I think there are a number of claims here (and I’m probably doing him more justice than he deserves by actually approaching some of what he says seriously).

I think there’s an assumption that Greens are anti-immigration. But the policy of the Green Party (and I accept BO’N doesn’t name the party, but it’s probably slightly more representative than the barking mad anti-immigration think tank he mentions) is to relax border controls and completely overhaul the asylum system in favour of the asylum seeker.

Also Jean Lambert has been a tireless camapigner for asylum seekers rights (as I’m sure BO’N is too, right?) so I’m as yet unconvinced about the inference that environmentalists are racist and a bit like the BNP aren’t they.

What else - oh yeah - “Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech.” Ummm, right. The environmental movement is one of the most pluralist bottom up movements going which thrives on everyone having a say - not just CiF columnists. And the Green Party has one of the most open democratic processes going with constant debate and many strands within the party with no attempt to drive anyone out for disagreeing.

If you look to the policy you’ll see a consistent argument for more democracy not less - and no mention of prosecuting people for being too stupid to see climate change is already happening - you can’t legislate for pig ignorance.

There is a charge of “ceaseless promotion of guilt.” or moralism to put it more succinctly. Whilst I accept some environmentally aware people are moralisitic (usually in the abstract rather than against specific individuals) the vast majority are not. Having been reading GP press releases for four or five years now I don’t remember a single one that was having a pop at people and trying to make them feel guilty - and I’ve been looking.

It is something people *think* is true - but where is the evidence that this is a theme, let alone a dominent theme in the discourse? It doesn’t exist. He might feel guilty, or defensive, but that has nothing to do with the Greens. Promoting sustainable alternatives is not the promotion of guilt, it’s a practical task that people who want to protect the environment have to do.

The sight of a beggar may or may not make you feel guilty - but they are just doing their thing - if you feel guilty it’s not because the beggar is promoting guilt but because society is far from perfect and sometimes people feel guilty that they are less than “morally”perfect or have priveleges others don’t. They shouldn’t feel guilty about this because almost all of us are in that position and it doesn’t help.

But we all accept that the better, nicer, more socially responsible we are the better. Greens want to improve society which involves persuading people of what we think the problems are and how we want to see things change. Gordon Brown tells people to stop wasting food, the Greens look to structural and social changes to cut waste.

“there are stances the greens make that are just completely counter-intuitive to sustainable living” Like what? Let’s discuss it.

Sorry I’ve gone on too long - I didn’t want to post just saying “oh what a silly man”

I don’t agree with everything O’Neill says or stands for, but I’m with him on this one.

And I’m disappointed Derek Wall is getting his claws out too… Douglas, you should write a piece on that.

Oh, and I agree with most of what he says…

But, then again, what else do you expect from the editor of Spiked and a denizen of the RCP?

;-)