Natalie Bennett is the wrong leader
R.A.McCartney | 13.09.2012 15:08 | Analysis | Climate Chaos | Ecology
The new Green Party leader is unlikely to improve their electoral prospects. If Kate Hudson can win the Manchester Central by-election, Respect is more likely to bring about radical change.
One of Bennett's defeated rivals said that the Green party needed to emphasize its unique selling points. Foremost among these is its commitment to the environment. Yet in her victory speech to the media, Bennett didn't even mention it (more of that later). Instead, she gave a short speech which, in its policy content, could easily have been made by the leader of Respect. The arctic sea ice has reached a new minimum; while the drought and record heat wave in the USA is driving up food prices all over the world. What is the point of a Green Party which doesn't talk about Global Warming at a time like this?
Why vote Green rather than Respect? The green's ability to win elections has not been impressive. As the results of the last local elections came through, Leading Liberal Democrat Vince Cable dismissed the Greens. "They could have been a real threat to us, but it hasn't happened". Jenny Jones may have come third in the race for Mayor of London, but that was almost entirely due to the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote, with few of those votes going to her.
By contrast, Respect's breakthrough in Bradford was spectacular. It wasn't just getting George Galloway elected as MP, but grabbing five council seats in the local elections too. If they can get Kate Hudson elected as MP for Manchester Central they will not only eclipse the Green party; they will also have replaced the Liberal Democrats as the party which pulls off spectacular by-election victories. That will have both the Liberal Democrats and Labour looking over their shoulders. One hopeful sign for Hudson is that turnout in the constituency at the last election was only 44.5%.
Bennett repeatedly said in her initial speeches and press articles that Britain "has the unhappiest children in the developed world". Yet I searched the Green party website and was unable to find any clear, coherent statement of policies to address that unhappiness. The Green Party website is quite good (much better than Respect’s). If you look at their list of policies, “Education” is there, but there is nothing about “Children”; no clear set of policies relating to them. I feel that child care is the most important issue facing this country after Global Warming. But what is the point of a party leader repeatedly mentioning this if her party is not offering clear solutions?
So what should Bennett have said? Natalie Bennett has a degree in agricultural science, so I would’ve expected her to say something like this:
'Our planet is on the verge of disaster. Food prices all over the world are going up because of the bad harvests this year, but much worse is to come. In the past week the Arctic sea ice has already reached a new minimum, surpassing the previous record set in 2007, and the maximum thaw for 2012 is not expected for at least another week. Ice reflects away the heat form the sun. When the ice disappears completely, which most scientists now expect to happen within decades, the Arctic Ocean will absorb more than seven times the heat which Arctic Ice absorbed. Anyone with A-Level maths can work out that that is enough to directly increase global temperatures by 2°C. Further temperature increases will be caused by the release of Arctic carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapour into the atmosphere. That is why scientists are now talking about a 6°C rise in global temperatures by 2100. Even the UK will experience summer temperatures of over 50°C. The drought and floods which have so damaged British crops this year are as nothing compared to what will happen at 6°C. Farming in Britain and around the world will become extremely difficult. It is predicted that no more than 1 billion people would survive.
‘When you’re in a hole, you should stop digging. Every molecule of Carbon Dioxide we put into the atmosphere is making the situation worse. All countries must be persuaded to stop CO2 emissions as a matter of urgency. Only a Green party government will make this their first priority.’
Why vote Green rather than Respect? The green's ability to win elections has not been impressive. As the results of the last local elections came through, Leading Liberal Democrat Vince Cable dismissed the Greens. "They could have been a real threat to us, but it hasn't happened". Jenny Jones may have come third in the race for Mayor of London, but that was almost entirely due to the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote, with few of those votes going to her.
By contrast, Respect's breakthrough in Bradford was spectacular. It wasn't just getting George Galloway elected as MP, but grabbing five council seats in the local elections too. If they can get Kate Hudson elected as MP for Manchester Central they will not only eclipse the Green party; they will also have replaced the Liberal Democrats as the party which pulls off spectacular by-election victories. That will have both the Liberal Democrats and Labour looking over their shoulders. One hopeful sign for Hudson is that turnout in the constituency at the last election was only 44.5%.
Bennett repeatedly said in her initial speeches and press articles that Britain "has the unhappiest children in the developed world". Yet I searched the Green party website and was unable to find any clear, coherent statement of policies to address that unhappiness. The Green Party website is quite good (much better than Respect’s). If you look at their list of policies, “Education” is there, but there is nothing about “Children”; no clear set of policies relating to them. I feel that child care is the most important issue facing this country after Global Warming. But what is the point of a party leader repeatedly mentioning this if her party is not offering clear solutions?
So what should Bennett have said? Natalie Bennett has a degree in agricultural science, so I would’ve expected her to say something like this:
'Our planet is on the verge of disaster. Food prices all over the world are going up because of the bad harvests this year, but much worse is to come. In the past week the Arctic sea ice has already reached a new minimum, surpassing the previous record set in 2007, and the maximum thaw for 2012 is not expected for at least another week. Ice reflects away the heat form the sun. When the ice disappears completely, which most scientists now expect to happen within decades, the Arctic Ocean will absorb more than seven times the heat which Arctic Ice absorbed. Anyone with A-Level maths can work out that that is enough to directly increase global temperatures by 2°C. Further temperature increases will be caused by the release of Arctic carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapour into the atmosphere. That is why scientists are now talking about a 6°C rise in global temperatures by 2100. Even the UK will experience summer temperatures of over 50°C. The drought and floods which have so damaged British crops this year are as nothing compared to what will happen at 6°C. Farming in Britain and around the world will become extremely difficult. It is predicted that no more than 1 billion people would survive.
‘When you’re in a hole, you should stop digging. Every molecule of Carbon Dioxide we put into the atmosphere is making the situation worse. All countries must be persuaded to stop CO2 emissions as a matter of urgency. Only a Green party government will make this their first priority.’
R.A.McCartney