vote Boris

[eloise0]

Boris has made london a much cleaner place, he cares about London, and doesn't waste money on stupid projects.
He's got my vote.

I would if I could, we have to watch London TV news (and party political broadcasts) but are a long way outside the voting zone!

No

Lawrence Webb wants to charge 'foreigners' a 25p tax to help repair the clock tower housing Big Ben.

How can you vote for someone who just plucks a few policies out of the air without actually thinking them through? UKIP have done just that.

"UKIP still often poll higher than the Greens, who are often favoured by the media. That shows that the public is not stupid and is not taken in by propaganda."

Lots of people vote BNP in some areas. That shows that the public is stupid.

Yes, some of the public are stupid. But some use protest votes, which was possibly the case with Respect's success in Bradford. It doesn't mean they believe in everything parties stand for.

But the fact that the public is not led by the nose by the media and doesn't necessarily vote for candidates promoted by the media, and often choose UKIP over the Greens, shows that the public is not easily fooled by media spin.

It sems that UKIP received 13% or 14% of the votes in areas where they stood. I can't find any analysis of what the Greens got. The media seems a bit quiet about that. Has anyone seen a breakdown of their votes? Did the calls for food slop bins and messages about catastrophic climate change and the polar bear have more appeal to the public than UKIP's policies?

Was this what is known as a "tipping point", where the public tipped over the media promoted green bandwagon and did not turn out in large numbers for more food slop bins, even though they can be used to create what is known as "biogas"?

When I first read the word 'biogas', I thought it was some sort of flower - a bio ga, but then I realised it was a gas, a biogas. Doubtless the media will be telling us much more about it in the future.

'One of the pet projects in their manifesto is the ?regular collection of food waste? to produce cheap biogas, which is burned to generate electricity.'

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/05/03/local-elections-2012-greens-will-demand-food-waste-collections-as-price-for-supporting-potential-allies-86908-23846050/

Green's progress

I live in a conservative constituency and they've introduced "food slop bins"....

Thanks, iggly.

Yes, the media promotes food slop bins. The grreens bang the drum and the media amplify it.

We have food slop bins, I thought it was to make compost for the parks . As an aside: they have stopped fixes ripping into the bin bags and I find that I am much more aware of how much food we waste now .

The Greens did well to get an average of 9% of the vote.

'The party's average share of the vote increased by one point to 9%.'

Yes I like the food waste bins - makes me think about how much we chuck too and we're more careful now. I don't think that's a bad thing - we waste so much food etc.

In fact I think many "Green" ideas can save us money (eg use less energy, throw less away), but unfortunately the greens are viewed with scepticism by those who think climate change is a load of woo. If they campaigned on an austerity basis as well, then more might listen to them. I've read their manifesto and it seems reasonable to me. More so than the corporate rubbish headed "The Big Society".

*foxes

Yes, the Big Society is just more spin. But austerity is not a vote winner. The media don't often publicise the greens austerity measures. The media does push the allied word "sustainability", but that sounds nice. The first time I heard about the Greens austerity type ideas was on the Daily Politics when Andrew Neil interviewed their deputy, I think it was, at their conference, and he said that their policy docment, I think it was, contained a call for zero growth and even negative growth.

The media knows that the public won't swallow that easily, they know the public are not like turkeys voting for Christmas, so the media concentrate more on the polar bear.

You seem to have an issue with the Green party, Claig.

I don't support the Greens. I don't believe in negative growth for the people of this country. I don't believe in catastrophic climate change. I don't believe in hype and fear that wishes to impose extra taxes on the public and limit their growth and even give them negative growth. I believe in the 99%, not the 1%.

And despite all of the media promotion, despite all of teh ex-pop stars and Sirs and Lords and all of teh great and the good and despite all of teh 1%'s promotion of it through the media, the public still don't believe it.

'Global warming is a threat that is going to wipe out civilisation as we know it. The liberal elite and political classes are signed up to the message that, unless we take urgent action within ten years, we are all literally doomed to burn up.

But who else believes them?

Beyond the corridors of Westminster and the offices of environmental pressure groups, where global warming and sustainability are buzzwords of the moment, British consumers continue flying, driving and buying with unchecked enthusiasm. The gulf between the pronouncements of our politicians and what the majority of people think and do, could scarcely be wider.'

Why we don't believe it

And the 1% say that the public are stupid. Well they would say that, wouldn't they.

I don't necessarily believe in the catastrophic climate change scenario but I do think you'd have to be completely thick not to see we can't go on treating the planet like we are without wrecking it completely.

Oh and the number of polar bears is increasing at the same time as the media create more programmes about how they are decreasing. But the 99% suspected that all along, it was the 1% who told them they were stupid.

"The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

But you are right that there are real issues where the 99% agree entirely with the Greens, such as on GM food etc., but the 1% tell them yet again that they are stupid.

"The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

Ang guess what? The 1% told the Inuit that they were stupid too.

As they flew over the Inuit on the ground, who were often face to face with the baer, and totted up the number of polar bears from their flying ivory towers.

And a little boy once said that the emperor had no clothes, but the 1% called him stupid too.

TBH, you are beginning to sound a little unhinged.