cause for gloating – but cause for planning ahead if you happen to like an alternative potential third party… ”

So how can you conclude I hate the greens?

Likewise – I keep repeating those two because you keep not bothering to address them. One is anti-science – the other is at best dismissive of science as a basis for a major policy position.

I fear it is dogmatic beligerence like yours that holds the Green Party back from shifting onto firmer ground where science challenges its past assumptions.

Margin4error, I do find myself wondering just how like this the green party looks in real life. I find it hard to justify such a confrontational attitude in any situation, and I certainly know what I’d do if I ever came across it in real life (pacifists like me get an easy response, fortunately).

The article recounting the recent policy changes was encouraging, even if they didn’t go far enough – but gradualism is, as ever, a good idea.

Think you that they have a chance of shedding this anti-science position that me and BlueRock have agreed they have? Or does being a green party mean they just can’t bring themselves to not oppose these things?

@82. Nick

You appear to have got it! Your *opinion* – based on subjective valuation of ethics and morality – is that the Green Party are too restrictive on certain aspects of science and technology. It is your *opinion* – not a statement of fact – and certainly does not make the Green Party “anti-science”.

> We were so close to agreement, but it was spoiled at the last moment:

Wind in the passive aggressive stuff.

> My argument was never that their policies are not science-based,

WTF? That is the *entire* point of this interminable debate! *Your* accusation that started it off: “The greens are too anti-science for me.”

So, it appears you actually agree with me – the Green Party are not “anti-science”. You have simply judged that their ethical and moral position is ‘too ethical and moral’ for you.

Nick

Like all change – it is hard fought and takes time. The party leadership has moved a lot – but the rank and file is not comfortabel with it – and like anything, having had a strong position on something it is hard to take the opposite position – especially when other (enemy) parties had that new position already.

The GM issue is a tough one. There is almost a sense to which members (some, not all) feel the science that shows some of it is safe must be corrupt and a lie because it can’t possible be safe.

But it is changing. And now is a good chance to re-assess, be bolder, and maybe capitalise on a lot of former lib dems looking for something new.

83. Margin4error

> I started this conversation with this comment…

Nope. Nick’s comment re. “anti-science” started it.

> So how can you conclude I hate the greens?

I didn’t.

> …I keep repeating those two because you keep not bothering to address them.

Those two what? It’s not clear what you are referring to.

> I fear it is dogmatic beligerence [sic] like yours …

I fear that it is your weak, evidence-free rhetoric that attempts to accuse me of being irrational that derails the debate and marks you out as becoming desperate because you cannot produce coherent, evidence-based arguments.

> …holds the Green Party back from shifting onto firmer ground where science challenges its past assumptions.

We have already demonstrated that the Green Party responds to science, so your repeated false accusations makes it appear you are either dishonest or just struggling to follow the debate.

@86. Margin4error:

> There is almost a sense to which members (some, not all) feel the science that shows some of it is safe must be corrupt and a lie because it can’t possible be safe.

Do you have any evidence for that claim? Have you done a poll of Green Party members? Or are you just whacking another strawman?

The reality, from my experience, is that the pro-GMO crowd are either wilfully ignorant of the wide-ranging evidence against GMO or simply hand-wave it off when it is put in front of them – just another small price to pay for ‘progress’.

Just noticed:

@84. Nick

> …this anti-science position that me and BlueRock have agreed they have…

Oh, dear. This really does expose you as being dishonest. It reinforces my experience and assertions that those who attempt to smear the Green Party as being anti-science are nothing more than unpleasant ideologues who will lie to further their crusade.

Shame on you.

BlueRock, you don’t seem to understand that “too anti-science for me” already includes that admission of a value judgement (or “opinion” if you prefer) that you seem to have spent so much time “wresting” out of me.

That’s not me saying “the green party’s policies are not science based”, and it’s not me saying “the green party’s policies are science-based”. It’s me saying that my view of some of the green party’s policies are that they are anti-science.

I expanded on exactly what I meant by the term ‘anti-science’ early on in the debate (@48 again – that one is full of stuff you didn’t reply to) , and we have agreed that the greens are it with the caveat that we differ on the “very good reason” part of the argument expounded in 48. It wasn’t – and isn’t – an accusation, simply my judgment at the time, which has not changed.

It’s also worth noticing that “differently ethical” and “differently moral” are not the same as “more ethical” and “more moral”. Those arguments in favour of xenotransplantation @48 that you didn’t address shows why “no xenotransplants!” isn’t more ethical than “go xenotransplants!”. The Green position on these areas is not obviously more moral, in as objective a way as a moral relativist can talk about objective morals. It’s better for the animals, certainly. It’s also worse for the humans.

Margin4error, I do hold more hope than I did at the start of this comment thread. I might have a go at engaging my locals, see what they’ve got to say. As it happens, I am only ambivalent about the utility of GM *crops* – and I take very seriously the argument that it’s difficult to stop the GM varieties from “polluting” the non-GM varieties, so reducing consumer choice (even if it’s a silly choice, it’s good to retain it if possible). Possibly an insurmountable problem – but possibly not. Take each case on its merits, all that.

What I really want to see generally accepted is the use of GM plants to produce biological compounds (like insulin) at scale in more tightly-controlled conditions. pharma crops – the kind of thing that, if it gets out into the environment, will probably cause real, serious and immediate problems (blackberries laced with morphine, or whatever? Ooh, matron). That’s where the greatest good for humanity lies – our problems with food are more problems of distribution than of supply, as I understand it.

You wonder why nick is doing so bad in the polls

You make me giggle so much i had to go to the loo.
As i haven’t been kettled for 6 hours and been forced to have a wee on a monument

The libs have become the first government in the uk to even think about using Water cannon On their own population.

The libs have become a political joke and your principles have gone out of the window in a matter of months and you wonder why ?

Now in your great wisdom you get rid of EMA and think its a good idea ?
Do you actually know how much it costs to get a bus 15 miles a day ?

The coalition has done nothing for any one as far as i see apart from employing peopl who dont pay billions of pounds of taxes.

They have scapegoated the unemployed the disabled and the sick not to mention the young people of this country .

then you wonder why ?

To ever say the libs are a party of fairness has totally gone out of the window for millions of people in this country and these are the people that voted for the libs.

I am sorry the only thing they have seen from the lib government ( coalition )
Is bollocks and spin

next election your doomed and the torys will be pissing them selves laughing at you all .

They are the facts No one trust The libs any more.

and if you think they ever will
i think you need to get out of your home and go speak to people that voted lib,
and not live in a dream world like it seams most of you all.

91 – dude, you’re on topic. That’s not allowed.

But I broadly agree. Tuition fees have overshadowed EMA, but EMA rocks and deserves to stay.

I wonder where nick clegg gets his elitism from.
then i only have to look at parts of this forum and i can see the lib party is full of people like him.

And what is more scary is that i find they are so out of touch with how the world actually works.

To think 20 or 30 pounds does not matter to people is a joke.

Not every one that voted lib lives in a leafy suburb owns a home or works in the city.

A huge amounts of children rely on the likes of EMA like my own and i voted lib for my children

Every one of my kids is an achiever and the one heading ( well thought she was heading to collage ) is head girl of her comprehensive school.
who has actually been sort by the local authority as a child of out standing achievement.
Now hows taking the Ema going to help her as nick clegg says ?

Its okay for him
sent to a privet school then a uni where only the elite go
never had to struggle or think where his next meal is coming from .

And if any of the writers on these blogs can hand on heart tell me they have 5 pounds left after they have paid every thing I can say they are in touch with how the vast majority of people live in this country .

This country is not broken i hasten to add its fragmented so much no one actually knows how the other half live.

And ideology is a term of thought Not belife any more.
how could it be ?

so when you all think wow nick looks bad ask your self the real question
when was the last time i asked sum one in a council House to come for dinner then ask them why they feel that the libs have let them down.

or

when was the last time you had nothing left at the end of the week and cryed because you know your child cant even go to collage because you haven’t got their bus fair .
sum-thing EMA payed for .

then ask your self if the country that your party pledged your self to help really better off >?

I think Not.

@90. Nick

> …“too anti-science for me” already includes that admission of a value judgement…

It does. It also falsely includes “anti-science” as a statement of fact. You have failed to prove they are “anti-science” – you simply do not agree with where they have drawn the ethical / morality line. *You* have deemed anything that is more ethical and moral than your position as being “anti-science”. Ergo: it is not “anti-science” – it is “too ethical and moral”.

You can say, quite correctly, “The Green Party are too ethical and moral for me.”

You cannot say, “The Green Party are too anti-science for me.”

Let’s make this clear: many, many people believe that hacking up sentient beings purely to benefit humans – especially for monetary profit – is obscene, abhorrent and unbecoming civilised society. Just because we can “glue primates heads to posts, saw off the top of their skulls, then poke around while providing stimuli to them” (your words) does not mean we should.

At every stage of human progress, the ‘animal morality line’ has been pushed further towards the position the Green Party have taken. The Green Party are, to a degree, at the forefront of morality and ethics. The libertarians / free marketeers / neocons / conservatives / other apologists are holding back human society and wish to perpetuate the barbarity because there is profit in it. Personal profit and corporate profit. We do not need to do it. There is no moral justification to do it.

> It’s me saying that my view of some of the green party’s policies are that they are anti-science.

It remains forever *your view* until you produce compelling evidence and argument to demonstrate it. So far the evidence is conspicuous by its absence.

P.S. Note that my response has remained civil despite your blatant and egregious *lie* about my position – “…this anti-science position that me and BlueRock have agreed they have…”. A decent man would apologise for that – or not done it in the first place.

Oh no, you don’t get to play the “I’ve been civil and you’re so mean” card. I have extended you every courtesy in this debate, and done the best I can to move it on in spite of our differing styles of argument.

I can, and do, say that the green party are anti-science based on my assessment of their morality. That is is a judgement, and not an objective fact, does not mean that the statement “the green party are anti-science” is invalid. It just means that it comes with a caveat.
We agreed this @68:

“> …“the greens are too anti-science for me” is an entirely valid comment for me to have made…

Perfectly acceptable – it is your opinion based on moral and ethical judgements on how we treat animals, environment and other people.”

Now, you didn’t address my points in @90 challenging your assertion to be more-moral, rather than differently-moral, and you still haven’t responded to the assertions that the green party’s policy on xenotransplantation is not obviously more moral. You have no grounds to claim to be more moral.

I’ll repeat this bit again: Your assertion that the green party is not anti-science because under your [party's] ethical code it is not anti-science to restrict xenotransplantation research (since you have a “very good reason”) is exactly equivalent to my assertion that the green party is anti-science because under my [society's] ethical code it is anti-science to restrict xenotransplantation (since there is no “very good reason”).

The two arguments are exactly the same. Yet you are claiming yours is valid and mine is not, solely because you think you’re right on the ethics front. If you could show you /were/ right on the ethics front – actually, objectively right (retaking that moral relativism caveat), maybe that would get you somewhere. But this is deep into belief territory.

Let’s make this equally clear: many, many people believe that hacking up animals in the name of scientific research is justifiable as long as certain criteria are met. And you can rubbish them, but while @48 and @90 (among others) remain unanswered, in these specific examples we are exploring, your rubbishing is entirely without weight.

Bearing all that in mind, “…this anti-science position that me and BlueRock have agreed they have…” is a fair statement. We have agreed that this anti-science position [i.e., the one that's been discussed to death here, and the one you agreed that the greens have @68] is, in fact, one that the greens have.

“You cannot say, “The Green Party are too anti-science for me.”” (@94) directly contradicts your statement in @68 (‘Perfectly acceptable – it is your opinion based on moral and ethical judgements’). This is confusing for me, and I would appreciate it if you could explain this direct contradiction of your own position in under 12 hours.

@95. Nick:

> Oh no, you don’t get to play the “I’ve been civil and you’re so mean” card. I have extended you every courtesy in this debate…

Again, here is what you attempted: “…this anti-science position that me and BlueRock have agreed they have…”

A lie. You are a liar. You are not “courteous”. You are not “civil”. You are a liar. And you don’t have the balls to admit it or apologise – although not a surprise given that you attempted the trick in the first place.

Shame on you. You’re a weak, dishonest person.

I explained my justification of that quote in 95, especially for you. Shall I repeat it? Or can you scroll up the necessary three inches?

Blue rock

The two policies I keep asking about are – as I keep labelling them, and as was clear to Galen – ST220 and ST363

I suggest you read back to understand what it is you’ve failed to provide any cogent explanation of – I could ask again but it seems a lot of effort when you are presumably capable of reading english, but apparently unwilling to engage in substantive discussion of policy matters.

As for my polling of green members – I’ve interviewed Sian Berry, Caroline Lucas and plenty of other fairly well connected party figures – I’ve been to party conferences – and my conclusion from a large number of discussions at that level is that many members (not all) feel that way.

As a point of advice – you should keep in mind that some of us are not children pretending to get politics but actually work in politics, know about politics, and read up on the policies of parties we care about or have a professional engagement with.

Nick

I’m glad you can see the value of engaging. The Green Party has matured in recent years and although it has some way to go to become a credible third party, there is a real opportunity to capitalise on the lib dem collapse than many members are a little excited about. (Not least because there is an MP now too).

I should stress though, that while I don’t hate the greens as Blue Rock asserted in 78 (“an ideological hatred of Green Party ehtics and morality”) I am not a member. I have campaigned with the Green Party from time to time, but tend to focus my main energies on campaigning with labour in areas where the BNP might otherwise get a foothold (hence my knocking on doors in east london last election)

ME

I don’t think I could agree with your views on EMA any more strongly.

Sadly, and ironically, the relatively well-to-do young have mobilised very well about fees – but as always the poor have failed utterly to mobilise in any great numbers or influence about something that will stop many of them getting post-16 education.

It is all very well for a bunch of very rich party leaders to claim kids shouldn’t have to be paid to attend school as school pays for itself in the long run – but it is really just the politics of envy in regards to something that poor kids get and their kids don’t.

Their kids can afford it in the short run – my cousin recently had to be phoned up at college, 25 miles from home, to be told his mum had been evicted while he was there, so not to head home at the end of the day.

Guys like him can’t afford the travel, can’t afford not to be working, but the EMA can help ease that pressure just enough that some will be able to survive two years invaluable extra study.

It is an all too predictable attack on the poor and attack on mobility by people who, at the end of the day, have absolutely no interest of connection to that aspect of life in Britain.