Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Surely it is just left-wing. Labour are centre-left and the greens are a long way from that.
ThatJosh (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether the political compass is a valid source or not but based on what it says (http://politicalcompass.org/uk2015) it seems to me it would be more accurate to simply classify the Greens as Left-wing. It seems to me The Independent clumsily tossed "centre-left" around whilst the Political Compass used facts and statistics. JonnMos (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)JonnMos
Fair enough. I still don't think they're centre-left though. JonnMos (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)JonnMos
General Election results (from Wikipedia's UK general election, 1979 etc.) for the Ecology Party or the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party:
1974-02 4 576 (PEOPLE) 1974-10 1 996 1979 39 918 (Ecology) 1983 54 299 1987 89 753 (Greens) 1992 170 047 1997 63 991 2001 166 477 2005 281 780
– Kaihsu 17:33, 2004 Jul 9 (retroactively signed); amended Kaihsu 21:43, 2005 May 3 (UTC) with 1974 data
European Election results (from Wikipedia's European Parliament elections) for the Ecology Party or the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party Sjeraj 18:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
1979 17 953 (Ecology) 1984 70 853 1989 2 292 705 (Greens) 1994 494 561 1999 625 378 2004 1 033 093
European results marked E. – Kaihsu 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
1974-02 4 576 (PEOPLE) 1974-10 1 996 1979E 17 953 (Ecology) 1979 39 918 (Ecology) 1983 54 299 1984E 70 853 1987 89 753 (Greens) 1989E 2 292 705 (Greens) 1992 170 047 1994E 494 561 1997 63 991 1999E 625 378 2001 166 477 2004E 1 033 093 2005 281 780
I have now put this in the article. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
MEPs (Members of the European Parliament)
MLAs (Members of the London Assembly)
County Councillors
District and Borough Council Elections are too confusing! Sjeraj 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Who was the MP who briefly represented the Green–Plaid Cymru alliance? – Kaihsu 21:38, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Cynog Dafis was endorsed by the local Green Party in Ceredigion in 1992. The agreement broke down by 1995 . I believe Green MLA Victor Anderson worked for him until his election to the London Assembly. Paulleake 20:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't there also a Labour MEP who defected to the EFA a few years ago?
Looks like it was just a Euro candidate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/euros_99/news/364220.stm
Sjeraj 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems Hugh Kerr sat with the Green / EFA group once he left Labour before standing for the SSP in 1999. As such he wouldn't have sat with any British Green MEPs. Paulleake 20:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
– Kaihsu 10:47, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
The article claims that the party wants to make Britain into a republic, but I couldn't see any support for a republic on their manifesto, although one of their chairman is a republican, I think, but it's not party policy. Paj.meister 19:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed republican; reference has been supplied. On a side note, Peter Tatchell's views are not always the same as the Green Party's, and, according to his website, he is now a former member of Republic.
Sorry. I misread it as "once of a group of member of Republic". Epa101 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I put the disputed tag up here. Where does it say this? There needs to be a more specific reference that just to Green Party policy page. I know that they consider other things than economic growth to be important, and that they consider "economic growth" to be too narrowly defined, but that doesn't mean that they're against economic growth. If it doesn't hurt the environment or hurt anyone too much, they're fine with growth.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/comment/314 Fifth paragraph here seemed to deny the claim. I'm sure that they're not against improved living standards per se, but just find it hard to consistently achieve them without hurting the environment, hurting communities, plundering resources, etc. 212.159.30.47 14:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This page had become rather jumbled through the recent (and very informative) expansions. I have tried to bring it in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In particular:
Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed Caroline Lucas' name beack, in line with these guidelines.
--Gordon 13:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Responding to a request to change the wording of this section of article. Also need to double check our current reference to make sure it supports the most up-to-date and accurate details of the change of chair. Suggested change in wording.
From: The previous chair was Hugo Charlton (1998 to 2005), who was removed from the post after nominating himself for a House of Lords peerage on behalf of the party without following the party's agreed selection procedure [7]. Subsequently Cllr. Jenny Jones, AM, was elected to be the party's nominee in the event of the party again being asked, but this was too late for the current round.
To: who resigned following criticism of his nomination to the House of Lords before the Party had carried out its internal selection process.
Finding additional verifiable reliable sources about this incident will help settle which wording is best. FloNight talk 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I note a statement under "Government":
Some clartification would be helpful. I believe there are various kinds of additional member system, and not all are designed to produce proportional representation. Also, I believe the electoral system for European elections is now quite different from that for elections to devolved assemblies.
I believe that in elections to devolved assemblies, mixed member proportional representation systems are used (but each is named as an "additional member system" in UK legislation).
Laurel Bush 12:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
I changed the paragraph on Icke to include the fact that as well as calling himself Son of God, he also predicted that Armageddon would occur in the early 1990's. However I have removed the stuff about Icke believing the world is ruled by alien lizards, Icke said nothing about reptilians while he was a member of the Green Party and only began espousing his bizarre lizard theories in 1999, many years after he left the party. --MarkB79 15:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The Logo's been changed. Is there any rational for this?
The new one is kind of an ugly jpeg. --Gordon 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"Though many in the 'Club' were wary of forming a political party, the world's first Green party was formed in Coventry during 1973 as PEOPLE"
This is wrong - the world's first Green Party were the United Tasmania Group, established a year earlier in March 1972 - references provided for in the UTG article.
Adam
Image:Greenewlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Just corrected the spelling of tony Whittaker's name and removed a reundant C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.37 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There was some confusion over whether the playboy article was on or by Paul R. Ehrlich.
Several sources from Google state he was interviewed in August 1970 by playboy magazine.
List of people in Playboy 1970-1979#1970
http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Staff/Ehrlich1.804.pdf
What does that even mean? Removing. --Gordon (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
My site has copies of the European Election Manifesto 2009, London Manifesto 2008, General Election Manifesto 2005 and the general Green Party Policies. We're driving towards having all English-language political manifestos of every political party in the world on our site in the same/similar format. All the content is contained in PDF files on the Green Party website. As more and more manifestos are added over time, in my opinion, it could become a useful resource for Wikipedia. Green Party of England and Wales Manifesto Declaration of Interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. Jdfjurn (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an old slogan of the Green Party, and there's currently an article on it, see Real progress. I don't think this article stands on its own - it seems like promotion and/or navel gazing - so it would be best to selectively merge it to this article. There could be a section on the history of the branding of the party. Fences&Windows 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Found Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvKO91CF7nA This advert from the Green Party of England and Wales is clearly the Game of GO. Once all liberties are exhausted, the dots vanish. Does this deserve a mention on either this page, the GO page, or not at all? Nickjbor (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether Caroline Lucas be succeeded by another member of the Green Party, or whether he seat in the European Parliament will remain vacant until the next European elections? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
In Caroline's MP acceptance speech she stated that Keith Taylor would now take over from her as an MEP (as he is next on the Party list). I assume that's effective immediately. Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Jay (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The Green Party of England and Wales may be the name by which the party's legally recognised, but it's very rarely used and it doesn't appear on the homepage of their (even in the small print at the bottom). I suggest we merge this article with Green Party (UK) and just add the usual notice at the top, linking to the Scottish and Northern Irish Green parties as well. Particularly as the UKIP article was moved from the rarely used name United Kingdom Independence Party to UK Independence Party, I see no reason how this page should be any different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon1901 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 May 2011
Does the Green Party have anything much to say on the issue of crime? It's just that there were 815,000 crimes in London in the last year (to take one area) and although being a victim of crime for some people may not be a big deal, for others it can be devastating. And I say this as someone who is otherwise fairly supportive of the Greens. 85.210.151.104 (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC) http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/
Here's the relevant page of their 2010 election manifesto (scroll down to the crime section): http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/policies_2010/2010manifesto_everyday_life.html
This is their national policy: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/cj
Sophie means wisdom (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I am quite sure that the Green Party of England and Wales are Far-Left not Left-Wing. (E.P. Davies (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC))
But that's just your opinion. Do you have anything to support your claim? 85.210.152.56 (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course the gpew is not far-left. For example the Respect-Coalition in comparison is far more left and labelled as left-wing in wikipedia. That wouldn´t make any sense. --77.185.88.227 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe there's no right and left: just right and wrong 62.249.253.37 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon
As usual many others would claim centre-left, there is much disagreement about this, although I find they are more in line with Social Liberalism, and even short of socialism, they certainly would not be full on Communist so I think far-left would be a mistake. It is better to say Left-Wing IMO.87.115.198.118 (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the Green Party is a 'left wing' party cannot be disputed, it is not a 'centre left' party. The Independent source clearly shows this also. Please can we ratify this ASAP because the current description is misleading and damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 08scullya (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This section, as of 21st Jan 2012, is written in a non-encyclopaedic way with an apparent bias against the subject of the article. For example where it says, without reference, "A list of what the Greens decided to cut is as follows...This is part of the £36 million of cuts the Green party are putting through."
As a result, I claim that the section in question breaches wikipedia guidelines on neutrality, and therefore suggest the section be heavily rewritten if it is agreed that the section lacks NPOV. --AndrewTindall (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
With reference to the above comment : A reference will soon be put in for the Green Party in Brighton and Hove's cuts. Reference would be taken from the Brighton and Hove City Council's budget report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.104.37 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Reference was put in at around 27/01/2012 at 2:38 - document that was referenced was the official Brighton and Hove City Council Budget Report. Information is very clear if read in detail about cuts. Reference is very solid and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.104.37 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Greens no longer support alternative medicine, as reported in the article. The link, to a 2009 manifesto, is dead (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/downloads/mfsshe.pdf), and their current (2010) manifesto makes no mention of it: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/nhs_2010/nhs_detail.html -- am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.51.213.161 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Post-May 3, a Lib Dem local councillor in Solihull has defected to the Greens - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-18084815#
There's been a fair bit of back-and-forth recently over whether to list "centre-left" in the infobox:
On the one hand, the IP edit adding "centre-left" with the citation may be a good edit that had checked sources. If that's the case, great! However I do want to explicitly double-check that it is in the source. If it's not, it needs to be removed until someone finds a good citation to support that position.
I'm going to notify all the folk who've made the above edits on their talk pages; in particular I'm hoping Richard BB will be able to verify whether "centre-left" is in the source he cited. I'm also going to check my local library to see if it has that book, although I don't hold much hope there.
—me_and 10:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need a full policies section here? Non of the main 4 political parties do, The Greens are kind of the next step down. UKIP's policy section has largely been removed to make the article a little bit more in keeping with the main 3 parties. I suggest we do the same with the Greens because it seems clear that there are only 5 parties in the UK with any real significance, those are Con, Lab, Lib Dem, UKIP and Green. BNP have lost any real significance, Respect only have 1 single MP from a by-election, 7 councilors (they're almost not much more than a local party) and nothing else, no MEPs, no Lords, no MLAs, no MSPs etc etc. English Democrats are much the same as Respect but less so. So yea I think we should treat the top 5 parties the same in terms of article layout. 130.88.115.11 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of jokes about fitting all of them in a London cab...:
Can somebody find a source which justifies the party being in Category:Republicanism in the United Kingdom? A search of the page finds not the word "Republic" (save the category) nor "Monarch" anywhere on the page. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Both Lucas and Bennett are republicans. http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/national/news/11747656.Council_house_for_Queen__say_Greens/?action=complain&cid=13647011 Alligators1974 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There has been a change the membership figure from the 2012 figure to a 2014 figure but there is no reference for the new 2014 figure. Could a source please be added to verify the new figure or if not, the figure be changed back to 2012 figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.68.249 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a current attempt for a recentism inclusion of information regarding the proposals for the TV debates for the next parliamentary election, which is promoting of the green party and skewing the neutrality of the page and the information is being added to the wrong page. All information on the TV debates proposals should not be on this page but on the Next United Kingdom general election page. The information is also promoting a petition which is not what wikipedia is about, as it is not for promotion of specific issues or specific points of views on issues. Sport and politics (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The article has a number of issues which are a major detraction for the quality of the article and mean the article is failing on some of the standards required of a good encyclopaedia article. The article has been tagged as reading like a press release. This is because there is in parts too much prominence given to recent events; which can lead to recentism being a problem with the article, too much detail of specific policies; the policy list in the lede for example, the use of sentences with out direct attribution or relevance, such as "erroneously seen as a single issue party"; that is a big claim of questionable importance, relevance, factual accuracy, and has no attribution to a source. The article has sections in it which while relevant to the development of the article play of only media coverage which is one off or has the feeling of being used overtly prominently. This is seen with the sub heading title of "green surge". this is not defined as a term, is only used in a passing nature and confuses the reader. The section implies it is about electoral success, when in fact it is just about poll ratings and party membership increases. the latter which is only reported by the party at the moment and is yet to be verified with an Electoral Commission source. The preparations for the 2015 election section are recentism and are party only source which in this case while reliable to an extent as being accurate and primary sources and are not independent third party sources. This also contributes to the feel of the article as a press release from the party. The parts of the article on the structure of the party and the list of people holding executive roles which are not widely notable is also of questionable value This is because it is giving minor roles (minor to those outside of politics) undue importance, none of the more minor post holders are even on Wikipedia so the person holding the post is not a reason for the post to be given prominence. The post held by Derek Wall who is on Wikipedia can easily be incorporated in to the article on him if it is relevant. The regional Council section is an example of a section there just for the sake of it and to [ad the article out with structure of the party which is not of any real wider importance. The source is again a primary source as described earlier. This is not a Green2000 style structure or structural reform with wider notability. This article needs overhauling to clean up the ephemera, party promotion, overt prominence of minor wider issues and activities, and add independent reliable third party sources. Sport and politics (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The updated figure of 41,000+ (with link to the guardian newspaper article) is not true. That is the combined figure of the GPEW and scottish greens. As much as I would like it to be that many it isn't. the latest figure released is 32,515 according to http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/01/13/yougov-green-party-majorly-popular-with-18-24-year-olds/ --ThatJosh (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Can a tweet by a party member be regarded as an acceptable source for the membership figures, as it isn't a third party source? And are we sure that the figure doesn't include the Scottish Greens? Can we stick with the third party newspaper source until we get third party confirmation please? G-13114 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The latest House of Commons Library membership figures I can find are from December 2014; but even here the footnotes indicate that the figures reported are supplied by the various political parties themselves. I’m not clever enough to know how – and how often – these are externally audited, if at all![1]JezGrove (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The Green Party's policy document is absolutely clear on their republican stance. Amongst other things it says:
G-13114 considers this "vague at best". Vague!? I suggest that this is about the least vague policy voiced by any political party, and that a clearer statement of republican views would be hard to express: Even "I am a republican" would actually be less eloquent.
It is one of their clearest positions. Republicanism should be restored to the list of ideologies. Bagunceiro (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"a group of party members, rather than a group within the party." is how we are currently describing the Watermelons. If it is "a group of party members" it is surely "a group within the party", so we need to find a way that makes the distinction clear.
IceDragon64 (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The article does not mention a policy status for the future of the UK as a state. It's sister parties, the Scottish Green Party supports Scottish independence, the Green Party in Northern Ireland has joined the Green Party (Ireland) in 2005 and the Wales Green Party has a history of working with Plaid Cymru (see Cynog Dafis). Is dissolution of the UK party policy? Claíomh Solais (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we remove the reference to 31 December as the table contains a figure for 2015? Given it's only April were a long way from knowing the end of year figure. Alternatively is the room to add an annotation to clarify when that figure refers to? --wintonian talk 00:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
One article from a political biased popular magazine (The Economist) is not proof that the Green party has left wing populism as an ideology. In any case the article does not attempt to establish the fact beyond simply asserting it in the title. Given the use of the term populism as a pejorative surely we should we very careful about providing proof of it as an assertion or indeed avoid it where possible.
While certain Green party policies could be taken as populism (nationalising railways) many others really cannot (degrowth, open door immigration & demilitarisation). Bivlecobe15 15.38, 14 April (UTC)
I cannot edit, so here are some truths as of today which relate to the "Electoral representation" and "History" sections: The Greens no longer have minority control of Brighton and Hove. They have been resoundingly routed, losing 9 seats, going from 20 to 11, with Labour now holding minority power with 23 seats. 92.26.172.148 (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Green Party of England and Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the line under "Electoral representation":
"The party has limited representation on most councils on which it is represented, and is in minority control of Brighton and Hove City Council. The party has no majority control of any councils in England and Wales."
to
"The party has limited representation on most councils on which it is represented, and until 2015 was in minority control of Brighton and Hove City Council. The party has no control of any councils in England and Wales."
And in the "History" section:
Add this line to the end: "However they lost 9 out of their 20 seats on the Brighton and Hove council, losing minority control."
92.26.172.148 (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering about the extent to which these issues may have been addressed.
Are there any signs that there is debate or question in regard to the effect of the "green" policy on migration on any UK based concept of sustainable development. We already consume far more agricultural product (food, materials for manufacture and energy related products) than we can possibly produce. As migration continues, our dependence on other nations will only increase. There is also the inefficiency of needing to transport all the materials in situations in which people have become crowded into limited spaces. Are related issues being addressed anywhere? GregKaye 09:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
As the article currently stands, there are currently two boxes showing membership figures "as of 31 December" and "at the end of each year". IMO, there is no need whatsoever for both of these boxes to exist on the article, as the information appears redundant. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.