Something that he has apologised for and profusely regrets.

I can't disagree with anything Brand points out in that link. Matt if your interested in helping homeless people, I'd be interested in your views on what Brand is highlighting.

Funnily enough, I thought I'd google "The Times fracking" to see how balanced their articles are. Obviously I'd forgotten about the pay wall, but thought the first article that came up was comically biased:

Fracking ‘greener than solar panels’

The production of panels and turbines results in greater depletion of natural resources, toxicity to humans and impact on freshwater and marine organisms, according to the study by the University of Manchester.

Pretty embarrassing to even try to argue this. I'm not even particularly bothered about fracking, but to suggest it's greener than renewable energy is comical.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

Current polling average (during a good period for the Greens), with the number of MPs in brackets:

Labour - 33 (257)
Tories - 32 (303)
UKIP - 16 (1)
Lib Dem - 8 (56)
Greens - 5 (1)

At the last general election, they got 0.9% of the vote and out of 310 seats I think they kept their deposit in about 5. It's not a conspiracy to keep certain views out of the debate, there simply has to be a line drawn somewhere and a party almost always failing to keep its deposit shouldn't be surprised to find itself on the wrong side of the line.

You're right that few people actually discuss his politics (a lot of playing the man and not the ball as has been mentioned), but he doesn't actually represent a politics that many people vote for. Why doesn't he just tell people to vote green? That's surely what his politics is closest to. There are 15 million people who don't vote up for grabs; if UKIP can attract millions of them, it can't be that hard.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

The problem here is that you're redefining capitalism and socialism to mean something that they not, their economic systems of distribution, both have advantages and disadvantages. Capitalism didn't invent the idea of profit, just as Socialism didn't invent the idea of redistribution.

As to the first part, yes and no, we are biological entities and fundamentally animals, but our utilisation of biological determinism to simplify nature to easily reducible common shared factors. I'd present the same argument as applicable to 'dog nature' or 'gorilla' nature - in that certainly in most mammals, individual personality defines behaviour far more than biological nature and mammals learn their behaviours far more than they are born with them.

This is especially true in higher mammals when the necessity for competitive survival has been removed (ie domesticated animals). That's before you add the complexities of language into the functionality and formation of individuals.

Capitalism itself originated out of the production of the middle classes, through merchants and the rise of yeomanry, prior to which the concept of wealth as a characteristic of the individual was somewhat more constrained (wealth existed for what you could do with it, rather than as a means in and of itself, it was a tool to an end, rather than an end in its own right).

Capitalism is simply a progression from previous systems that will be surplanted by others, as it replaced others before it (indeed Capitalism of the earlier eras has itself been replaced by different forms of capitalism).

Capitalism was entirely dependent on five major factors. The rise of protestatism, the publication of 'Summa de arithmetica, geometria', industrialisation and the works of Adam Smith and the emergence of the merchant classes (and ultimately the middle classes).

It has no relationship really to human nature, beyond being developed by humans to suit the needs of thoe with power and status. As the emergent middle classes gained increasing social power, society changed more to reflect their interests (with power being ceded by the aristocratic land owners).

Prior to the rise of capitalism, the dominant system wasn't profit, it was land ownership.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Very much like Clarkson then eh Seth?