Has the Tories increasing climate change scepticism made clear Green water for the other parties to occupy?
According to The Independent the Labour Party campaign managers have identified 31 seats where the increasingly sceptical Conservative tone over climate change might benefit them and the Liberal Democrats.
In these seats, of which 7 are Lib Dem held seats, the Labour Party believes that it might be possible for incumbents to benefit from an above average Green Party level of support and squeeze it to support the non-Tory incumbent.
This follows Gordon Brown’s comments about Nigel Lawson and David Davies and their “flat-earth” environmental comments.
According to The Independent, ‘in the 31 seats, the Green Party or Scottish Green Party had a 2 per cent or higher share of the vote – which could make the difference between the Tories winning or losing on a marginal swing.
‘The Tories need to win Tooting – target seat number 112 – with a notional Labour majority of 5,190, to win an outright majority. In this south London seat, the Greens won a 4.1 per cent share of the vote in 2005.’
Certainly the Tories apparently paper-thin interest in the environment might well now damage them, but I find it fascinating that Labour high command at Number 10 identify seven Lib Dem seats as being ones where this strategy should be adopted.
The full List of seats according to The Independent is:
Finchley & Golders Green (L); Croydon Central (L); Battersea (L); Milton Keynes South (L); Hove (L); Cheltenham (LD); Stroud (L); Carshalton & Wallington (LD); Hastings & Rye (L); Calder Valley (L); Hereford & North Herefordshire (LD); Colne Valley (L); Brighton Kemptown (L); Swindon South (L); Milton Keynes North (C, notional L due to boundary changes); Watford (L); Birmingham Edgbaston (L); Worcester (L); Bradford West (L); Richmond Park (LD); Brentford & Isleworth (L); Edinburgh South (L); Leeds North West (LD); Ochil & South Perthshire (L); Stirling (L); Devon North (LD); Oxford West & Abingdon (LD); Poplar & Limehouse (L); Reading West (L); Waveney (L); Tooting (L)
Posted by John Ault on December 6, 2009
Glasgow Airport's rail link may be green but should we be making flying easier if we are to be greener?
The SNP Government recently announced that it was to abandon the new rail link with Glasgow airport, something that was an integral part of the successful bid for the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.
This major capital project is a key part of upgrading the infrastructure around Glasgow airport, as at the moment public transport links with it are poor compared to other UK airports.
Environmentalists, notably the Scottish Greens, have slammed the move and Scottish Labour has said it is a direct attack on Glasgow, showing the SNP are Edinburgh-centric.
It is easy to identify Labour’s argument as being self-serving ahead of an important Westminster Parliamentary by-election in Glasgow North East within the next couple of months, and potentially will have traction with the local electorate to create a point of contention between them and the SNP, but the Green argument would appear to lack intellectual clarity.
Personally I think the rail link would have been an excellent addition to the accessibility to the airport. At the moment, if I use Glasgow airport, I have to get a bus from Dunfermline followed by another from Glasgow bus station to the airport. It’s fine but a little slow, making the train a much better option.
However, why would a Green politician want to make access, and as a consequence usage, of airports easier? If, as is now almost universally accepted, Carbon Dioxide is a major contribution to climate change, through air travel, why would the Greens want to make access to airports easier? It apparently makes no sense.
Green politicians should be advocating the upgrading of present rail links with the remote parts of Scotland and main UK cities to improve these links rather than looking to airports as the method of fulfilling future transport needs.
Posted by John Ault on October 11, 2009