Trouble is, people always notice if it's those who they don't like on. Then you get the screams about it all. UKIP was always a good example as they were running at about 5% in the polls, but how else can the media do it? They can't base it on the opinion polls, they can only do it on performance in the electoral cycle.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Rise of The Green Party
- Thread starter BobKowalski
- Start date
Trouble is, people always notice if it's those who they don't like on. Then you get the screams about it all. UKIP was always a good example as they were running at about 5% in the polls, but how else can the media do it? They can't base it on the opinion polls, they can only do it on performance in the electoral cycle.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Trouble is, people always notice if it's those who they don't like on. Then you get the screams about it all. UKIP was always a good example as they were running at about 5% in the polls, but how else can the media do it? They can't base it on the opinion polls, they can only do it on performance in the electoral cycle.
I don't disagree with you. It's the earlier stages where the push is needed, whether that's news coverage, or a celebrity twitter endorsement.
I don't disagree with you. It's the earlier stages where the push is needed, whether that's news coverage, or a celebrity twitter endorsement.
The rise of political parties fascinates me. I don't pretend to understand how they manage to get that critical mass, and I suppose you could say no one does, or everyone would be at it. But it is intriguing.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,331
I like some of their policies, just a pity our electoral system doesn't really give them much of a chance of being a significant influence.
Agreed. Our electoral system makes it difficult to break through but it doesn’t stop a party being an influence however for that to happen it needs media exposure and the only exposure they get is that they are a bunch of hemp sandal wearing vegans who want to ban cars (which oddly enough some European nations and car companies are now looking to do with the pledge to switch to electric). This is not to say they couldn’t do more with social media or craft messages that force more traditional media outfits to take notice.
The rise in Germany and elsewhere in Europe is interesting and they do have appeal for the urban younger voters (and by young I mean under 40) but also conservative older voters who are socially liberal but centrist when it comes to economic policy. What also helps is that Germany has a strong pacifist culture embedded in its psyche which is in tune with Green thinking. This is totally opposite to ourselves and our constant framing of everything in a war like context.
The rise of the Greens is also a direct response to the rise of the AfD which it now surpasses in national polling and is strongly ahead in most regions that used to be the old West Germany. The AfD stronghold with it’s anti everything message is the old East Germany. A poll highlighted the dilemma the CDU face which asked if the CDU moved more to the right would you be more or less inclined to vote for them. 74% said less inclined which rose to 78% amongst actual CDU voters. The CSU in Bavaria tried this rightward tactic and saw its support falling by around 7 points in the recent State election with the Greens coming second.
The Brexit decision has in the short term cemented the two party dominance here but will that hold as polling shows we relate more on Remain/Leave lines which correlates to those who wish for a more open society (Remain) and those who want a closed society (Leave) and the urban/rural, age demographic and educational splits. We also saw the biggest pro EU demonstration anywhere take place in London recently and that cut across party lines. Our electoral system will assist the two main parties in maintaining their dominance but the Tories are riven and Labour membership is overwhelmingly pro remain and so are a majority of its voters even if the leadership is indifferent. So I guess the question is can our two main parties survive Brexit?
Blue Hefner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 14,627
Indeed, which goes to show the importance of a leader. UKIP also showed the problems of trying to scale up rapidly from a small movement subsequently. But honestly, I can't help but feel the most important thing is to be saying something that chimes with sufficient people initially.
Something simple which chimes with people, more like.
The Greens don't really have a simple question which people want an easy answer to. UKIP - immigration is too high, leave the EU and stop 'uncontrolled' immigration. That is simple, it gets people talking but doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny but by the time people have thought it through it has a following. Whereas the Greens don't really have anything like that, not that necessarily is a bad thing
Something simple which chimes with people, more like.
The Greens don't really have a simple question which people want an easy answer to. UKIP - immigration is too high, leave the EU and stop 'uncontrolled' immigration. That is simple, it gets people talking but doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny but by the time people have thought it through it has a following. Whereas the Greens don't really have anything like that, not that necessarily is a bad thing
Oh I don't know. I mean "save the planet" is a pretty simple tagline and ought to get extremely high recognition in terms of what the party stands for. It could just be that people take a look and don't like what they're saying.
Blue Hefner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 14,627
Oh I don't know. I mean "save the planet" is a pretty simple tagline and ought to get extremely high recognition in terms of what the party stands for. It could just be that people take a look and don't like what they're saying.
Caveman theory comes into this. If a Tiger(immigrant) is at the entrance to the cave(UK) it is seen as an imminent threat and needs to be dealt with. The planet will end in X amount of years and/or some Whales will die that no one ever sees, is not a priority. In addition to that, for us to save the planet our whole way of life has to change and that goes back to vested interests, budget and newspaper support
Caveman theory comes into this. If a Tiger(immigrant) is at the entrance to the cave(UK) it is seen as an imminent threat and needs to be dealt with. The planet will end in X amount of years and/or some Whales will die that no one ever sees, is not a priority. In addition to that, for us to save the planet our whole way of life has to change and that goes back to vested interests, budget and newspaper support
It's possible. Or it's possible that people don't agree with them. For some reason (I'm not lobbing this at you, it's a general thing), "we don't agree" never seems to be factored into these discussions.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Oh I don't know. I mean "save the planet" is a pretty simple tagline and ought to get extremely high recognition in terms of what the party stands for. It could just be that people take a look and don't like what they're saying.
It's simple, but really too vague. No-one notices global warming on a year-to-year basis, or ocean plastics. The creep is so slow that it won't register with many.
Separately, taking a very simplified version:
'save the planet' will cost everyone more, and it's difficult to promote that it won't.
"stopping immigration" doesn't obviously do so, especially if you can promote it as "will increase lowest wages and availability of services"
One of those is much easier to sell to a half-interested person.
Blue Hefner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 14,627
It's possible. Or it's possible that people don't agree with them. For some reason (I'm not lobbing this at you, it's a general thing), "we don't agree" never seems to be factored into these discussions.
“We don’t agree with saving the planet” is a difficult position to argue, isn’t it?
Unless you are a presidential candidate in Brazil that wants to flog the Amazon rainforest off to the highest bidder