Talk:Green Party of England and Wales/Archive 1

Why was it changed to "centre-left to left-wing"
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)


 * The Independent claims that the party is centre-left (see citations given in article), and as far as I can tell the source is reliable. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:05, 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
 * But the Conservatives are not classed in their article as "far right", Labour are not described as "right-wing" and the BNP are not called "centre-right". The political compass is interesting, but doesn't necessarily use the terms "left" and "right" in the way the majority of sources use it. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still don't think they're centre-left though. JonnMos (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)JonnMos

Psephology
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

Interlaced
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)

Representatives
MEPs (Members of the European Parliament)

2004 - 2 MEPs 1999 - 2 MEPs

MLAs (Members of the London Assembly)

2008 - 2 2004 - 2 2000 - 3

County Councillors

2005 - 9 2001 - 2

District and Borough Council Elections are too confusing! Sjeraj 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

MP briefly
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)


 * Thanks; I have added this to Wales_Green_Party. – Kaihsu 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

MEP
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)

vintage photograph from the Oxfordshire Green Party
 – Kaihsu 10:47, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Republic
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)


 * As far as I remember GPEW policy is to end the constitutional role of the monarchy but not to abolish it, at least that's what I remember from 2005 General Election. Sjeraj 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is Green Party of England and Wales policy to abolish the monarchy and have a fully-elected upper house to replace the House of Lords. One of its leading members is Peter Tatchell, who is heavily involved in the UK NGO Republic. I know all this as I am a member and I have worked on policy pages on the Young Greens website. I think this page needs updating on policy - it is not very clear and isn't comprehensive, given that the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (MfSS) is the biggest policy document of any party in the UK (and I'm sure it's one of the biggest anywhere). Of course, this will all be down with a neutral POV and feel free to criticise/change it! Aled Dilwyn Fisher 18:40, 13 July 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.


 * Of course, Peter's views are not always the same as the GP's - the same could be said for any member. However, as far as I can see, his website does not say he is a former member. It says he "was one of a group of members of Republic (the Campaign for an elected Head of State) who protested outside Buckingham Palace this morning at 11am, as the announcement was made on the Queen's finances" at a very recent demonstration, and he hasn't quit as far as I know. Aled Dilwyn Fisher 12:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread it as "once of a group of member of Republic". Epa101 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Against economic growth
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.


 * Although this is not explicit in the MfSS, it is the accepted logical extension of our policy and a common part of Green economics. In policy statements, which can be found on the policy website, it does explicitly say economic growth is not a good thing. I think the sections of the MfSS that talk about a non-monetised economy are generally for steady-state economics, and thus against economic growth. Aled Dilwyn Fisher 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Formatting issues
This page had become rather jumbled through the recent (and very informative) expansions. I have tried to bring it in line with the Manual of Style. In particular: Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I have adjusted the headings to follow the standard format used in Wikipedia, i.e., the first heading level is formatted using two equal signs, and the second heading level is formatted using three equal signs.
 * 2) Words in headings are not capitalised unless they are the first word in the heading, or proper nouns. See WP:MOSHEAD.
 * 3) Other Wikipedia articles are linked only once, unless the article is long, in which case they may be linked again later in the article. There is no need to link the same article several times in the same paragraph. See WP:LINK.
 * 4) Ordinary words are not linked. See WP:CONTEXT.
 * 5) We try not to make the linked passages bigger than necessary, so Dr. Ranjit Singh, MEP, rather than Dr. Ranjit Singh, MEP.

I changed Caroline Lucas' name beack, in line with these guidelines.

--Gordon 13:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change in wording
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)

Proportional representation
I note a statement under "Government":
 * specfically the Additional Member System (AMS) used in European Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections

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).

David Icke
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)

Logo
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)

'World's first Green Party' - wrong
"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


 * Thanks Adam. I've now adjusted the statement to indicate it's just one of the earliest.--A bit iffy 12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greenewlogo.jpg
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 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)

Paul R. Ehrlich
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

http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Staff/Ehrlich1.804.pdf

http://antilifequotes.com/QUOTES/ALPHA/Z.HTM

--Gordon (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Forms of Euroscepticism?
What does that even mean? Removing. --Gordon (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Full Manifesto
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)

Real progress
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 &amp;  Windows  21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Green Party Advert
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)
 * There is no reason to mention it anywhere unless it has received significant coverage and commentary by reliable sources. Political parties often use a range of imagery and metaphors in their campaign media, but we don't make a special point of recording all of them. For example, I think there was a Labour party political broadcast in 1997 that referred to "John Major's Pork Pies" as a reference to rhyming slang (pork pies = lies); we don't make any reference to that broadcast in Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), Pork pie or rhyming slang. Road Wizard (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

European Parliament
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)

Why England and Wales?
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 |website (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
 * Hey Jon, I think I'd disagree. The functions and workings of the Green Party (of England and Wales) are set out so that it is one party with one leader. The Green Party of England and Wales is one body operating in both England and Wales, while the Scottish Green Party and Northern Ireland Green Party are separate political parties working in those respective parts of United Kingdom.
 * I'd also add that the 'England and Wales' part is more to distinguish them from other parties (Scottish, NI, German, Austrian, Australian, Norwegian, Danish, Romanian etc.) rather than attempting to use the most common name - they are all listed on the Green Party page, as they are almost all commonly know as that. Similarly, to call the party the UK Green Party would be inaccurate, as it is comprised of the three separate bodies (for England & Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. Thanks, Woodgreener (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Also, the Green Party in NI is not a UK Green Party. It is a region of the Irish Green Party. The UKIP example is not analogous. The Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party are two separate parties. --Gordon (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Policies on crime?
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)

Far-Left
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 sources give claims that they are left-wing populists, and whilst that is up for debate with other sources that I have seen (but none that I would consider un-WP:BIASED), no reliable source whatsoever has claimed that they are "far left". Feel free to prove me wrong, but so far it seems to be WP:SOAPBOX-ing editors who have changed the Greens' political positions from "left-wing" to "far-left", w/o citing any sources whatsoever. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2015 (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)


 * There is no way that the Green Party is "far left," though. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - 2011 May Local Election Result and the Greens in control of the Council
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)

Health policy
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)

Local councillors
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#


 * I have changed the Green local authority tally from 139 to 140 accordingly. I don't think the source cited for the local government stat will have noticed the defection yet so the figures may not match. Not sure it is appropriate to put a mention of a local party matter in the national article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.117.16 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The party members in the cited news article had already been taken into account in the 139. However, more recently, yet more have defected. The totals for Solihull are now Cons. 28, Lab. 6, LibDem. 9, Green 7, Other 1 http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/local-news/solihull-liberal-democrat-fourth-defect-6732964 http://solihull.greenparty.org.uk/news/elmdon-councillor-jean-hamilton-joins-green-party.html  Bennelliott  •  Talk  11:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Centre left"
There's been a fair bit of back-and-forth recently over whether to list "centre-left" in the infobox:


 * 90.203.32.199 added "centre-left" on 23 Feb.
 * Sheffno1gunner removed it on 5 Mar ("You can't call the party centre left! The list of ideologies isted actually contradicts this! Find a reliable source that says they are centre left! I bet you my penis and right leg that you can't find any!").
 * Snowded removed all "position" info in the infobox on 6 Mar ("lets get rid of left as well then until its sourced").
 * Richard BB added back "left wing" with a citation on 7 Mar ("Adding ref").
 * 151.227.19.245 added back "centre-left" on 8 Mar, looking like it was also included in the citation Richard BB added.
 * I just added vs to the "centre-left".

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)


 * It appears that I have made a major error on this -- the citation I added was incorrect. I'm at work currently, so I can't double-check which book I found the "left-wing" claim in. I'm going to go ahead and remove my own edit until I can verify this. Apologies for the mistake; I have one-too-many books on ideology, and I appear to have confused them. The one thing I can tell you is that the "centre-left" claim was not in there (I specifically checked after realising this edit war). However, this is obviously irrelevant until I double-check my books. –  Richard  BB  12:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a quick update as far as the limited amount of things I can do at work. I did a quick Google search and I found this article which calls them left wing. However, even though it is from a reliable source and reputable news paper, it is an opinion piece. I wanted to get everyone's opinion about adding an opinion piece (even if it is from a reputable journalist) into the article as a temporary solution before I actually go ahead and do it. –  Richard  BB  12:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a three year old opinion piece. Its not enough.  Snowded  TALK 15:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I'll keep digging! –  Richard  BB  15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidence presented says party is left-wing. Cant go round looking for sources to suit what you want it to say. You really seem to be struggling to find a source calling the party centre-left which kind of suggests your barking up the wrong tree. 130.88.115.11 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody's struggling to find a source that says the party is "centre left". The discussion here is entirely about finding a reliable source that say's the party is left-wing. —me_and 17:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've WP:BOLDly added this source to claim that the party is centre-left, as well as the existing source claiming they are left-wing. I know the exact positioning of the party is up for debate, but I'm fairly sure the two sources given are adequate and reliable. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Policies
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)
 * I've removed content not supported by 3rd party references. We don't have policy sections for the major parties (Tory, Labour and Lib-dem) the greens do not deserve special dispensation. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  16:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Green Party parliamentarians in the UK Parliament
At the risk of jokes about fitting all of them in a London cab...:

House of Commons

 * Cynog Dafis, 1992 to 1995, shared with Plaid Cymru.
 * Caroline Lucas, since 2010.

House of Lords

 * George MacLeod, until 1991 (as pan-UK Green party).
 * Timothy Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley, 1999 to 2008.
 * Jenny Jones, since 2013.

– Kaihsu (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Republican?
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. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (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)
 * The word republican is not even mentioned in your source.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No but the source states Bennett wishes to abolish the monarchy - ergo it's not exactly a leap of faith to assume she is republican. Alligators1974 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an extremely clear statement of the republican views of those two individuals. But it doesn't say that the Green Party's position is. On the other hand their policy document makes their republican position absolutely clear. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Membership
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)

Next Parliamentary election TV debates proposals
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)

Issues with article
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)

Membership figure incorrect.
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)

Membership - Twitter as a source
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)
 * Hi, . As I stated on your talk page, twitter is just about an acceptable as a source (WP:SELFSOURCE) when the information is about themselves. As it is lower than the combined figure was two/three days ago so is likely to be just the GPEW figure: "the Greens now have 44,713 members across their three UK parties" (The Guardian, 15 Jan 14). The party membership growth seems to have been about 2000/3000 a day for a few days, so it isn't an unreasonable assumption. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From the official GPEW twitter: . Notes that the combined figure stood at 48,000+ on 16 Jan. Given that that included the 8000+ Scottish Green Party members and the few hundred NI Green Party members, it isn't much of a stretch in day to go from ~40,000 members to 42,000+. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Form the official Scottish Green twitter: . Combined figure on the evening of 16 Jan stood at 50,000+.Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as a third party source picks up on it, then the citation can be changed. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 18:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I´m not sure that there can ever truly be a third party source for things like membership figures. Third parties can report them but only by repeating what the party itself says - they're the only ones who know. Bagunceiro (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, well if the membership of the GPEW has really grown by 6-7k in a couple of days, then you can see how I could have got confused, when only a few days ago it was being reported as around 35,000. It did look like a mistake, or someone bigging up the party by including the Scottish Greens. A third party source would be preferable, even just for the sake of looking professional. No doubt a surge in membership of that magnitude will get picked up on by the media before long. G-13114 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But a third party source is neither necessary (as per WP:SELFSOURCE) nor any better since it would simply be a reporting of the party's own figures. Perhaps we should do what has been done on the UKIP article and flag the figure as a party estimate in the infobox. For consistency that should be done with all of the parties, though (e.g. reference for Con is directly from Conservative sources, Lab and Lib figures are the parties' own figures as reported by newspapers). Bagunceiro (talk) 14:22, 18 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! JezGrove (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Republican policy
The Green Party's policy document is absolutely clear on their republican stance. Amongst other things it says:


 * The monarchy shall cease to be an office of government. The legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch shall cease.

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)


 * I don't think it is clear cut. That statement could be interpreted as meaning they want to strip the Monarchy of its remaining powers rather than abolishing them entirely. The next policy statement after the one you quoted reads Peers and members of the royal family shall have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens. That kind of implies that there would still be a royal family does it not? I don't really know what the Green party's policy on Republicanism is, but I'm not sure that document really gives a clear answer. I think it needs more clarification before we go listing Republicanism as one of their policies. G-13114 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But "the monarchy shall cease to be an office of government" and "the monarchy shall be abolished" are absolutely and entirely equivalent - the first is just expressed more accurately. By definition, a monarchy that is not an office of government is not a monarchy. And, perhaps more importantly in the current context, the government that is left is a republican one.
 * The same reference at PA600 states "The Green Party believes that the hereditary principle should have no place in government". This too is as clear a statement of republican ideology as you could wish for. There is nothing in the least vague about it. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are just giving your interpretation of the policy, and that counts as original research. It does not clearly say 'we will abolish the monarchy' it gives some vague wording about removing the political and judicial powers of the monarchy, which may or may not amount to the same thing, but we don't know as it isn't very clear. Furthermore, relying on the party's own manifesto as a source is highly problematic, as such a claim would ideally need a third party source. G-13114 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this; you keep saying it is "vague" without explaining why. How can "the monarchy shall cease to be an office of government" be any clearer? How would you define abolition in a way that was less "vague". I don't think it is original research; that is the meaning of abolition. If it isn't then what do you mean by it? A monarchy, by definition, that is not part of government no longer exists.
 * wrt third party sources. This is one of those cases where WP:SELFSOURCE applies. We could find lots of people saying what the Greens' ideology is but none of those would be as reliable as what they say themselves. Bagunceiro (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When is a group a group?
"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)

Status of the UK?
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)

Membership again
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)


 * I have done that, but my edits keep being changed by other users w/o any reasoned explanation. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you disagree a with an edit being reverted, you could either revert it again or use request for comments to try to raise a discussion.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry, it's okay as of now. Thanks for the advice, though. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Populism
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)
 * Agreed. This academic paper notably does not call the Greens populist. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, while the economist is a reliable source this is not a considered assessment of ideology its a news piece. I've removed it  Snowded  TALK 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Brighton and Hove council 2015
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 10:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made the changes. It should be clearer now.  This should be documented because it is an important point in their history.  It's a massive loss for the Green party, as Brighton was the only Green led council in the country, and they have now lost control of it due to half of their councillors being voted out.  Here is a BBC article with some details: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32680552 92.26.172.148 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Migration, UK urbanisation-sustainability and exploitation of agricultural production internationally
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)

Membership figures in "Membership and finances" section
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)
 * Never mind. has has removed the duplication . Thank you! – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , You´re very welcome: I couldn't believe your heads-up would be in the least controversial. I was considering removing both - I'm not sure about the value of them and we don't have anything similar for other parties. But I thought that might be a little bit too bold given the amount of traffic generated by these figures over the last few months! Bagunceiro (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you never know with this article. The last time I moved the membership numbers to a different section (for the same reason that it wasn't the end of the year yet), they just got re-added again, and I was accused of vandalising the article by a seemingly single-purpose account. And I agree, it is somewhat odd as to why their membership figures are here. I mean, I guess the whole "green surge" is somewhat relevant, considering the media attention it's gained etc., but it's still somewhat unusual. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Green Party of England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208092759/http://greenparty.org.uk/elections.html to http://greenparty.org.uk/elections.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426232247/http://solihull.greenparty.org.uk/news/elmdon-councillor-jean-hamilton-joins-green-party.html to http://solihull.greenparty.org.uk/news/elmdon-councillor-jean-hamilton-joins-green-party.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929172114/http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=64&frmType=partydetail to http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=64&frmType=partydetail
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greenparty.org.uk/conference/gpex-candidates
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529093333/http://www.islington.gov.uk/involved/involvedvoting/votingelection/elections-2014/standing-election/Pages/highbury-east.aspx to http://www.islington.gov.uk/involved/involvedvoting/votingelection/elections-2014/standing-election/Pages/highbury-east.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403030311/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/horse-race-Bookies-nervous-Green-surge/story-26256195-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/horse-race-Bookies-nervous-Green-surge/story-26256195-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410030540/https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/yes-to-an-eu-referendum-green-mp-calls-for-chance-to-build-a-better-europe.html to https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/yes-to-an-eu-referendum-green-mp-calls-for-chance-to-build-a-better-europe.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617083447/http://hannahpudner.greenparty.wales/ to http://hannahpudner.greenparty.wales/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)