The ins and outs of the Green Party don't usually interest me; but just lately they've had an eye-catching scandalette, plus a tiny fanfare as their new two-headed leadership was announced. So I had a cursory look at their website and assorted pronouncements.
(Declaration of interest: notwithstanding my long-term engagement in the energy industry, as a fairly reactionary conservative I consider myself an enthusiast for what I consider *green*, am an active proponent of energy conservation, and an active opponent of crazy 'renewable' schemes such as biomass for electricity. Energy industry? "Civilisation is energy-intensive" - Lovelock.)
Well. What has 'green' to do with the Greens? Environmental concerns doesn't get any more airtime in this piece than do Brexit, or Windrush. "we will always campaign with others to oppose Brexit, we think it’s time to say loudly and clearly that the Green party will never be part of any vapid centrist blob ... we proud to say migrants and refugees are welcome here". Not much doubt - and no surprisies - over which side of centre they take up their stand.
But what green ground, exactly, do they stand on? Anti-fracking, of course: and pro unicorns & fairy-dust. But, to invoke one of my touchstones, nothing I can find on their entire rambling website (complete with Philosophical Bases in 50 numbered sections) suggests they have set their faces against the tree-burners at Drax. This, by the way, is in clear contrast to FoE, Greenpeace, RSPB et al who have long since recognised the 'renewable biomass' nonsense for what it is.
The other one that always bears checking up is Nuclear. They offer pro forma hostility: "fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy, which we consider to be expensive and dangerous"; but in contrast to (e.g.) many continental greens there is no hint of pressing for anything like Germany's policy and actual programme of rapid closure of nukes. "Will be phased out" is all we get from our Greens.
In this, they are much like FoE and Greenpeace UK, who similarly say that nukes are expensive (no, really?) and in the long run should go. This actually puts them in opposition to many heavy-duty environmental activists who reckon the risks of fracking are nothing compared to those of nukes; want a German-style policy ASAP; and despair over the timidity of their leadership.
I suppose we should politely wish the new Green 'co-leaders' a happy time in office. But if Windrushery is their idea of carving out a distinctive policy platform, there will still only be one Green MP ten years from now.