BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

What would you ask the Green Party leader?

20:10 UK time, Monday, 19 April 2010

Jeremy VineGreen Party leader Caroline Lucas faced questioning by the BBC's Jeremy Vine on Tuesday. What would you like to know?

The leader of the Green Party for England and Wales since 2009, Caroline Lucas launched the party's manifesto last week, with hopes of securing the party's first seat at Westminster.

Ms Lucas has worked for the Green Party for more than 20 years and has represented the party as a Member of the European Parliament for the South East of England region since 1999.

What do you think of the Green Party's policies? Which policies would you like to ask Caroline Lucas about? What broader issues would you like to discuss with the Green Party leader?

In the first in a series of interviews with party leaders, Jeremy Vine interviewed Caroline Lucas MEP during his programme on Radio 2 between 1pm and 2pm on Tuesday 20 April 2010. To see how listeners reacted to the interview online click here

This debate has now been closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Are you aware that everybody on this planet exhales carbon dioxide all day?

    Are you proposing a cull?

  • Comment number 2.

    What's Mars like??

  • Comment number 3.

    Would Caroline Lucas have stood as an Independent or for another party had the Green Party not existed?

  • Comment number 4.

    How are you proposing to satisfy the nation's power demands, given the Green Party's dismissal of nuclear power as an energy source?

  • Comment number 5.

    Do you advocate windmills so you can tilt at them?

  • Comment number 6.

    Why did the Green Party waste so much time and effort on GM foods and nuclear energy. Carbon fuel consumption should have been targeted a long long time ago.
    Another issue is global warming. I am sceptical whether it is a problem. It may have stopped the earth from going into another ice age. Life is complicated.

  • Comment number 7.

    I live in Brigton and am bracing myself for Ms Lucas to get in at the elections. All I know is it will mean more and more bicycles getting in the way and insisting they have rights to the roads that they dont even pay for. Its infuriating !

  • Comment number 8.

    As the green lobby has become almost religion-like in its obsessive attempts to emotionally blackmail us in order to extort money out of us, when is the Green Party going to construct places of worship where people can go to and kneel before a bowl of lentils to cleanse their soul?

  • Comment number 9.

    When are we going to curb the proliferation of vegetarians eroding our beautiful plantlife? All those gorgeous fields of wheat and vegetables and those selfish veggies insist on eating them, even though there's plenty of ugly animals to eat.

    Don't even get me started on vegans.

  • Comment number 10.

    What are your policies regarding Europe, the constitution/Lisbon treaty and future relations with the EU? I see no mention of this major issue on your website. The same goes for immigration, another major issue in this election. Bearing in mind the rise of BNP support because of this, where do the Green Party stand on these two subjects?

  • Comment number 11.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 12.

    Why should the poor, disabled and less fortunate be driven out of their cars and onto public (private transport theres no such thing as public transport) transport, again why should the poor, disabled and less fortunate be confined to sinkhole council estates because they are being driven out of their cars.
    Do you cycle to and from work? if not what transport do you use? do you have a car?
    Do you only buy fair trade goods including your very fine clothes?

  • Comment number 13.

    The high cost of labour in the UK resulted in jobs being shipped abroad, (textiles, steel, car manufacture).
    China, India and other developing countries are refusing to take part in carbon emission reductions. If the UK continues with it's unrealistic unilateral plans for carbon reductions in this country to cost of fuel is going to rocket and yet again manufacturing and jobs are going to be shipped abroad. How is the Green Party going to avoid that scenario?

  • Comment number 14.

    Have you considered the benefits of climate change?

  • Comment number 15.

    Wouldn't it be better for the Green Party if the Liberal Democrats were elected to parliament, as they are the only major party committed to bringing about electoral reform and proportional representation, which would benefit the Greens in the long run?

    Why not implore your voters (except those in Brighton, Lewisham and Norwich) to vote Lib Dem this time, so that future votes for the Green Party don't go to waste?

  • Comment number 16.

    1. At 09:24am on 20 Apr 2010, chiptheduck wrote:
    Are you aware that everybody on this planet exhales carbon dioxide all day?
    Are you proposing a cull?

    Are you aware that it's NET CO2 that's the issue ?
    You see, people also inhale....

  • Comment number 17.

    • 3. At 9:58 am on 20 Apr 2010, Phillip of England wrote:
    What would you ask the Green Party leader?



    I do my own thing as far as my contribution to green issues are concerned. My political views are neither Right nor Left - I am a Liberal Authoritarian by belief.



    I have a great distrust and distain for this growing "Green" Puritanicalism that seems to be evermore invasive and intrusive and as a result, offensive! It seems almost blasphemous these days to take issue with Green Issues, especially here in the UK.



    Why should I vote for you?



    Given my beliefs and political ideology of liberal authoritarianism, how does the Green Party plan to win my vote?

  • Comment number 18.

    The government is planning to pave over swathes of countryside around various towns and smaller cities, to provide housing for our rapidly expanding population.

    Why aren't the Greens opposing it?
    Why are they pretending that it's nothing to do with population growth?
    Why don't they acknowledge that population growth is an environmental disaster?
    Why don't they acknowledge that immigration is the chief cause of population growth?

    Please, don't come out with the usual platitudes about the econonmy 'needing' immigrants. I work in industry, and I know more than the career politicians, journalists, 'comedians' and various other non-productives who say we 'need' immigrants to run the economy.

    Please don't say that the new housing is 'needed' because of increased singlism and life-expectancy. Those things play a role, but nothing like that played by increasing the population by millions through immigration.

    Please don't say that those who oppose immigration are xenophobic Little Englanders. It's insulting and inaccurate. For example, I am multilingual, and travel widely on business, and one of my chief criticisms of the BBC is its failure to cover mainland Europe and, say, Latin America, or feature non UK or US broadcast and music output.

  • Comment number 19.

    Increasing maternity leave to 3 years is completely bonkers. Why don't you campaign for Maternity leave to be done away with altogether and make the tax allowance (for the parent who is prepared to look after their own child) transferable to the working parent. This would help those parents who want to look after their own child instead of the crazy 'New Labour' working family tax credits syatem, which forces both parents to go out to work which is normally in their seperate cars!
    Simple.

  • Comment number 20.

    Is the Green Party a single-issue party, or do you hold a coherent (if green) vision for the entire range of matters we require politicians to administer on our behalf?

    Do you believe that it is up to those who are passionate about the environment to find ways in which current lifestyles can be maintained in a sustainable manner, or do you expect ordinary people to accept more expensive and time-comsuming degradations to their standard of living? And if so, why?

  • Comment number 21.

    8. At 09:42am on 20 Apr 2010, Wu Shu wrote:
    As the green lobby has become almost religion-like in its obsessive attempts to emotionally blackmail us in order to extort money out of us, when is the Green Party going to construct places of worship where people can go to and kneel before a bowl of lentils to cleanse their soul?

    You seem rather confused. The Greens are a minority party without a single MP, and wield no power whatsoever with which to "extort money" from anyone. Your melodramatic response to a different viewpoint from your own, and the resort to the usual tired old lines about "new religions" and "lentils" suggest an inability to think beyond cliched stereotypes.

  • Comment number 22.

    I wonder if the same people who think the greens are a joke have had a good look at Daves "big society " policy handing over power to run hospitals, schools and the police to anyone who can get a gang together is not only backdoor privatization but it would have a catastrophic effect on services.

  • Comment number 23.

    22. At 10:10am on 20 Apr 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:

    "I wonder if the same people who think the greens are a joke have had a good look at Daves "big society " policy handing over power to run hospitals, schools and the police to anyone who can get a gang together is not only backdoor privatization but it would have a catastrophic effect on services."

    Could you put that into the form of a question for Caroline Lucas?

  • Comment number 24.

    How do you travel around. How were your clothes and shoes made. How is your food produced.
    What you mean you don't walk everywhere, make your own clothes, grow your own food. Green talk but not the walk!

  • Comment number 25.

    Its long been a Green Party policy to introduce population controls in the UK.

    How exactly would this work in practice? (are we talking a Chinese one child per family system, or something even more dracononian?

    Does 'populatiion control' also relate to stricter controls on immigration?

    With the number of people who have decided that Global Warming is some kind of bizarre conspiracy theory and will never change their mind irrespective of any evidence, do you sometimes feel you are fighting a losing battle?

    The recent internatinal convention on fishing recently decided to fish the Blue Fin Tuna into extinction, Japan are trying to do the same with some whale species.

    When humans are so short sighted, is there really any ahope for the future?

  • Comment number 26.

    Not a lot....!
    The only thing I can think of is, we are spending lots of money on Wind farms what do we do when the wind stops blowing?

    They think green but what about running the country! I can see them having an aeroplane that runs on a elastic band.... oh', Caroline you better tell that President not to keep launching rockets into the sky, and the farmers they can't have cows, do us a favor and stay at the kitchen sink!

  • Comment number 27.

    The UK was completely self-sustaining in food, fuel and natural resources when the UK population was 8 million. We are now at 62 million and projected to grow to 70 million in the next 20 years. Now while accepting that projections are basically well-educated guesses, how do the Greens propose to return the UK to being self-sustaining again?

  • Comment number 28.

    Hi Ms Lucas, as the energy policies which you propose can only work if they are highly subsidised AND if global population were to return to roughly 19th century levels, how do you propose to deal with those major hurdles?
    Also;
    1) How do you select those to be culled to meet the population levels required?
    2) If you achieve this population reduction, who will be left to pay the taxes which will fund your pipe dreams?
    3) if all positive net CO2 activities are to be banned, controlled or taxed to oblivion, how will the wind turbines, wave energy machines etc be built and transported to places of use/need?

  • Comment number 29.

    The tax relief on company and private pension schemes is a reward for people voluntarily placing their earnings in a form of savings which they cannot access until retirement.

    The Greens' pension policy will seriously discourage company and private pension schemes (and therefore responsible retirement planning) by removing all tax incentives for these schemes.

    Furthermore I have failed to notice any intent to restrict or otherwise penalise state employee pensions schemes in a similar manner.

    It is already the case that many people are paying more money through taxation towards state sector pensions than they are paying to secure their own retirement.

    So my questions are these -
    Are you aware that your policy will effectively destroy what is left of the UK pension industry?
    Is this a deliberate attempt to ensure that the majority of the population (with the exception of the independently wealthy) are solely dependent on state benefits when they retire?
    Do you agree that discouraging personal retirement planning will only increase the reckless spend-it-now attitude that has contributed to the current economic climate?
    Is there any reason, other than political dogma, why state employees should enjoy the relatively generous benefits of final salary schemes which are paid for in a large part by the taxes of people who will be lucky if they manage to retire on a third of the pension paid to someone employed in the state sector on the same wage?

  • Comment number 30.

    According to the Green Party web site: "The Green Party would ban all experimentation and research which harms animals".

    I suffer from a condition which causes potentially fatal blood clots. I am alive because I take an anticoagulant drug called Warfarin that was developed through animal research. However, this drug is far from a cure.

    The Green Party believe that alternatives can completely replace animals in medical research. I am a life scientist and anybody who claims this is either poorly informed or engaging in deception. I agree that the technologies the Green Party cites as alternatives should be pursued with vigor. However, they have limitations, just like the methods using animals, and the 'alternatives' simply cannot duplicate the complex chain of events in a whole organism.

    Thus, my question is this: Is the Green Party willing to accept the avoidable suffering of patients who would benefit from the animal research the Party would ban?

  • Comment number 31.

    Do you concede that global warming is a myth created by left wing scientsist to open up a new tax revenue stream on the basis that the data has now been found to have been manipulated to get the original result?

  • Comment number 32.

    Firstly,Global warming..This planet has been through cooling and warming periods throughout its history and none of them had anything to do with human activities,the weather systems and global patterns correspond more with solar activity than with human activities.Our effect on the warming or cooling is so small as to be negligible,however there is an industry that has grown around the (false) idea that we are responsible for exacerbating global warming,many a research grant and a lot of funding has been swallowed up by climatology researchers,one-sided data on papers produced by the climate change industry would indeed indicate that we not only are responsible but continue with the fantasy that we can somehow affect the rate of change,some even say we could reverse the effects if we took drastic enough measures,such obvious nonsense!The trends of climate change are not switches we can turn on and off..Once a trend has started,it is impossible to alter,at least in any measureable sense..Pollution IS a problem we can do something about though,air,water and soil pollution is one area that demands immediate attention,because we can do something to alter possible outcomes,potential disasters,caused by pollution..Deforestation is also an urgent situation that we CAN effect a change to,so we should..Lets get absolutely indisputable data that we can act upon,otherwise most people are going to dismiss climatologists as self-interested exaggerators,compiling dodgy data to gain grant money and recognition in the scientific"community"Also,"green" policies would leave us vulnerable as you(the greens) want us to get rid of nuclear weapons(BAD IDEA!)Regimes such as the ones in Beijing,Korea,Iran and Pakistan would prove my point,given half a chance..All in all,I(like many others)would not trust the greens to run the country,wildlife trusts..yes..anti-pollution programmes..yes..anti-deforestation programmes..yes..The Country as a political whole..Definitely not....

  • Comment number 33.

    There are two concrete proposals from their manifesto which I would like a comment on. Even if I agreed with EVERYTHING else the Green Party proposes and even if they actually had a chance of winning any seats, these two ludicrous proposals would not make me even think of voting for them. They are:
    * Make available on the NHS "complementary medicines"
    (Chemicals, extracted from plants or otherwise, and which actually work become a part of...uh...medicine; thus, by definition, the remainder is the snake oil category.)
    * Requirement that 40% of board members of larger companies be female within five years
    (Why not 35, 45, 65? Where did this number come from? What if women are actually worse suited for that particular job, as men may be for others? What if females generally do not wish to take on that job, thus resulting in worse qualified candidates being selected?)

  • Comment number 34.

    I'd ask her why she's bothering! The planet will be fine whatever she and her sandal-wearing friends do. Give it up, Caroline, we're bored now. Get a proper job.

  • Comment number 35.

    Can you tell me, How come all the green or Organic products are allways twice or more expensive, as the so called not green ones in the U.K.?

  • Comment number 36.

    I wanted to be fair to the Green Party so I have had a good flick through their Manifesto and I have to be honest there are one or two valid points and one or two pretty good ideas, fleshed out with reasonable arguments to support them. For that I must congratulate the Green party - That is a better performance than I had suspected.

    However, the vast majority of their proposals are blatantly unrealistic, counter productive and generally full of the usual hippie-wishy-washy-rose-tinted-glasses kind of bilge that one would expect from such a party.

    They have sought only to project policies which reflect the desires of those people for whom green issues are the life source of their daily being and frankly would go a long way to impede and make life difficult for the rest of us.

    Whilst no great fan of blood sports - I object to the imposition of a complete ban on hunting. Call me old fashioned, but if you plan to eat it, then I see no problem will hunting it and killing it.

    Their policies on crime reflect no shift from our current situation of criminals running amok and with impunity - I dare say their ineffectual approach would actually go a long way to make life worse for the rest of us. What they have failed to detect and present on this issue is that we have had 13 years of ineffectual dealings on the issues of crime and punishment and people are no longer interested in the rehabilitation of criminals - IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! The mood of the nation is that they desire stiff, longer sentences for the criminal fraternity. Polls even suggest that the vast majority of people in this country would welcome the reintroduction of the death penalty - Whilst not great fan of this method of crime prevention. Policies and proposals from any political hopeful should reflect the national desire for a "breather" from the daily round of crime, crime, crime - not insist that a victim should have to sit down with a criminal over a cup of Earl Grey, whilst the criminal delivers some well rehearsed narrative on their sorrow!

    I am afraid the Green Party (as usual) are out of touch and for this, I can say with great certainty that they will not be getting my vote and as such there is actually no question I wish to ask this candidate, other than why did you bother?

    P.S. – I would also like to point out that the Green Party proposal for a Citizen’s Income is nothing short of sheer insanity!

    I couldn’t care less if I sound selfish here, but I do not work to put money in the pockets of the bone idle and the feckless! Stop their benefits and force them to work – don’t legitimize their laziness by calling their benefits an “income”, as if they have earned it! That is incredibly insulting to those of us who do work for a living.

  • Comment number 37.

    23. At 10:14am on 20 Apr 2010, Sue Denim wrote:
    22. At 10:10am on 20 Apr 2010, frankiecrisp wrote:

    "I wonder if the same people who think the greens are a joke have had a good look at Daves "big society " policy handing over power to run hospitals, schools and the police to anyone who can get a gang together is not only backdoor privatization but it would have a catastrophic effect on services."

    Could you put that into the form of a question for Caroline Lucas?

    ..........................................................
    OK

    Why is there not a Green to vote for in my local seat? we had a green at the eu election and I voted green but this time almost all your candidates are in the south of england people in the north and midlands should get a better choice than Daves big society,bnp,ukip and labour.

  • Comment number 38.

    Has your work as an MEP impinged on your ability to be a Green Party Leader.? The manifesto appears to have been written on the back of an organically knitted fag packet without any attention to the realities facing the UK.

  • Comment number 39.

    33. At 10:53am on 20 Apr 2010, Ognjen wrote:

    "* Requirement that 40% of board members of larger companies be female within five years
    (Why not 35, 45, 65? Where did this number come from? What if women are actually worse suited for that particular job, as men may be for others? What if females generally do not wish to take on that job, thus resulting in worse qualified candidates being selected?)"

    I totally agree. This sexual discrimination goes against the whole idea of equality. Imposing artificial restrictions is both partonising to the lady concerned and an insult to whoever the 'token woman' gazumped to the position. If you are going to ensure equality, there should be a legal recourse to prove that there was no discrimination taking place and, should it be requested by an applicant, documentary evidence to show that the person who could best fulfil the role was selected regardless of gender, race, etc. Wouldn't that be a better idea Miss Lucas?

  • Comment number 40.

    One simple question: when are you going to admit that global warming is simply a money-making scam and not backed at all by scientific research?

  • Comment number 41.

    Isn't the Green party just a single issue party? The Environment is a priority but there ar emany others too and what level of competency does your team have to deliver on all kinds of important priorities. In my mind you are nice fluffy tree hugging vegans which is fine - but I wouldn't want you anywhere near foreign policy or the economy... but maybe you can say something to make me change my mind...convince me and teh other 30 million voters!

  • Comment number 42.

    31. At 10:49am on 20 Apr 2010, Sat_tire wrote:
    Do you concede that global warming is a myth created by left wing scientsist to open up a new tax revenue stream on the basis that the data has now been found to have been manipulated to get the original result?

    Actually the report of the independent Science Assessment Panel into the so-called "Climategate" controversy found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climate Research Unit".
    And scientists (left wing or otherwise) do not "open up new tax streams".

  • Comment number 43.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 44.

    Are you suprised by the levels of hostility & agression shown to you, as a party who are, at the most fundamental level, trying to make a better world for the future?

    Is the kind of antagonistic reception you are receiving on this board pretty much par for the course, or is the BBC's HYS particularly vitriolic?

  • Comment number 45.

    I hope the people of Britain don't make the stupid mistake Ireland did. Ireland is now run by a minority party the greens that turned their back on many of their green principles once holding the government to ransom being a coalition government. The greens could have prevented a motorway running through a heritage and wildlife area but once in power gave it the go ahead. The greens lowered the grant on carbon neutral wood pellet boilers, why? The greens backed a charge on people visiting recycling centres and now are countryside is littered with people's dumped rubbish. The greens are more concerned about ruining the rural way of life in Ireland than they are about doing anything positive for rural society.

    Don't let it happen in Britain!

  • Comment number 46.

    SaveourCountry wrote:
    "...more and more bicycles getting in the way and insisting they have rights to the roads that they dont even pay for. Its infuriating !"

    Yet another person who believes motorists pay for roads and are the only ones entitled to use them. Are you not aware that 'road tax' was abolished years ago and that vehicle excise duty (the tax on your vehicle) does NOT pay for road maintainance?

    Roads are paid for through income and council taxes and are for use by all.

  • Comment number 47.

    I'd ask about her views on the impact of the Iceland volcano on travel and if she thought it may prompt the development of a coherent "transport policy".

  • Comment number 48.

    The disparity in the level of media coverage received by the different political parties is becoming an issue in this election.

    Do you feel that that Britains largely foreign owned and mainly rightwing
    newspaper media have an agenda to try to influence the election result?

    Is this true democracy?

    How do think that same rightwing media has impacted on peoples views on Global Warming?

    Is it possible that the proprietors of these international conglomerates might perhaps be working for their own direct benefit, rather that of their readers or anybody else ion the planet?

  • Comment number 49.

    Can you confirm that your income tax proposals would mean an effective marginal tax rate of 70% plus NIC's on people earning between £ 100,000 and £ 112,500 and do you agree that such a rate would act as a disincentive, and cause people to look for alternatives (such as holiday in lieu or share options)?

  • Comment number 50.

    I would ask her what difference she thinks she can make, knowing that she'll never get anywhere near the reigns of power. Of course, I understand the same could be said for many other candidates, but at least with some there are policies which are grounded in reality, whereas the Green Party is grounded in fantasy, and disproven communist drivel.

  • Comment number 51.

    I am basically 'green', but would hesitate before voting 'Green'.

    Environmental awareness isn't restricted to the left, but the Greens are 'left-wing'.

    Look at countries like Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.

    They're all way better at 'doing' environment than we are, and at delivering decent standards of living and quality of life for their citizens.

    And they show that there is no contradiction between being green, and having a successful economy.

    Yet they're not particularly left-wing.

    By being so right-on, and so focussed on global flipping warming (whilst ignoring very real issues like population growth and housing sprawl) the Greens alienate many people who would probably vote for them otherwise, comme moi, for example.

    The Green party is hamstrung by its hypocrisy over housing, population growth and immigration, and the fact it wants a society in which the feckless prosper even more than they do now.

    As it stands, the Greens look like a bunch of pc global warming fanatics, wi

  • Comment number 52.

    43. At 11:22am on 20 Apr 2010, Tim wrote:
    My question to the Greens would be how they can justify supporting the directly opposing policies of a) reducing Britain's environmental footprint whilst at the same time b) increasing the UK's population?

    ---

    Do some basic research - The Greens have been advocating strict population controls in the UK for at least the last fifteen years.

    Much longer than any of the Johnny- come-Lately nationalist parties who've recently started trying to ride the same bad-wagon.


  • Comment number 53.

    Does Caroline Lucas agree that a universal carbon tax would be better than the carbon trading system? To ensure a level playing field for foreign trade it could, like VAT, be charged on imports and refunded on exports. Indeed, it could replace VAT throughout the EU.

    In my opinion the Green Party has the best economic policy. The large parties, to a greater or lesser extent, seem to regard reducing the budgetary deficit, because it might possibly further reduce the value of the pound, as more important than reducing unemployment by funding capital expenditure for the future. Only the nationalist and the smaller parties, have economic policies that do not favour the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor.

  • Comment number 54.

    There are already enough left leaning parties out there, so why bother?

  • Comment number 55.

    Caroline, what will the Green Party do about PFI schemes?

  • Comment number 56.

    52. At 11:44am on 20 Apr 2010, Osric wrote:
    43. At 11:22am on 20 Apr 2010, Tim wrote:
    My question to the Greens would be how they can justify supporting the directly opposing policies of a) reducing Britain's environmental footprint whilst at the same time b) increasing the UK's population?

    ---

    Do some basic research - The Greens have been advocating strict population controls in the UK for at least the last fifteen years

    Would that be the one child policy they currently have in China?

  • Comment number 57.

    Is there not enough irresponsible breeding (much of it encoraged by the benefit system) in the UK already?

    Exactly what effect do you think raising child benefit would have?

    Personally I think it would make a bad situation worse, and that your policy is misguided at best.

  • Comment number 58.

    Green Party? What's the point

  • Comment number 59.

    When are you going to admit to yourself and the country that your are just another Labour party with a green tint purely as a gimmick.

  • Comment number 60.

    The Green Party can count on my vote if:

    1. Car manufacturers are encouraged to mannufacture big, fast cars with big engines;

    2. The duty on fuel is halved;

    3. All organic products are banned from supermarket shelves as they offer no health advantages but cost a lot more than proper food;

    4. More roads are built to encourage car use;

    5. The hundreds of empty buses are removed from our roads as they just clog them up;

    6. Bus lanes are removed as they cause congestion;

    7. Cyclists are banned from the roads and holier-than-though Lycra-clad cyclists are given on-the-spot fines for being the most annoying road users that have ever existed;

    8. All cycle lanes are removed from our roads;

    9. Recycling is banned;

    10. All green taxes are abolished;

    11. Proper filament light bulbs are produced again. The lentil-munching light bulbs are truly awful;

    12. Cars that produce more than 325g/km of CO2 pay no road tax;

    13. All sandals in footwear shops carry an anti-green tax of 25%;

    14. Lentils have an anti-green food duty of 75% imposed on them;

    15. We adopt a 'soappage scheme' where the green lobby can trade in their relatively unused and very old bars of soap (more than 10 years old) and claim 75p against the cost of a new bar of soap;

    Will the Green Party adopt those policies to get my vote?

  • Comment number 61.

    42. At 11:20am on 20 Apr 2010, Mr Cholmondley-Warner wrote:

    Actually the report of the independent Science Assessment Panel into the so-called "Climategate" controversy found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climate Research Unit".
    And scientists (left wing or otherwise) do not "open up new tax streams".

    -------------------------------------------

    Although the only member of the investigation who had scientific background was not happy the rest of the board were happy to accept only an investigation into very limited aspects allowed to the investigation which doesnt include talking to leading skeptics or even looking at the evidence. The destroying of data and withholding of data was also accepted except by the only member with scientific background. In total the investigation didnt actually investigate.

    Scientists dont open up new tax streams, political types do. Climate Change is political NOT scientific. The scientific part of CC is still working. There is also no demand for the co2 MMCC groups to prove their corner when they have so far been wrong.

    My question is how can the greens affiliate with such mal-practice? If MMCC is a reality then shouldnt they lead the hunt for any fool who brings real science into disrepute?

  • Comment number 62.

    I remember hearing about one of the green party saying that having more than 2 children was "selfish" as it damaged the planet or something of the like, I could be wrong .. but is this how the green party feels? I hope not.
    Also Why would I vote for a party who's main aim is to tire us out daily with new "green" rules? No thanks I'd take my chances with Labour before you lot and thats saying something.

  • Comment number 63.

    Given that cars are the preferred mode of transport for most journeys should not the Green Party be taking steps to reduce congestion by requiring more and better roads to be built to enable people to move round the country more efficiently. Afterall roads take up less than 1% of UK land use so a 100% increase would not be a major issue. Should the Green Party not be focussing an alternative sources of power for cars rather than make it harder for people (except the rich).

  • Comment number 64.

    I wouldn't give them airtime, a few years ago we laughed at these nuts, now our stupid MPs listen to them.

  • Comment number 65.

    Comment 17 Phillip of England
    "Given my beliefs and political ideology of liberal authoritarianism, how does the Green Party plan to win my vote? "

    Forgive me, but are you being ironic? In all the research I have ever done on social attitudes, 'liberal' and 'authoritarian' have been at opposite ends of attitude continuum. If you can give me an authoritarian / liberal policy you will have educated me.

    Returning to the topic, I see that the unthinking stereotype waving brigade are here in force. We have those in denial who think global warming is a money-making scam when the Green party haven't even got an MP capable of imposing taxes. Then there are those who refer to Greens as sandal-wearing tree huggers and lentil eaters. Where is the debate we are supposed to have here? If you are going to label people, as I do from time to time, do at least follow up your exasperated insults with some logical arguments based upon well-substantiated facts.

    Facts that are undeniable, even adjusting for temperature gauges sometimes being near urban heat pools, are that the world is going through a warming phase not seen for at least 10 thousand years, that carbon-dioxide levels are higher than any time in human history and that if certain thresholds are crossed there is a strong chance, (not a certainty), that change will accelerate uncontrollably via the feedback mechanism. Those in denial should come up with a well-documented theory for why we are having these changes now. We are all aware that there are natural cycles based upon the morphology of the sun. Indeed one such cycle is temporarily having a cooling effect right now, but not enough to completely stop the warming trend globally.

    Meanwhile there is every reason for finding ways to save energy and other resources, ie they are running out, and to protect our ecosphere because we know how much we depend on it for natural resources. eg. Have you seen the price of cod recently? So even if you think global warming is a scam most of the measures proposed have another purpose which I have just described. Perhaps the anti-Greens will deny we are running out of resources and damaging the ecosystem too.

    I agree that the Greens are going too far by proposing to get rid of nuclear fission so quickly. Until renewables and energy conservation take hold we will need another generation of nuclear plants even though they are phenomenally dangerous when it comes to dealing with radioactive waste. Unless we get a major breakthrough on the much cleaner nuclear fusion process we are stuck with nuclear fission. Also I think the greens should stick to environmental issues and remain a thorn in the side of governments. I would vote for them under certain circumstances, but not whilst they get themselves in to social / moral / political issues. All right such issues may affect the environment indirectly or functionally, but the Greens would do better to support parties who broadly agree with their social and economic views.

    Whoops! I was supposed to be asking Caroline Lucas some questions. Well I think I raised a few there.

  • Comment number 66.

    Do you plan on charging per bowel movement, since in a lab test 5 out of 9 samples showed traces of methane?

    Also, had the current volcano issue occured during your time in office, would you have sat by idly because sending ships out might 'hurt the earth' more?

  • Comment number 67.

    Do you base your policys on party members experienced dreams and nightmares while asleep, because I personally cannot see how many of the Green party policys can be based upon fact and reality or any comprehensive thought out inteligent reasoning of sustainable cause/effect and consequence.

    Also, apart from green, whats your favourite colour?

  • Comment number 68.

    Comment 60. Wu Shu. You may think you are Jeremy Clarkson, but he is clever and funny.

  • Comment number 69.

    You can't be serious, can you?

    It'll be like asking the PM if he tells the truth!

  • Comment number 70.

    It is my opinion that manufacturing companies in the Uk and Europe are under a great financial strain due to many labour and environmental laws, many of which are quite understandable. However this pushes their prices up and thus forces factory closures as the work moves to countries with less scruples as regards the workforce and the environment. Will you put a large tax on imported goods that are manufactured outwith Europe and not meeting our high standards? This would encourage retention of work here and promote less pollution.

  • Comment number 71.

    Why do want to scrap nuclear power stations? Using coal and oil have a far bigger impact in geological time that nuclear waste ever could. It will take a few thousand years for the nuclear waste to decay compared with a few million for the carbon cycle to complete. Also in terms of safety - Far more people are killed in the coal and oil industry than have ever been killed by nuclear accidents. Isn't it time to look at hard facts rather than relying on the politics of fear? We need to stop using fossil fuels and start investing in alternatives NOW. Wind and Solar can only go so far. Safe Nuclear is the answer and we should be investing in the technology today. Crack fusion and we will have all the power we could ever need with next to no environmental impact.

  • Comment number 72.

    Would the greens consider reducing co2 from cars by reducing the number of traffic lights and improve the road efficiency by reducing obsticles, increase road speed limits to a minimum of 30 mph but prefering to be closer to 55mph where cars are more efficient?

    Moving cyclists off the road where they slow and disrupt traffic as well as being dangerous and ignoring laws of the road?

    Opposing electric cars which will require more power from power stations which can only viably done with nuclear and fossil fuel.

    Opposing wind farms which dont work (there is no debate they just dont work) because they would require fossil fuel stations to back them up. What alternatives are there? Is geo thermal not possible or something else that is stable?

  • Comment number 73.

    @ Wu Shu (60)

    Great work there. Every cliche in the book regurgitated one more time for the hard of thinking. Although your obsession with lentils is slightly worrying. Childhood trauma ?

  • Comment number 74.

    What are you going to do about the billions of tons of C02 ejected from the Icelandic volcano that is proberbly in excess of all human C02 that is generated in a year? cap it with concrete (more C02)?

  • Comment number 75.

    Skarjo wrote: When are we going to curb the proliferation of vegetarians eroding our beautiful plantlife? All those gorgeous fields of wheat and vegetables and those selfish veggies insist on eating them, even though there's plenty of ugly animals to eat.

    Oh dear... ignorance is still ignorance, even when someone attempts to disguise it with "humour". People like this prefer to remain ignorant, which is disgusting really.

  • Comment number 76.

    How would you reassure the voting public that adopting environmentally friendly practices can and will be reasonably practicable instead of more expensive and more time-consuming, and will therefore have little or no negative impact on people's quality of life.

    How would you dispel the awful negative stereotypes about your party in the media and in public consciousness? i.e patronising holier than thou environmental fascists with little or no common sense and unrealistic goals preached by sandal wearing unwashed hippies, etc, etc.

  • Comment number 77.

    How do you propose to get the population down to a level "sustainable" without scientific interfvention?

    and how do you expect people to accept the standard of living reductions inherent in your policies?

    Should we all go back to living in shacks in villages and only walking to the nearest town a maximum of twice in our lifetime?

    Oh and if you got any influence, would you use it to support Gordon Brown?

  • Comment number 78.

    Why did you stand in last years European election when you knew you were going to stand for the UK Parliament during 2010?
    If you win your seat as an MP you will have to resign as an MEP. This will mean that a by-election will have to be held for the MEP post.
    Do you consider it a responsible action to take on a job (MEP) that you had no intention of completing?
    Do you consider it also to be a responsible use of public funds?
    Will you return any payments you receive on leaving your MEP post as a contribution to the cost of the by-election?

  • Comment number 79.

    "Green on the outside, red on the inside". Care to comment on the insinuation that your policies are based in environmental socialism?

  • Comment number 80.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 81.

    What is the point of your party?

  • Comment number 82.

    They are the same as Ludites and where would we be if they had had their way? Well, not writing on the internet thats for certain. Chewing straw on the back of a cart in a feudal society.

  • Comment number 83.

    51. At 11:42am on 20 Apr 2010, Apple-Eater wrote:
    I am basically 'green', but would hesitate before voting 'Green'.

    Environmental awareness isn't restricted to the left, but the Greens are 'left-wing'.

    Look at countries like Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.

    They're all way better at 'doing' environment than we are, and at delivering decent standards of living and quality of life for their citizens.

    And they show that there is no contradiction between being green, and having a successful economy. """"""""

    Yes I agree, but why are we so bad at doing green, Bin colection for a example, 4x4 in leafy suburb's dropping kids of after 500mtrs, we are complete rubbish at green. If we were more rationale perhaps things would
    be better but we are not. So come on the Greens, don't agree with their veiws on Nuclear Power thou.

  • Comment number 84.

    I would like to see petrol taxed more and use the money to build better cycle paths would the greens think about this.

  • Comment number 85.

    1. At 09:24am on 20 Apr 2010, chiptheduck wrote:
    Are you aware that everybody on this planet exhales carbon dioxide all day?
    Are you proposing a cull?

    Are you aware that everybody on this planet exhales water all day?
    Would it then be reasonable to assume there would be no negative effects to flooding the world?

  • Comment number 86.

    The Policies of the Green Party are total fantasy....!!!

    If you look at the policies on taxation, public spending, global warming etc, they are living in some fantasy Utopia.

    So my question to the Green Party is this.

    As the World is overpopulated by some 2-3 Billion people at this time for the volume of land, water and natural resources we have, will the Green Party be advocating a 'cull' of these 2-3 Billion people (which incidently will cause a MASSIVE reduction in CO2 emissions) as I am confident we can find 2-3 Billion sick, injured, elderly people that the Greens cannot tax etc, so simply remove them from the planet.....!!!

  • Comment number 87.

    Is Green Revolution possible without Socialist Revolution?

  • Comment number 88.

    What is your policy on livestock? They contribute more co2 to the planet than planes or cars.

    Maybe a supertax on owning a cow?

  • Comment number 89.

    65. At 12:10pm on 20 Apr 2010, wind-blown wrote:

    "Comment 17 Phillip of England
    "Given my beliefs and political ideology of liberal authoritarianism, how does the Green Party plan to win my vote? "

    Forgive me, but are you being ironic? In all the research I have ever done on social attitudes, 'liberal' and 'authoritarian' have been at opposite ends of attitude continuum. If you can give me an authoritarian / liberal policy you will have educated me."

    Try any popular search engine and look up "Liberal Authoritarian", you'll find that your researches have been significantly flawed.

  • Comment number 90.

    orwellian socialists, spineless social democrats, ridiculous tree huggers and a brain dead celeb orientated populus. struth...i'm off back to dubai. at least there if you make the effort you get return and if you do nothing you get nothing. a touch more honest a system i think than all this lefty protectionism dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator....allow people to be free to win or lose please and stop taxing hard work. greens just want to impose yet more limits on freedoms. its only fair if your'e weak.

  • Comment number 91.

    Can Caroline confirm the Green Party's manifesto commitment to abolish the monarchy and replace it with an elected head of state? It's a vote winner as far as I'm concerned.

  • Comment number 92.

    Also most parties have no idea how to solve the traffice problem. Regardless of the pollution implication of more cars on our roads we all know that there are to many cars on our roads because of the endless traffic jams.

    There are all these eco warriors who go on and on about leaving our cars behind and jumping on public transport. However in reality the public transport system in the UK is generally awful and overloaded and there are no real efforts made to substantially improve it. Like alot of people I won't leave my car at home in favour of getting on an overcrowded bus or train and stand uncomfortably for hours on end with someone's armit in my face.

    You can chat for hours about saving the planet but until someone practically looks at the public transport issues, instead of living in some eco dream world, then people will just stay in their cars.

  • Comment number 93.

    Your policies sound like they come straight from Star trek. Do you really believe you honestly go through life without upsetting someone or something. The Blameless periods are over and its time to grow up.

  • Comment number 94.

    Will they get the Severn estuary tidal barrage built? It was first proposed by Hitler as part of his plan after the invasion of Britain.

    I know we're hopeless at deciding and delivering big construction project in this country (Crossrail was first proposed in 1985) but even by our own standards, the fact that we're still just talking about building it, in the context of our energy gap, is quite insane.

  • Comment number 95.

    I would ask how many greens does it take to change an incandescent light bulb to a low energy consumption and environmental friendly version. And does it take longer if the original light bulb is recycled?

  • Comment number 96.

    #73 Mr Cholmondley-Warner wrote:"@ Wu Shu (60)

    Great work there. Every cliche in the book regurgitated one more time for the hard of thinking. Although your obsession with lentils is slightly worrying. Childhood trauma ?"

    Thanks for the appreciation. ;)

    Can I count on your vote?

  • Comment number 97.

    What makes the Green party any better than the other single-issue candidates standing in this election, and what qualifies the Green party's environment-based ideology to be applied to areas such as defence, social services, health or education? Are they really any better than a single-issue candidate (such as the 'save your local hospital party')? I think not.

  • Comment number 98.

    Firstly - Which of the main parties will you be voting with?

    Secondly - Why do you bother?

  • Comment number 99.

    U2685397 wrote:
    What makes the Green party any better than the other single-issue candidates standing in this election, and what qualifies the Green party's environment-based ideology to be applied to areas such as defence, social services, health or education? Are they really any better than a single-issue candidate (such as the 'save your local hospital party')? I think not.

    ----

    Because they put the planet (the place where we live) as central to all issues. It's a great philosophy, and probably better than using money as the central point around which to propose policies.

  • Comment number 100.

    16. At 09:57am on 20 Apr 2010, Mr Cholmondley-Warner wrote:
    //1. At 09:24am on 20 Apr 2010, chiptheduck wrote:
    Are you aware that everybody on this planet exhales carbon dioxide all day?
    Are you proposing a cull?

    Are you aware that it's NET CO2 that's the issue ?
    You see, people also inhale....//


    We should be asking the Green Party to provide conclusive proof and evidence that a trace gas; which is natural and vital for life; and constitutes something in the region of 0.039% of the atmosphere, can possibly impact on the global temperature or endanger human life? Or can we expect to see lots of environmental legislation based on nothing more than blind faith and wishful thinking! I know you greens 'need' a big stick to beat humanity into accepting restrictions on our ability to live freely and stop us consuming stuff, but manufacturing guilty victims on the grounds of CO2 'enviro-religious-science' is pushing the bonds of rationality a bit.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.