Snapshot of _The Greens are worse than useless: Their reputation for being nice if a touch naive is far too generous_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/the-greens-are-worse-than-useless/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/the-greens-are-worse-than-useless/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>They indulge in superstitious thinking over the “unacceptable risk” nuclear poses to “the communities living close to facilities”,
You know you're hardcore as a Green movement when you're spouting crap that even *George Monbiot* disowned as damaging and unscientific bollocks [more than ten years ago](https://web.archive.org/web/20110409001858/http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/).
>as well as claiming that civilian nuclear energy generation is “inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons”.
WTAF. Guys, if the *Japanese* of all people can use civilian nuclear power without particularly associating it with nuclear weaponry, I'm sure we can manage.
Their stance on nuclear matters alone means I could never seriously consider voting for them.
You have their complete opposition to nuclear power, which is one of the most important tools we have for generating the energy we need while reducing CO2 emissions. Flat-out refusing to consider nuclear power as part of our long-term energy strategy is anti-science and runs counter to their own goals.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, I can understand them not liking them on philosophical grounds, but they cloak this in complete nonsense about how having them 'makes us more of a target' than not having them. Which is so clearly the opposite of reality that it makes them look stupid.
>'makes us more of a target'
A really good counterpoint to this argument is the declassified [Seven Days to the River Rhine Soveit warplan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine)
The war plan was published by the Polish after the end of the Cold War - Poland was a member of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, and so was privy to the actual planning the Soviets had for a war with the west.
The key factor in the exercise is that the Soviets *planned* to use nuclear weapons during their invasion of Europe - ~~invoking "first use", these weren't used in response to other nations attacking the Soviets first with nuclear weapons~~ - and using them liberally against targets in central Europe especially.
They stopped short of using them against Britain and France *specifically because both countries had an independent deterrent!*
The theory at the time was that although the US was a nuclear guarantor of many countries in Europe (through NATO), they would be hesitant to actually use them if the Soviets hadn't attacked the US homeland.
So you had a situation where the USSR introduced nuclear weapons, used them against countries that *don't* have an independent deterrent (but do have NATO membership) and they explicitly avoided nuking countries like the UK.
**Edit:** This comment is popular but I have misremembered the article I quoted. The plan states that this war plan from the Soviets presumes a nuclear attack on the Warsaw Pact (not on the USSR specifically). This is fair as the Soviets had a **no-first-use** policy in place during the Cold War. This is because the Warsaw Pact had a major quantitative edge over NATO, and it was assumed they therefore had conventional superiority and wouldn't *need* to use nukes first.
NATO had no such policy for the opposite reasons. Therefore, it is reasonable for a plan from the Soviets' perspective to presume first use by the other side regardless of *how* the fighting in Europe started.
I don't think this takes away from the core point at hand - the USSR in this wargame, as operations unfolded and as *they* employed their own nuclear weapons still restrained themselves from employing nuclear weapons against France and the UK *because* those countries had their own nuclear arsenals.
Tactical use of nuclear weapons is technically doctrinal in Russia to this day. And if you want an example of the opposite of what the Greens claim, Ukraine willingly gave up its nuclear arsenal and look at what's happening now. Not saying that the two are equivalent, just pointing out that there's evidence directly disagreeing with nuclear deterrent making a country more of a target.
This needs to be said extremely loudly for everyone to hear.
The Greens manifesto planning to avoid nuclear power and scrap Trident to make us "safer", given the context of Ukraine being a power that surrendered their nuclear deterrent and is now being invaded, is just indefensible. It's total pie-in-the-sky nonsense, it's almost unbelievable to even suggest it.
You've been more tempered than me - I found it completely outrageous, and it tarnished their entire manifesto and party. I can't see them as anything other than dangerously ignorant and naive after seeing that policy alone.
On a counter point to this; the Israeli situation shows that Nuclear Weapons are basically useless *(except as a nuclear deterrent)*
Israel has been attacked many many many times by conventional weapons by a variety of foes. Nuclear weapons do not stop others attacking you with conventional weapons.
For me, personally, I think having what are essentially borrowed US nuclear weapons to be pretty stupid. We should never have given up our own ones. The US political situation will not always be stable and relying on them so heavily is a mistake.
Especially when our record of test fires recently is dreadful. Still, I'm not suggesting we develop new ones.
That's one way to look at it, though another is that despite prior bitter hostilities in the region they have also managed to establish diplomatic relations and relative peace since 1973 shortly after ramping up its nuclear capabilities.
Since then they've only been involved in asymmetrical conflicts with isolated militias and groups which have very little value placed on self-preservation. I'll agree it doesn't do much to stop that, just as the US nuclear arsenal wasn't a deterrent to 9/11.
But arguably the only way they established diplomatic relations is by being fully unconquerable - might as well make peace with them if they have nukes because we can’t contemplate actually beating them
Indeed, but an out-and-out complete assault from Russia (or China, etc) is very unlikely to begin with.
What is far more likely is terrorism, sabotage, etc. Or a third party state, backed by a super power, engaged us in conflict over such and such. After all, once again, our nuclear weapons did not stop Argentina taking the Falklands, nor did they stop the IRA.
Let me tell you the truth. There are three 'super powers' in the world today; Russia, China and the USA. The USA would happily engage in a proxy war against Russia or China (Vietnam, Korea, Ukraine) and Russia/China would happily engage in a proxy war with the USA (Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc).
No one will attack the other directly but indirectly is fair game.
If Russia can find a good excuse to cause mayhem here, they will. You can imagine scenarios like the apparent perspective of minorities here causing an attack from a third country to protect their citizens. Or who knows.
But the US won't necessarily defend us. Remember that they didn't approve of the Falklands war. Remember they didn't support us Vs the IRA.
I don't mean to bucher the point but we cant assume we can rely on the USA. That's not to say we shouldn't be their allies, of course we should, but who knows what will happen politically over there.
We should also deepen our alliances with Europe. If there is an EU army, we should join that (regardless of whether we are in the EU). Alliances, erasmas, Eurovision, ryan air and easy jet.
Hey, you say that the soviets planned to use nuclear weapons invoking first use, but the article you link says the opposite -
"The scenario for the war was NATO launching a nuclear attack on Polish and Czechoslovak cities in the Vistula river valley area in a first-strike scenario, which would prevent Warsaw Pact commanders from sending reinforcements to East Germany to forestall a possible NATO invasion of that country."
Am I missing something?
You're correct - I've misremembered without re-reading the whole article.
The USSR *did* maintain an official "no first use" policy throughout the Cold War. This is because the Soviets maintained at quantitative edge over NATO during this time. As such, war plans from their side naturally *would* presume that nuclear weapons are introduced by the other side.
I still think this war-plan demonstrates the importance of a country having their own independent deterrent, and the USSR still resists using nuclear weapons against other nuclear-armed states in this plan, despite being in all-out conventional war with all of NATO.
>The theory at the time was that although the US was a nuclear guarantor of many countries in Europe (through NATO), they would be hesitent to actually use them if the Soviets hadn't attacked the US homeland.
It's amazing how little the Soviets understood the U.S during the cold war. The U.S would've most likely retaliated in the same fashion, no strikes on Russia proper, but other Warsaw Pact countries and Ukraine, Belarus and probably Azerbaijan would've been hit in retaliation.
Their position is an absolute forehead-smacking one in that it completely flies in the face of the established scientific consensus yet they're happy to retain it. Whereas when it comes to climate science, their position (rightly) is that we absolutely must follow the science. The sheer double-standard of it is astounding.
Oh good grief! Are they really against GM crops? I thought everyone had moved on after it came to light how flawed that first sensationalised gm food rat experiment was… I hesitate to ask, but are they anti-vax as well?
they also oppose NATO if you need another reason, they only very recently changed their public view to "reforming" rather than dismantling it after Russia invaded Ukraine
It's a simplified analogy but think of voting like getting a bus, not a taxi. Get the one that gets you closest to your ultimate destination, even if it's not perfect and goes around the houses. It's better than someone else putting you in a cab in the wrong direction.
This is another issue with FPTP. Not only does your vote generally not count when voting for a third party, it also reduces the number of parties who choose to stand for fear that they will split the vote with similarly minded ones.
The electorate's political opinions can be complicated & nuanced and yet we have to vote for such *broad* parties, who's policy has to please as much of the population as possible or else face defeat on polling day.
Not only that, but unless the party's candidates have a history of success or near success (or their predecessors did), few people will seriously consider voting for them anyway.
I feel the same way, for a long time I thought about just spoiling my ballot, but instead I’ll probably not pay much attention to the party at all and just vote for the candidate I like the most/dislike the least, which I guess is what you’re supposed to do anyway.
It’s almost a three way tie according to polling between Conservative, Reform, and Labour in my seat, which has been a huge Tory safe seat since the 1850s. So for the first time voting might actually make a difference even still under FPTP.
This is pretty much where I'm at. I was considering spoiling my ballot, but then I could be spoiling my ballot for any number of reasons. If I vote Green that at least sends a message of why I haven't voted for any of the candidates with a chance of winning.
It annoys me to no end. I remember reading through the party manifestos during the local election that was in 2021 or something. I was reading through the green party one, and I was agreeing with every single thing I had read, thinking that there is finally a party that doesn't just represent things that I disagree with.
I then read that they want to get rid of our nukes, and immediately disregarded voting for them. Of all of the stances that a leader could have, reducing the power and actively making their constituents more vulnerable to being attacked is one of the most insane ones I have ever heard in my life.
They didn't even have anything on there about being opposed to nuclear energy. That's also insane. Nuclear energy and renewables are hand in hand in my mind as the way to push towards a greener future.
>I can understand them not liking them on philosophical grounds, but they cloak this in complete nonsense about how having them 'makes us more of a target' than not having them. Which is so clearly the opposite of reality that it makes them look stupid.
They also proposed that we completely disband our army and replace all our army bases with flower meadows.
In the face of rising Russian aggression in Europe and the general sentiment about Russia amongst the far left, it seems very cynical that they want to leave our country undefended.
> Flat-out refusing to consider nuclear power as part of our long-term energy strategy is anti-science and runs counter to their own goals.
Exactly this. They care more about banning/decommissioning nuclear power generation than they do about carbon emissions or renewable energy, which is weird, because climate change is literally their whole thing.
They should just rebrand as the anti-nuclear party, because that's what they are and they are helping to ensure that we keep using fossil fuels for decades longer than needed by doing the oil and gas companies dirty work for them when it comes to disavowing nuclear energy and spreading misinformation about it.
Or it could be because it makes just as much sense to invest in Wind, Tidal or Solar energy.
That's their actual policy, they're not suggesting we increase imports of Russian oil and gas.
Nice little theory though
The issue is that wind, solar and tidal cannot take care of all the UKs energy needs on their own. You need something else to hold the baseline, and nuclear is the best option for that.
Tidal is baseload power, this isn't true. There are technologies that allow solar to price baseload power too.
Tidal is very expensive at the moment though. Although so is nuclear.
Not really no.
Baseload generation is required to do two things in an energy grid: reduce the volatile range and keep as much of the infrastructure energised as possible, *and* provide a powerful, predictable, and reliable 50Hz sine wave that every other generator you're bringing in can sync to.
Wind turbines ah... Don't have a totally consistent and reliable rotational rate. Like ever.
Tidal, hydropower and nuclear are basically your options for low carbon baseload generation - in theory you could build your baseload out of energy storage systems (batteries, compressed air, or pumped hydro), but I'm not sure I'd want to try cold starting a grid from that.
They reject nuclear power because it's too expensive. It's an economic reason, and this is the reason they will give when asked. I'm sick of people assuming they don't like it for some irrational reason, when actually the reason is very simple. Wind is cheaper.
I think there's an important distinction between nuclear power and nuclear research - as far as I'm aware the greens are in favour of fusion research and work to make nuclear processes safer with safer by products. They just don't want current fission plants to be built when we could be building off shore wind and local renewables in huge quantities with that money.
The two methods are unlikely to be compatible without a lot of battery storage or additional on-demand energy production like gas, so I don't blame them for wanting to focus on the greener alternative, whether or not I personally agree.
>They just don't want current fission plants to be built when we could be building off shore wind and local renewables in huge quantities with that money.
>
>The two methods are unlikely to be compatible without a lot of battery storage or additional on-demand energy production like gas, so I don't blame them for wanting to focus on the greener alternative, whether or not I personally agree.
A mix of intermittent renewables and nuclear needs storage or dispatchable generation like gas. Intermittent renewables on their own require much more storage or dispatchable generation, nuclear on its own much less.
Over the last month, the amount of electricity generated in a day in the UK:
|Type|High|Low|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Nuclear|113 GWH|100 GWH|
|Wind|299 GWH|22 GWH|
|Solar|77 GWH|38 GWH|
The lack of affordable storage technology is a reason (the main reason, in fact) for choosing nuclear instead of wind and solar.
Mark Jacobson of Stanford (https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html) explains a roadmap to transition to 100% Wind Wave and Solar. Storage
includes electricity, heat, cold, and hydrogen storage. Electricity storage options include hydropower, pumped
hydropower, batteries, CSP with storage, and hydrogen fuel cells.
This is totally without any fossil fuels or nuclear.
The plan in Scientific American in 2008 was for 100% WWS by 2030; this has been updated in subsequent years and with more detailed analyses.
> if the *Japanese* of all people can use civilian nuclear power without particularly associating it with nuclear weaponry,
It is commonly understood that Japan is "two token screw turns away" from making nuclear weapons, all the tech, know-how and materials are there. They have stopped just short for political and geopolitical reasons - they can rapidly become a nuclear power if the situation demands.
>WTAF. Guys, if the Japanese of all people can use civilian nuclear power without particularly associating it with nuclear weaponry, I'm sure we can manage.
Any lack of association in japan is purely political. While it probably isn't quite "one screwdriver's turn" from a bomb its isn't far off either.
In the UK's case the connection is even more dirrect with the old magnox design only making sense if you want them to be able to make weapons grade plutonium.
But we already have nuclear weapons so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Sat through a nuclear talk by the greens when visiting a family friend. Had to stop myself asking what the geiger counter readings were, when they were showing shaky footage of a goods train they reckoned had been carrying fissile material to a generator. (And what the background was in that spot for the hour before. And whether they had had a banana in their bag.)
The Soviet Union's greatest psyop was linking nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. They did it to keep gas and oil prices from collapsing even further than they did in the early 80s because they were so dependent on commodities exports by that time. Imagine how better the world would've been if the whole of Western Europe followed France's example in investing in nuclear energy.
Historically they were linked.
The UK's MAGNOX, Soviets VVERs and RBMKs and the American Gen I PWRs were all initially designed to produce plutonium with power being a "free" byproduct.
The Green party are absolutely fucking useless.
They Oppose Nuclear and Green Energy Solutions if it's in their back yard... I will never, vote green until they actually get a backbone and approve/fund/build green energy alternatives at a local level.
Have you seen their policy on cars?
Like sure I know they’d want to bring in EVs quicker but 2027 is fucking mental
And then banning the USE of combustion vehicles after 2035 is going to generate so much scrap and leave people with worthless cars that they can’t sell to buy an EV
And then road pricing…. Let’s prevent the poor from travelling.
They have some good policies but they don’t nearly outweigh the bad ones
It all starts to make sense when you consider that many on the (far) left in favour of policies like this are, ironically, very well off and struggle to understand how the 99% live.
To them it's very simple.
Just buy an EV, take the bus, cycle to work, get the train, move closer to work etc.
They simply don't *get* it.
There also seems to be a sort of selective sympathy at play with a lot of them. They're vehemently pro working class...until the working class dares disagree with them on something, at which point they can get fucked and be told what's actually best for them.
Exactly! Owen Jones is a perfect example of living a comfortable life and judges people that vote labour… and if you noticed the pattern, many on the far left are quite wealthy so they don’t struggle under the tories.
I think this is a major point, a lot of people on the (far) left proclaim to be sticking up for the working class but they themselves are upper middle class and do not have to live with the consequences of certain policies. In regards to immigration it’s all very well for them to claim we should have open borders and everyone should be welcome but it’s not their neighbourhoods or estates that see an influx of migrants who can’t speak English.
Another thing I don't see discussed very often is the environmental and social impact of building EVs. Where are we getting all this lithium from this quickly? The immediate jump to "oh we'll just have billions of EVs" is a product of the same thoughtless and reckless attitude to Earth's natural resources, and our ability to extract them and the human cost associated, that got us into this mess in the first place.
Yes EVs are going to have to be part of the solution, but there has crept in this attitude of "the more EVs the more green it is" and I just can't support that
Lithium is pretty plentiful. The most positive sounding one to me (I'm no expert) is probably the plants for extracting it from the Salton Sea in California; it's a contaminated salt lake, where there's also geothermal activity and lithium-rich brine underneath it, so there's plants getting built that pump up the brine, use it to generate geothermal electricity that powers a plant that extracts the lithium, and the area's contaminated to begin with so they're not ruining a pristine area or anything and potentially taxing it will give them a way of paying for restoring the area. Mines are damaging, particularly for extracting the lithium from the mined materials, but so is the oil drilling and refining industry.
Also, each EV's battery lasts for many years and people are starting to build facilities for recycling. It still needs to get better, but the issue is it being expensive to dismantle them not that it's impossible to recycle.
Obviously it's better if everyone gets on an electric train or even an EV bus, than each having an EV car, but reducing road and car dependency is a long and difficult process and EVs are a major improvement on where things are and I think it's a case of letting perfect get in the way of good. I think there's certainly scope for encouraging smaller and more efficient electric vehicles over monstrosities like the Hummer EV, though.
All I ask is for being able to buy a car powered by a micro nuclear reactor. Ultimate green solution. No fossil fuels, no third hand emissions from generating the power for an EV. Just years and years of power on the same tank.
Scrappage *might* be a bit of a bitch though.
As someone who commutes 80 miles a day I’m sorry I just can’t get behind road pricing, I think its an absolute joke, we are already penalised by paying more for insurance which isn’t common elsewhere
On the contrary, motorists are currently subsidised. It is an 'absolute joke' that the form of transport that is the least efficient, least inclusive, most environmentally destructive and harmful to public health is the mode that is subsidised.
We need a huge modal shift away from cars to walking, cycling and public transport. Road pricing is one tool to help encourage that.
But how does that help people who commute 50 miles a day in the countryside?
Until public transport is as quick, convenient and as instant as a car, there will always be a requirement for private transport. In the cities with high population density then it's achievable and as someone who used to live in a well populated area, I never actually needed to get a license because there was always some form of public transport available. Wasnt worth the hassle or cost of getting a car because I had a choice of bus/train/metro system. I now live rural because of my job and there is nothing that even compares to it. I actually tried to work out a way to get to the city nearest me recently, and it would have taken 3 hours on public transport. To get somewhere 30 miles away. By the time I got there, I would have had to leave within an 2 hours tops to get the last train back.
Rural communities in this country are isolated and cars are the only methods to go from places to place. I didn't really understand that until I moved out here, sounds like you're the same tbh
I think that it's right that people who choose to live inefficiently should bare some of the extra costs of that choice. It makes no sense to subsidise unsustainable choices.
The only reason why Green had an increase of membership is because of the Gaza stance. If you noticed on twitter, labour supporters get ridiculed by the further left for not supporting Green because they support Palestine. Yet if they actually read Green’s fantasy policies, then they would realise why the majority of the british public would not vote for them.
Corbynistas are also very loud on social media, declaring they moved on to the green party. Just look at the labour subreddit that has users stuck on the 2015-19 corbyn era and are advocating for people to not vote labour but Green…
You also have Owen Jones, telling people that Labour automatically won and that the tories are toast so vote green… yet you can’t automatically win if no votes have been casted.
If you look at Labour’s electoral history, you would notice that whenever they had a further left as the leader of the party, they would suffer massive defeats. 1983 Michael Foot and 2019 Corbyn are massive examples.
I seriously think the Greens should become a single issue party and campaign solely on the basis of the environment at a national level, and local issues at a local level. It would broaden their support and they may actually be able to be a proper pressure group
HS2 is a perfect example of where this starts to break down. The Greens are against it on the basis that it causes “environmental damage”, but not building it leads to people seeking less environmentally friendly modes of transport.
There’s no simple answer to what is environmental protection.
I agree that there isn't a simple answer to environmental protection.
That being said, HS2 is not one of those complexities.
The simple reality is that there are lots of naive, environment obsessed voters who think any destruction of nature in any capacity is a tragedy to be avodied at all cost.
They genuinely believe the world would be better if stopped using fossil fuels, banned the driving of cars and somehow also not build replacement mass transit.
>The simple reality is that there are lots of naive, environment obsessed voters who think any destruction of nature in any capacity is a tragedy to be avodied at all cost.
Or more cynically, use it as a figleaf to justify their objections to homes & infrastructure being built in their area, disrupting their comfortable lives, hurting their house prices, the prospect of "unfamiliar" people moving into the area.
Case in point, they want to turn a derelict warehouse into housing in my town, a lot of people are using nutrient runoff/environmental concerns to stymie the proposal - yet they don't say a peep about the local farmers burning plastic, dumping x100 more crap into the river than this project would do.
This is also why I hard disagree that they should campaign at the local level for local politicians, climate change is an international issue and should take the highest importance. In the end they block solar farms because it “removes greenery” which is in fact large areas of grass nobody uses than contribute a net jack shit in terms of biodiversity and carbon storage, most of which will be kept anyway. Plus the Greens blocking an offshore solar farm because they didn’t like the “developer led model” just shows how ideological they can be when it comes to economics.
There was a candidate in Derbyshire who had a policy of objecting to any new "Tidal and Offshore wind" projects
Derbyshire if you don't know is landlocked
>Derbyshire if you don't know is landlocked
Presumably though they'd be in the UK Parliament which might have votes on those issues? The MP for Shetland can still vote on "we should build more train lines" even though there are no trains up there
They want to keep it all as it is an whenever human interests run counter to the environment, humans have to back down every time. They think we can return to an idyllic agricultural commune style of life that never actually existed (that's where "greens" come from, a localist agricultural communism vs the "reds" national or international industrial communism.). They are as loopy as the tankies for mostly the same reason, but their end-of-history state is an easier sell, so people don't see how batshit mental they are.
I totally lost it with the Greens years ago when they were opposing the building of a tram line where there were some trees
The trees had been allowed to grow on land set previously aside for tram lines that just didn't happen for FAR too long. But now there were trees there the Greens opposed building the tram line.
Just insane.
I would very much like a party like that to exist - but at this point if you pushed the Greens on being a single issue party they would probably pick a culture war issue (or Gaza).
They are taking up the space where we could and should have a genuine party that is about the climate emergency and being there prevents any such party being formed.
I don't really see it happening. You'd need a leader with a strong backbone to not bend to all the inevitable bullying that would come out. Accusations of being a genocide enthusiast for not nailing Gaza colours to your mast, which unserious, uncritical people would lap up.
Just had a look at my local green candidate, as every other pamphlet i've had through seems to think i live in Palestine (you can guess my area's demographics)
Green candidates front full page "permanent ceasefire now"
Looks like i won't be voting as my options are now reform (even the local tory is green and black flags) not that i'd ever vote for either of them, or an independent that makes reform look like the peace core.
Literally nobody to vote for where i am that isn't playing infantile politics over a far away conflict i couldn't give a fuck about.
I recently saw some advertising for the 'Climate Party' but they don't seem to have much traction yet.... Hopefully by the next election they're a more significant force!
Almost like Reform in a way, their political stances are totally unviable (their views on destroying the entire Gilt market and making Liz Truss seem like an economic mastermind for example) but because of immigration they've got huge support.
Sometimes focusing on one thing and one thing only is more viable.
For that to happen they would need to a lot more in touch with scientific thinking and policy.
I'm not sure the current green party is all that interested.
A friend of a friend was involved with formulating the Greens' health policy a while ago.
Apparently it was a struggle to get everybody on-board with dropping the commitment to homeopathy.
"The Environment" means different things to different people and many points are contradictory.
For some it means keeping things looking the same as they've always looked. Grassland stays as grassland, forest stays as forest, towns are towns.
For some it means ending fossil fuel consumption.Which might mean nuclear power, or wind and solar. Some want electric cars, some want railways, some want bikes.
Some believe housing should be high density, built with high carbon concrete, others want low density housing, built with sustainable materials.
How do we condense the environment to a single issue?
Environmental issues are intersectional: you can't have genuine solutions without considering the related social, cultural and economic issues. It's impossible in a complex 2024.
You could have environmentally conscious policies whilst not opposing nuclear power, maintaining an existing nuclear deterrent and without opposing solar farms (as some Green candidates have done.) I would say that climate change is such a big issue we do need a broad tent approach to it, and sadly the Greens are not that, but they could be with a bit more pragmatism.
If they had any understanding, knowledge or interest in the environment that would make sense. As it goes right now they are ignorant, uneducated misanthropes.
Yes, that's what they should be.
But they also have a very strong NIMBY element, especially on the local level, and a romantic anti-science streak. I am not sure whether that can be avoided - it just comes with the territory.
That’s sort of what they’ve been doing, but it doesn’t work very well. As soon as one a local level MP is elected then they have to vote on national level issues.
I guess the issue is there's a few different ways to fix the environment. It can be done with technology and pursuing rapid growth while fixing the incentive structures within capitalism, or it can be done by reducing demand and degrowth.. plus.. socialism?
I think the latter is absolutely potty because the implications on global population and I have never seen a convincing argument on how it relates to workers owning the means of production, but that broadens the scope quite significantly to economic questions too
Indeed, you can't just have an "environmentalist" party, because everyone wants something completely different - especially when local and global ecology are at odds with each other (a common problem which is perhaps best seen with HS2). And whilst some matters will be agreed to on both sides (both sides will agree that our annual decision to set national parks on fire so hunters can shoot at grouse ought to stop), there are many approaches which simply fail to be compatible with each other. And heck, even people generally on the same "side" of the divide on prioritising local vs global will disagree with each other (Nuclear Power is generally the big one here).
That being said, as someone who thinks that "capitalism and growth will somehow 100% guarenteed create the technology to survive" is objectively more potty than "live within our means and distribute resources more effectively", I'm going to do something that the Green Party really needs to, and posit a basic argument on why worker ownership is linked directly to ecology. Like, you might not find it convincing, but you have effectively asked for one!
Imagine a factory along a river - it converts resources into widgets and waste. The waste is unavoidable - so there's a question of how to handle it. We can either recycle it, or dump it into the river, where local kids like to play in the summer. Dumping it is definitely cheaper though - even though it'll spoil the local area.
If the factory is owned by the workers, then I'd put decent money on the workers deciding that spending the money to recycle the waste is worth having the natural rivers for their kids to play in. There is a direct and natural consequence to the environmentally poor choice that would impact everyone involved.
However, if the factory is owned by a wealthy person who lives in a different town, the scenario is quite different. The wealthy person has no inherent interest in protecting the local environment, so they will choose the cheapest option - this causes long-term environmental damage.
Essentially, if you have worker-ownership of the means of production, the incentives for avoiding ecologically damaging behaviour are far more real and far more respected than if the ownership of the means of production is held in the hands of those largely isolated from its effects.
(I suppose you can make the argument that if there are enough financial penalties for dumping the waste, then the decision to recycle will eventually be seen as more profitable. The reality, however, is that this simply doesn't happen - fines are either not applied or otherwise evaded, which makes this argument fall flat for me - though your mileage may vary)
That wouldn't work. You know it, I know it. In order to exert pressure, they need to be getting a significant portion of the votes and seats. As much as people might like to believe otherwise, the public doesn't care that strongly about the environment, issues like the cost of living tend to override it on a national level. They haven't been able to get significant support in the past, and nothing suggests they would be able to. They won't get more support as a single issue party. It's a total non-starter.
What has worked is when people don't see the Tories as an option and don't see Labour as an option for wider political issues, such as the child benefit cap, housing, the economy, etc then voters have considered other alternatives, such as the Greens. This has been quite clear the past couple of years. In fact, I think their issue to an extent is that people still seem to think of a single issue party. You're trying to force this image on them and it's just not true. The environment is not the only issue that the mainstream perception needs to be challenged.
UKIP got Brexit with only a couple seats. The idea is that if they are able to influence the narrative enough, it puts on pressure regardless of seats.
UKIP in 2015 seemed to get 12.6% of the vote at GE. Their support was probably localised and also FPTP, so one seat. They gained support because the EU was scapegoated for issues with immigration, austerity and so on. However, with that portion of the vote, the Tories saw them as a threat, so in an attempt to neuter UKIP they promised the referendum, but some underestimated the displeasure many people felt at these issues, others exploited it, so we got Brexit.
Now, how are the Greens supposed to scapegoat the Environment for falling living standards, high housing costs, and so on and so forth? They would need to generate real anger. How do they do that?
> I seriously think the Greens should become a single issue party and campaign solely on the basis of the environment
problem is them being against nuclear power which is some of the cleanest energy we have at the moment.
remember fusion is 5-10 years away 20 years ago.
Their whole image is faked and built out of hype alone. I know of someone who joined them post Corbyn exile but have rejoined Labour since because the Greens were so toxic internally. They don't actually want to be in power, just perpetual opposition so they can screech about shit. They have a bunch of socially regressive nimbys who just want to avoid building anything near their holiday homes, under the pretence of environmental concern.
That's why being a practical left winger, I would never vote for them. They're a junkball party.
I can totally believe this. There are many, many people who appear to love bitching about everything, who love to have an enemy, a cause to protest about. They're not interested in solutions.
Vote Labour/Lib dem where they have a chance to win, even if their policies don't match your aspirations it's better to kick the tories out. Don't take the polls for granted, Labour are not guaranteed anything until after votes are counted.
If everyone is apathetic, we will end up with another tory government and generations of regret.
***"we want to make Britain greener"***
*Excellent thanks, what is the plan?*
***"Firstly, let's close down all nuclear power plants and block any new ones"***
*great, any other policies?*
***"Not yet, got to look further up my own arshole for some"***
Should we build some solar panels to replace that nuclear power?
**Absolutely, renewables are the future**
Awesome. How about here?
**No**
Here?
**Also no**
"Third, we'll actively promote agricultural practices that result in lower yields, higher pesticide use and higher CO2 emissions. We'll also actively campaign and demonise agricultural practices that do the opposite of these things. Well.... well because the former makes me feel better about myself, you see".
Their original policy in 2019 was no new nuclear because even they realised it was needed to fight climate change, and then slowly phase out once Net Zero goals had been achieved. I didn’t agree with that policy but they could definitely still win my vote (living in a safe Tory seat that year you kind of just vote whoever you want), and thought it was a good compromise when compared with other green parties such as the one in Germany.
Their new goal is no nuclear. Not only is that vague and probably completely unachievable but it will at least in the short term increase reliance on fossil fuels as fossil fuels are the only other resource that can reliably produce energy at any time of year while renewables can’t fill the gap until enough energy storage is provided. The Green manifesto is definitely distinct from the others which is a good thing, for all the wrong reasons.
Anti-imperialism, except if Russia's doing it, in which case it's fine.
Pro-environment, except when it comes to one of the cleanest forms of energy, in which case it must be opposed.
Supports a strong society, except you can't build anything.
What exactly is the point of this party?
The Greens are a moronic extension of student politics
Quite why a political party that values the environment is opposed to nuclear power makes me think they aren't serious.
It's the cleanest, safest and most reliable power source we have today.
Couple with their general thoughts that we should either use less or pay more at the expense of the poorest in society, or even at the expense of the enjoyment of society, is absurd.
And their overriding principle that everything should be looked at with the primary lense of the environment, rather than human life/progress is just silly.
If their policy was to invest heavily into R&D for green energy/storage so the UK would be a world leader in this see stuff but in the menatime they invested in nuclear I wouldn't be against them.
With the UK being something like 1% of global emissions even if the UK disappeared overnight the world would still have a climate problem.
Being a leader in the technology that China, India, USA etc adopts is the way forward.
Not making energy more expensive through grand feel good projects that will mean people will have to choose between food or heating
If they weren't called The Green Party I don't think they'd get 1/10th the amount of votes.
They benefit massively from being a protest vote for people that just want action on climate change but haven't actually read the manifesto or seen how the Greens actively harm that agenda with their mental policies and rampant nimbyism
Having been under a green and Lib Dem council until last year they are truly awful, huge sums of money wasted on green stuff that didn’t work and now most roads in our area are in dire neeed of replacement as they stopped all road repairs to fund said green projects.
It’s all well and good to be green but not like they party are
“The whole program is predicated on the widespread leftist outlook that views the role of government as dictating exactly how the wealth of the country ought to be properly distributed”
Is this an argument against a fairer tax system? I don’t quite understand the criticism here.
You can have higher taxes on the rich without having the government directing the minutiae of the economy - for instance, by using wealth taxes to fund VAT cuts or a higher tax free allowance.
The Critic is the de facto media mouth piece of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a right wing think tank. So yeh, they don't like progressive tax systems or social programmes. Got to remember the inherent bias of all media publications.
I had a look through a few other articles. Anger does seem to be the overriding emotion.
Robert Hutton, the sketch writer, can be hilarious on Twitter at times.
I might vote Green, but it's a signal to the major parties that they can win my vote by having good environmental policies. I don't actually want a Green MP.
That has been exactly my logic voting green before, I suspect it’s more than half of their support.
I just wish there was a pro-nuclear, pro building stuff, techno-greens party. I’m worried that my candidate would take my Green support as a NIMBY signal instead of an environmental signal.
I think though, they'll look at the green policies, and decide you're an irrelevance, 'cos you're a NIMBY who cares more about anti-imperialism signalling than environmental concerns.
Given that it's a conservative magazine, founded by a member of the pro-Brexit ERG, that's not overly surprising.
The ERG influence also makes it difficult to take any accusations of "wishful thinking and dangerous naivety" seriously.
I couldn't finish this article. I'm always open to fair criticism of any political party and eager to learn something new, but the overly contemptuous tone undermines the substance of the author's points. If the they wanted to argue that the Green Party's policies are impractical, overly idealistic, and misguided, it would have been far more effective to simply say that directly instead of relying on derision.
NIMBYs 'R' us, you mean?
I don't take them seriously. I would say something like "they're well meaning" but their ideas are so damaging and idiotic, that I just don't think they are.
Not cuddly, super selfish weird anti-"imperialist" (of a sort of imperialism that hasn't existed for 100 years) NIMBY's, I think describing them as cuddly rather than reform-like crazy is part of the problem.
Against nuclear yes, which is controversial within the party and I'm increasingly not a fan.
The manifesto includes the desire to build '80GW of offshore wind, 53 GW of onshore wind, and 100 GW of solar by 2035.'
I'm not saying the point they're making about the Greens is entirely wrong but...
"The Critic is a monthly British political and cultural magazine.[3] Contributors include David Starkey, Joshua Rozenberg, Peter Hitchens and Toby Young.[3"
I wouldn't wipe my arse with any publication with that list of contributors.
Also, https://x.com/lucaajwatson
Not much discussion in this election about the catastrophic effects we're now seeing.
Ask the main parties about this and you'll get the usual faff.
I imagine almost a majority of the population is resigned to some kind of collapse.
Thing is the Greens don't offer an alternative. They oppose nuclear power and high speed rail which could transform the country to fight the climate crisis. They generally oppose development of renewable power sources at a local level.
They are basically middle class tory nimby's who want to do some climate virtue signalling. In my local council the greens are in a coalition with the tories because their views on many issues are aligned.
I don't think the majority of the population is resigned to collapse at all. They probably see [headlines like this](https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/uk-carbon-emissions-fall-to-lowest-level-since-1879-lkc3r2rjk) and think we're doing pretty well at reducing emissions.
>Not much discussion in this election about the catastrophic effects we're now seeing
We are not seeing "catastrophic" effects. We are seeing broadly what we would expect for around 1.2C of warming from the preindustrial.
We do see storms, but people have to be careful to not confuse dramatic footage on the news meant to hype things with the broad experience of people.
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy)
People are wealthier, healthier, better fed and have vastly more access to health care, clean water and other utilities than ever.
We are concerned about climate change because it will slow or even reverse those trends in the coming decades when we get above 2C warming. And if action was not being taken we could have been looking at 3-4C warming in the longer term.
>I imagine almost a majority of the population is resigned to some kind of collapse.
Britain has a good chance of hitting net zero by 2050, Labours plans are to accelerate wind power and likely will continue or accelerate nuclear.
>It’s interesting that any politicians that have any social conscience are vilified by the right wing media
This is just self pity, not willing to admit flaws in a party and just lying and pretending everything they want is just wonderful and lovely.
All political parties have cranks who associate with them. The Greens far from being an exception and neck deep in middle class anti science woo and seem to have a weird soft spot for Islamofascism.
The greens manifesto may have been very wishful thinking in terms of public spending, but their general ideas are (mostly) alright (except for immigration). Their wealth tax idea policy is actually a very good one.
Their energy policies are shit, their migration policies are insane (and I say that as someone who's more relaxed than most on immigration), their military policies are actively dangerous, and there's a smorgasbord of ridiculous smaller policies (10:1 pay ratio being one example but there are loads). They do at least admit to the need for tax rises, but they're severely understating the extent of them.
They're a party with no chance at power. These types of parties, wherever you are, tend to have manifestos littered with nonsense policy. Not only nonsense policy, but in so many areas. This is not unique to them, it's boringly typical.
If they were to suddenly get 25 MPs (they won't, but if) then I imagine you'd find a lot of the policies suddenly getting more serious for the next election.
Because as you get closer to having to actually put your plans into action, and as your sources of funding get more diverse, those plans tend to get more serious and less single issue.
I agree except for their energy policy, yes phasing it nuclear seems crazy now but it’s more of a long term plan to prevent any future disasters (especially as they could be targets in a future conflict). Offshore wind along with sand batteries could provide enough power for the entire nation quite easily.
They are against nuclear power - I disagree with that.
They are against GMO - I disagree with that.
But I'm still going to vote for them because climate change is the most important issue we're facing and the other parties aren't doing enough.
I was planning on voting green, I voted green back in 2015 and locally and fully expected to again... until I read the manifestos.
Lib Dems is better in almost every way if you are left leaning. Money is well financed and not borrowing insane amounts of money overnight.
Lib Dems have an insanely progressive manifesto, are looking to make steps to rejoin the EU etc. Greens want to end the nuclear deterrent while Russia are threatening to nuke half of Europe 5 times a week.
Nuclear energy has also got a lot cleaner and I'd rather that than more oil and gas.
Lib Dems have an incredibly positive and forward thinking manifesto while still living in the real world.
I mean... if they're going to actively oppose things that will directly contribute positively towards reducing emissions like nuclear power and GM, then it's a push to think they'll be able to actually achieve their goal.
If they actively block energy sources that would relieve dependence on fossil fuels, the biggest reasons for climate change, why would you trust them to do this nationally?
The Lib Dems have better stances, as do Labour.
That seems counterintuitive. You would vote for a party against things that will be essential in dealing with climate change ? Lib dems make more sense.
One of my biggest issues is their soft support for the secessionist movements in June UK which really doesn't get spotlighted a lot. It probably would it thru began to grow considerably bigger.
As a natural supporter of the Greens, I'm always eager for pieces that critique their politics and policies in thoughtful, careful and constructive ways.
This felt like more of a standard-issue election attack piece (fair enough at the moment). There was some very reasonable stuff, like pointing out an attitude to nuclear power that isn't as pragmatic as I'd like. Much of it, though, could have been a hastily bashed-out Reddit post with an angry sneer on the writer's face.
[Full disclosure though: I probably wouldn't mind that sort of thing if it was directed against the Tories, so I'm not consistent (though I wouldn't enjoy lazy attacks on Labour, the Lib Dems or the SNP; I think all can be contributors to progress in their way).]
The author is a student at Bristol Uni, so there may be an edge of the unhelpful bile that both local parties have directed at each other in their battles over the past few years. My fluffy desire is for Greens and climate-focused Labourites and others to work harmoniously together, in an effort to help us ride out the horrors to come.
>Instead of “simply calling for more policing”, the Council provided “emergency bleed kits and staff training for night-time venues” alongside more street lighting and CCTV. The Greens therefore favour discontinuing more traditional and empirically effective approaches, calling for an end to “traumatising tactics like stop and search” and the use of facial recognition software. So police will be stopped from searching for and seizing knives, but when you do get stabbed you can rest assured that the first aid will be excellent.
Garbage article, but I think this paragraph shows why. No evidence presented showing the the idea doesn't work. Just a vague call to common sense, and the blind assertion that crime can only be solved by more police, more conflict, and more prosecutions.
At this point I'm convinced the Green parties everywhere are just a fifth column.
Not for Russia, China or anybody else in specific. They just hate their own countries and people. The US greens hate America, the UK greens hate the British, The German greens hate Germans.
If aliens invade and start exterminating humanity I bet the Greens would support them 100%.
Snapshot of _The Greens are worse than useless: Their reputation for being nice if a touch naive is far too generous_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/the-greens-are-worse-than-useless/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/the-greens-are-worse-than-useless/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>They indulge in superstitious thinking over the “unacceptable risk” nuclear poses to “the communities living close to facilities”, You know you're hardcore as a Green movement when you're spouting crap that even *George Monbiot* disowned as damaging and unscientific bollocks [more than ten years ago](https://web.archive.org/web/20110409001858/http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/). >as well as claiming that civilian nuclear energy generation is “inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons”. WTAF. Guys, if the *Japanese* of all people can use civilian nuclear power without particularly associating it with nuclear weaponry, I'm sure we can manage.
Their stance on nuclear matters alone means I could never seriously consider voting for them. You have their complete opposition to nuclear power, which is one of the most important tools we have for generating the energy we need while reducing CO2 emissions. Flat-out refusing to consider nuclear power as part of our long-term energy strategy is anti-science and runs counter to their own goals. When it comes to nuclear weapons, I can understand them not liking them on philosophical grounds, but they cloak this in complete nonsense about how having them 'makes us more of a target' than not having them. Which is so clearly the opposite of reality that it makes them look stupid.
>'makes us more of a target' A really good counterpoint to this argument is the declassified [Seven Days to the River Rhine Soveit warplan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine) The war plan was published by the Polish after the end of the Cold War - Poland was a member of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, and so was privy to the actual planning the Soviets had for a war with the west. The key factor in the exercise is that the Soviets *planned* to use nuclear weapons during their invasion of Europe - ~~invoking "first use", these weren't used in response to other nations attacking the Soviets first with nuclear weapons~~ - and using them liberally against targets in central Europe especially. They stopped short of using them against Britain and France *specifically because both countries had an independent deterrent!* The theory at the time was that although the US was a nuclear guarantor of many countries in Europe (through NATO), they would be hesitant to actually use them if the Soviets hadn't attacked the US homeland. So you had a situation where the USSR introduced nuclear weapons, used them against countries that *don't* have an independent deterrent (but do have NATO membership) and they explicitly avoided nuking countries like the UK. **Edit:** This comment is popular but I have misremembered the article I quoted. The plan states that this war plan from the Soviets presumes a nuclear attack on the Warsaw Pact (not on the USSR specifically). This is fair as the Soviets had a **no-first-use** policy in place during the Cold War. This is because the Warsaw Pact had a major quantitative edge over NATO, and it was assumed they therefore had conventional superiority and wouldn't *need* to use nukes first. NATO had no such policy for the opposite reasons. Therefore, it is reasonable for a plan from the Soviets' perspective to presume first use by the other side regardless of *how* the fighting in Europe started. I don't think this takes away from the core point at hand - the USSR in this wargame, as operations unfolded and as *they* employed their own nuclear weapons still restrained themselves from employing nuclear weapons against France and the UK *because* those countries had their own nuclear arsenals.
Tactical use of nuclear weapons is technically doctrinal in Russia to this day. And if you want an example of the opposite of what the Greens claim, Ukraine willingly gave up its nuclear arsenal and look at what's happening now. Not saying that the two are equivalent, just pointing out that there's evidence directly disagreeing with nuclear deterrent making a country more of a target.
This needs to be said extremely loudly for everyone to hear. The Greens manifesto planning to avoid nuclear power and scrap Trident to make us "safer", given the context of Ukraine being a power that surrendered their nuclear deterrent and is now being invaded, is just indefensible. It's total pie-in-the-sky nonsense, it's almost unbelievable to even suggest it. You've been more tempered than me - I found it completely outrageous, and it tarnished their entire manifesto and party. I can't see them as anything other than dangerously ignorant and naive after seeing that policy alone.
On a counter point to this; the Israeli situation shows that Nuclear Weapons are basically useless *(except as a nuclear deterrent)* Israel has been attacked many many many times by conventional weapons by a variety of foes. Nuclear weapons do not stop others attacking you with conventional weapons. For me, personally, I think having what are essentially borrowed US nuclear weapons to be pretty stupid. We should never have given up our own ones. The US political situation will not always be stable and relying on them so heavily is a mistake. Especially when our record of test fires recently is dreadful. Still, I'm not suggesting we develop new ones.
That's one way to look at it, though another is that despite prior bitter hostilities in the region they have also managed to establish diplomatic relations and relative peace since 1973 shortly after ramping up its nuclear capabilities. Since then they've only been involved in asymmetrical conflicts with isolated militias and groups which have very little value placed on self-preservation. I'll agree it doesn't do much to stop that, just as the US nuclear arsenal wasn't a deterrent to 9/11.
But arguably the only way they established diplomatic relations is by being fully unconquerable - might as well make peace with them if they have nukes because we can’t contemplate actually beating them
Indeed, but an out-and-out complete assault from Russia (or China, etc) is very unlikely to begin with. What is far more likely is terrorism, sabotage, etc. Or a third party state, backed by a super power, engaged us in conflict over such and such. After all, once again, our nuclear weapons did not stop Argentina taking the Falklands, nor did they stop the IRA. Let me tell you the truth. There are three 'super powers' in the world today; Russia, China and the USA. The USA would happily engage in a proxy war against Russia or China (Vietnam, Korea, Ukraine) and Russia/China would happily engage in a proxy war with the USA (Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc). No one will attack the other directly but indirectly is fair game. If Russia can find a good excuse to cause mayhem here, they will. You can imagine scenarios like the apparent perspective of minorities here causing an attack from a third country to protect their citizens. Or who knows. But the US won't necessarily defend us. Remember that they didn't approve of the Falklands war. Remember they didn't support us Vs the IRA. I don't mean to bucher the point but we cant assume we can rely on the USA. That's not to say we shouldn't be their allies, of course we should, but who knows what will happen politically over there. We should also deepen our alliances with Europe. If there is an EU army, we should join that (regardless of whether we are in the EU). Alliances, erasmas, Eurovision, ryan air and easy jet.
Hey, you say that the soviets planned to use nuclear weapons invoking first use, but the article you link says the opposite - "The scenario for the war was NATO launching a nuclear attack on Polish and Czechoslovak cities in the Vistula river valley area in a first-strike scenario, which would prevent Warsaw Pact commanders from sending reinforcements to East Germany to forestall a possible NATO invasion of that country." Am I missing something?
You're correct - I've misremembered without re-reading the whole article. The USSR *did* maintain an official "no first use" policy throughout the Cold War. This is because the Soviets maintained at quantitative edge over NATO during this time. As such, war plans from their side naturally *would* presume that nuclear weapons are introduced by the other side. I still think this war-plan demonstrates the importance of a country having their own independent deterrent, and the USSR still resists using nuclear weapons against other nuclear-armed states in this plan, despite being in all-out conventional war with all of NATO.
>The theory at the time was that although the US was a nuclear guarantor of many countries in Europe (through NATO), they would be hesitent to actually use them if the Soviets hadn't attacked the US homeland. It's amazing how little the Soviets understood the U.S during the cold war. The U.S would've most likely retaliated in the same fashion, no strikes on Russia proper, but other Warsaw Pact countries and Ukraine, Belarus and probably Azerbaijan would've been hit in retaliation.
GM foods policies too
Their position is an absolute forehead-smacking one in that it completely flies in the face of the established scientific consensus yet they're happy to retain it. Whereas when it comes to climate science, their position (rightly) is that we absolutely must follow the science. The sheer double-standard of it is astounding.
Oh good grief! Are they really against GM crops? I thought everyone had moved on after it came to light how flawed that first sensationalised gm food rat experiment was… I hesitate to ask, but are they anti-vax as well?
they also oppose NATO if you need another reason, they only very recently changed their public view to "reforming" rather than dismantling it after Russia invaded Ukraine
The issue is that all parties have stances that mean I should never seriously consider voting for them, but I've gotta vote for someone.
It's a simplified analogy but think of voting like getting a bus, not a taxi. Get the one that gets you closest to your ultimate destination, even if it's not perfect and goes around the houses. It's better than someone else putting you in a cab in the wrong direction.
This is another issue with FPTP. Not only does your vote generally not count when voting for a third party, it also reduces the number of parties who choose to stand for fear that they will split the vote with similarly minded ones. The electorate's political opinions can be complicated & nuanced and yet we have to vote for such *broad* parties, who's policy has to please as much of the population as possible or else face defeat on polling day.
Not only that, but unless the party's candidates have a history of success or near success (or their predecessors did), few people will seriously consider voting for them anyway.
Gee I wonder which party is campaigning on electoral reform
This is the jam in the sandwich
I feel the same way, for a long time I thought about just spoiling my ballot, but instead I’ll probably not pay much attention to the party at all and just vote for the candidate I like the most/dislike the least, which I guess is what you’re supposed to do anyway. It’s almost a three way tie according to polling between Conservative, Reform, and Labour in my seat, which has been a huge Tory safe seat since the 1850s. So for the first time voting might actually make a difference even still under FPTP.
This is pretty much where I'm at. I was considering spoiling my ballot, but then I could be spoiling my ballot for any number of reasons. If I vote Green that at least sends a message of why I haven't voted for any of the candidates with a chance of winning.
It annoys me to no end. I remember reading through the party manifestos during the local election that was in 2021 or something. I was reading through the green party one, and I was agreeing with every single thing I had read, thinking that there is finally a party that doesn't just represent things that I disagree with. I then read that they want to get rid of our nukes, and immediately disregarded voting for them. Of all of the stances that a leader could have, reducing the power and actively making their constituents more vulnerable to being attacked is one of the most insane ones I have ever heard in my life. They didn't even have anything on there about being opposed to nuclear energy. That's also insane. Nuclear energy and renewables are hand in hand in my mind as the way to push towards a greener future.
>I can understand them not liking them on philosophical grounds, but they cloak this in complete nonsense about how having them 'makes us more of a target' than not having them. Which is so clearly the opposite of reality that it makes them look stupid. They also proposed that we completely disband our army and replace all our army bases with flower meadows. In the face of rising Russian aggression in Europe and the general sentiment about Russia amongst the far left, it seems very cynical that they want to leave our country undefended.
> Flat-out refusing to consider nuclear power as part of our long-term energy strategy is anti-science and runs counter to their own goals. Exactly this. They care more about banning/decommissioning nuclear power generation than they do about carbon emissions or renewable energy, which is weird, because climate change is literally their whole thing. They should just rebrand as the anti-nuclear party, because that's what they are and they are helping to ensure that we keep using fossil fuels for decades longer than needed by doing the oil and gas companies dirty work for them when it comes to disavowing nuclear energy and spreading misinformation about it.
What if I told you, they are anti-nuclear because they want us buying Russian oil and gas? The whole anti-nuclear movement is a Russian PsyOp.
Or it could be because it makes just as much sense to invest in Wind, Tidal or Solar energy. That's their actual policy, they're not suggesting we increase imports of Russian oil and gas. Nice little theory though
The issue is that wind, solar and tidal cannot take care of all the UKs energy needs on their own. You need something else to hold the baseline, and nuclear is the best option for that.
Tidal is baseload power, this isn't true. There are technologies that allow solar to price baseload power too. Tidal is very expensive at the moment though. Although so is nuclear.
Wind probably could.
Not really no. Baseload generation is required to do two things in an energy grid: reduce the volatile range and keep as much of the infrastructure energised as possible, *and* provide a powerful, predictable, and reliable 50Hz sine wave that every other generator you're bringing in can sync to. Wind turbines ah... Don't have a totally consistent and reliable rotational rate. Like ever. Tidal, hydropower and nuclear are basically your options for low carbon baseload generation - in theory you could build your baseload out of energy storage systems (batteries, compressed air, or pumped hydro), but I'm not sure I'd want to try cold starting a grid from that.
Where was Wind/Tidal/Solar 40 years ago? Didn’t exist, but Nuclear was well established.
They reject nuclear power because it's too expensive. It's an economic reason, and this is the reason they will give when asked. I'm sick of people assuming they don't like it for some irrational reason, when actually the reason is very simple. Wind is cheaper.
I think there's an important distinction between nuclear power and nuclear research - as far as I'm aware the greens are in favour of fusion research and work to make nuclear processes safer with safer by products. They just don't want current fission plants to be built when we could be building off shore wind and local renewables in huge quantities with that money. The two methods are unlikely to be compatible without a lot of battery storage or additional on-demand energy production like gas, so I don't blame them for wanting to focus on the greener alternative, whether or not I personally agree.
>They just don't want current fission plants to be built when we could be building off shore wind and local renewables in huge quantities with that money. > >The two methods are unlikely to be compatible without a lot of battery storage or additional on-demand energy production like gas, so I don't blame them for wanting to focus on the greener alternative, whether or not I personally agree. A mix of intermittent renewables and nuclear needs storage or dispatchable generation like gas. Intermittent renewables on their own require much more storage or dispatchable generation, nuclear on its own much less. Over the last month, the amount of electricity generated in a day in the UK: |Type|High|Low| |:-|:-|:-| |Nuclear|113 GWH|100 GWH| |Wind|299 GWH|22 GWH| |Solar|77 GWH|38 GWH| The lack of affordable storage technology is a reason (the main reason, in fact) for choosing nuclear instead of wind and solar.
Mark Jacobson of Stanford (https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html) explains a roadmap to transition to 100% Wind Wave and Solar. Storage includes electricity, heat, cold, and hydrogen storage. Electricity storage options include hydropower, pumped hydropower, batteries, CSP with storage, and hydrogen fuel cells. This is totally without any fossil fuels or nuclear. The plan in Scientific American in 2008 was for 100% WWS by 2030; this has been updated in subsequent years and with more detailed analyses.
> if the *Japanese* of all people can use civilian nuclear power without particularly associating it with nuclear weaponry, It is commonly understood that Japan is "two token screw turns away" from making nuclear weapons, all the tech, know-how and materials are there. They have stopped just short for political and geopolitical reasons - they can rapidly become a nuclear power if the situation demands.
And they really should, given the way US politics is devolving. It's unthinkable that North Korea has the bomb while its two closest enemies do not.
George monbiot is a good example of how you can change your mind when confronted with new evidence.
>WTAF. Guys, if the Japanese of all people can use civilian nuclear power without particularly associating it with nuclear weaponry, I'm sure we can manage. Any lack of association in japan is purely political. While it probably isn't quite "one screwdriver's turn" from a bomb its isn't far off either. In the UK's case the connection is even more dirrect with the old magnox design only making sense if you want them to be able to make weapons grade plutonium. But we already have nuclear weapons so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Their stance on nuclear is a legacy of them coming from CND, which was soviet funded active measures.
Sat through a nuclear talk by the greens when visiting a family friend. Had to stop myself asking what the geiger counter readings were, when they were showing shaky footage of a goods train they reckoned had been carrying fissile material to a generator. (And what the background was in that spot for the hour before. And whether they had had a banana in their bag.)
3.6 not great not terrible /s i've seen geiger counters lower next to nuclear casks compared to normal sun levels.
The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimshaw!
I wish we'd listened to that boy instead of walling him up inside the old coke oven
It’s also much less true for modern, PWR- type designs than for the UKs earlier gas-cooled ones.
The Soviet Union's greatest psyop was linking nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. They did it to keep gas and oil prices from collapsing even further than they did in the early 80s because they were so dependent on commodities exports by that time. Imagine how better the world would've been if the whole of Western Europe followed France's example in investing in nuclear energy.
Historically they were linked. The UK's MAGNOX, Soviets VVERs and RBMKs and the American Gen I PWRs were all initially designed to produce plutonium with power being a "free" byproduct.
What risk ? I used to live "close" to a facility and there was no record of any abnormal medical conditions in the area.
nuclear is quite literally cleaner than coal and gas ffs.
The Green party are absolutely fucking useless. They Oppose Nuclear and Green Energy Solutions if it's in their back yard... I will never, vote green until they actually get a backbone and approve/fund/build green energy alternatives at a local level.
Have you seen their policy on cars? Like sure I know they’d want to bring in EVs quicker but 2027 is fucking mental And then banning the USE of combustion vehicles after 2035 is going to generate so much scrap and leave people with worthless cars that they can’t sell to buy an EV And then road pricing…. Let’s prevent the poor from travelling. They have some good policies but they don’t nearly outweigh the bad ones
It all starts to make sense when you consider that many on the (far) left in favour of policies like this are, ironically, very well off and struggle to understand how the 99% live. To them it's very simple. Just buy an EV, take the bus, cycle to work, get the train, move closer to work etc. They simply don't *get* it. There also seems to be a sort of selective sympathy at play with a lot of them. They're vehemently pro working class...until the working class dares disagree with them on something, at which point they can get fucked and be told what's actually best for them.
Exactly! Owen Jones is a perfect example of living a comfortable life and judges people that vote labour… and if you noticed the pattern, many on the far left are quite wealthy so they don’t struggle under the tories.
I think this is a major point, a lot of people on the (far) left proclaim to be sticking up for the working class but they themselves are upper middle class and do not have to live with the consequences of certain policies. In regards to immigration it’s all very well for them to claim we should have open borders and everyone should be welcome but it’s not their neighbourhoods or estates that see an influx of migrants who can’t speak English.
Another thing I don't see discussed very often is the environmental and social impact of building EVs. Where are we getting all this lithium from this quickly? The immediate jump to "oh we'll just have billions of EVs" is a product of the same thoughtless and reckless attitude to Earth's natural resources, and our ability to extract them and the human cost associated, that got us into this mess in the first place. Yes EVs are going to have to be part of the solution, but there has crept in this attitude of "the more EVs the more green it is" and I just can't support that
> Where are we getting all this lithium from this quickly? mining somewhere else if not child mined too.
Lithium is pretty plentiful. The most positive sounding one to me (I'm no expert) is probably the plants for extracting it from the Salton Sea in California; it's a contaminated salt lake, where there's also geothermal activity and lithium-rich brine underneath it, so there's plants getting built that pump up the brine, use it to generate geothermal electricity that powers a plant that extracts the lithium, and the area's contaminated to begin with so they're not ruining a pristine area or anything and potentially taxing it will give them a way of paying for restoring the area. Mines are damaging, particularly for extracting the lithium from the mined materials, but so is the oil drilling and refining industry. Also, each EV's battery lasts for many years and people are starting to build facilities for recycling. It still needs to get better, but the issue is it being expensive to dismantle them not that it's impossible to recycle. Obviously it's better if everyone gets on an electric train or even an EV bus, than each having an EV car, but reducing road and car dependency is a long and difficult process and EVs are a major improvement on where things are and I think it's a case of letting perfect get in the way of good. I think there's certainly scope for encouraging smaller and more efficient electric vehicles over monstrosities like the Hummer EV, though.
Can’t even sell them to Europe because they’re all right hand drive lol
All I ask is for being able to buy a car powered by a micro nuclear reactor. Ultimate green solution. No fossil fuels, no third hand emissions from generating the power for an EV. Just years and years of power on the same tank. Scrappage *might* be a bit of a bitch though.
Road pricing is a good policy.
As someone who commutes 80 miles a day I’m sorry I just can’t get behind road pricing, I think its an absolute joke, we are already penalised by paying more for insurance which isn’t common elsewhere
On the contrary, motorists are currently subsidised. It is an 'absolute joke' that the form of transport that is the least efficient, least inclusive, most environmentally destructive and harmful to public health is the mode that is subsidised. We need a huge modal shift away from cars to walking, cycling and public transport. Road pricing is one tool to help encourage that.
But how does that help people who commute 50 miles a day in the countryside? Until public transport is as quick, convenient and as instant as a car, there will always be a requirement for private transport. In the cities with high population density then it's achievable and as someone who used to live in a well populated area, I never actually needed to get a license because there was always some form of public transport available. Wasnt worth the hassle or cost of getting a car because I had a choice of bus/train/metro system. I now live rural because of my job and there is nothing that even compares to it. I actually tried to work out a way to get to the city nearest me recently, and it would have taken 3 hours on public transport. To get somewhere 30 miles away. By the time I got there, I would have had to leave within an 2 hours tops to get the last train back. Rural communities in this country are isolated and cars are the only methods to go from places to place. I didn't really understand that until I moved out here, sounds like you're the same tbh
I think that it's right that people who choose to live inefficiently should bare some of the extra costs of that choice. It makes no sense to subsidise unsustainable choices.
The only reason why Green had an increase of membership is because of the Gaza stance. If you noticed on twitter, labour supporters get ridiculed by the further left for not supporting Green because they support Palestine. Yet if they actually read Green’s fantasy policies, then they would realise why the majority of the british public would not vote for them. Corbynistas are also very loud on social media, declaring they moved on to the green party. Just look at the labour subreddit that has users stuck on the 2015-19 corbyn era and are advocating for people to not vote labour but Green… You also have Owen Jones, telling people that Labour automatically won and that the tories are toast so vote green… yet you can’t automatically win if no votes have been casted. If you look at Labour’s electoral history, you would notice that whenever they had a further left as the leader of the party, they would suffer massive defeats. 1983 Michael Foot and 2019 Corbyn are massive examples.
I seriously think the Greens should become a single issue party and campaign solely on the basis of the environment at a national level, and local issues at a local level. It would broaden their support and they may actually be able to be a proper pressure group
HS2 is a perfect example of where this starts to break down. The Greens are against it on the basis that it causes “environmental damage”, but not building it leads to people seeking less environmentally friendly modes of transport. There’s no simple answer to what is environmental protection.
I agree that there isn't a simple answer to environmental protection. That being said, HS2 is not one of those complexities. The simple reality is that there are lots of naive, environment obsessed voters who think any destruction of nature in any capacity is a tragedy to be avodied at all cost. They genuinely believe the world would be better if stopped using fossil fuels, banned the driving of cars and somehow also not build replacement mass transit.
>The simple reality is that there are lots of naive, environment obsessed voters who think any destruction of nature in any capacity is a tragedy to be avodied at all cost. Or more cynically, use it as a figleaf to justify their objections to homes & infrastructure being built in their area, disrupting their comfortable lives, hurting their house prices, the prospect of "unfamiliar" people moving into the area. Case in point, they want to turn a derelict warehouse into housing in my town, a lot of people are using nutrient runoff/environmental concerns to stymie the proposal - yet they don't say a peep about the local farmers burning plastic, dumping x100 more crap into the river than this project would do.
Local vs global environmental struggle
They blocked a solar farm near me recently. I question wether they actually give a shit about the environment.
This is also why I hard disagree that they should campaign at the local level for local politicians, climate change is an international issue and should take the highest importance. In the end they block solar farms because it “removes greenery” which is in fact large areas of grass nobody uses than contribute a net jack shit in terms of biodiversity and carbon storage, most of which will be kept anyway. Plus the Greens blocking an offshore solar farm because they didn’t like the “developer led model” just shows how ideological they can be when it comes to economics.
There was a candidate in Derbyshire who had a policy of objecting to any new "Tidal and Offshore wind" projects Derbyshire if you don't know is landlocked
>Derbyshire if you don't know is landlocked Presumably though they'd be in the UK Parliament which might have votes on those issues? The MP for Shetland can still vote on "we should build more train lines" even though there are no trains up there
I think it was during the locals Regardless you have the a green rejecting renewable energy
They want to keep it all as it is an whenever human interests run counter to the environment, humans have to back down every time. They think we can return to an idyllic agricultural commune style of life that never actually existed (that's where "greens" come from, a localist agricultural communism vs the "reds" national or international industrial communism.). They are as loopy as the tankies for mostly the same reason, but their end-of-history state is an easier sell, so people don't see how batshit mental they are.
I totally lost it with the Greens years ago when they were opposing the building of a tram line where there were some trees The trees had been allowed to grow on land set previously aside for tram lines that just didn't happen for FAR too long. But now there were trees there the Greens opposed building the tram line. Just insane.
I would very much like a party like that to exist - but at this point if you pushed the Greens on being a single issue party they would probably pick a culture war issue (or Gaza). They are taking up the space where we could and should have a genuine party that is about the climate emergency and being there prevents any such party being formed.
I don't really see it happening. You'd need a leader with a strong backbone to not bend to all the inevitable bullying that would come out. Accusations of being a genocide enthusiast for not nailing Gaza colours to your mast, which unserious, uncritical people would lap up.
Just had a look at my local green candidate, as every other pamphlet i've had through seems to think i live in Palestine (you can guess my area's demographics) Green candidates front full page "permanent ceasefire now" Looks like i won't be voting as my options are now reform (even the local tory is green and black flags) not that i'd ever vote for either of them, or an independent that makes reform look like the peace core. Literally nobody to vote for where i am that isn't playing infantile politics over a far away conflict i couldn't give a fuck about.
I recently saw some advertising for the 'Climate Party' but they don't seem to have much traction yet.... Hopefully by the next election they're a more significant force!
Agreed. I'd like to push Labour harder on climate commitments, but the Greens are just beyond the pale batty.
***"pale batty"*** As in, a white arse?
Haha, I think they mean batty as in crazy 😂
I think I was awaiting a coffee when I put that sentence together. But, yes
Almost like Reform in a way, their political stances are totally unviable (their views on destroying the entire Gilt market and making Liz Truss seem like an economic mastermind for example) but because of immigration they've got huge support. Sometimes focusing on one thing and one thing only is more viable.
For that to happen they would need to a lot more in touch with scientific thinking and policy. I'm not sure the current green party is all that interested.
A friend of a friend was involved with formulating the Greens' health policy a while ago. Apparently it was a struggle to get everybody on-board with dropping the commitment to homeopathy.
"The Environment" means different things to different people and many points are contradictory. For some it means keeping things looking the same as they've always looked. Grassland stays as grassland, forest stays as forest, towns are towns. For some it means ending fossil fuel consumption.Which might mean nuclear power, or wind and solar. Some want electric cars, some want railways, some want bikes. Some believe housing should be high density, built with high carbon concrete, others want low density housing, built with sustainable materials. How do we condense the environment to a single issue?
I mean they're all contained within environment issue. Other left wing issues shouldn't have aa much prevalence
Environmental issues are intersectional: you can't have genuine solutions without considering the related social, cultural and economic issues. It's impossible in a complex 2024.
Yeah but things like looking at gender relations isn't really relevant
You could have environmentally conscious policies whilst not opposing nuclear power, maintaining an existing nuclear deterrent and without opposing solar farms (as some Green candidates have done.) I would say that climate change is such a big issue we do need a broad tent approach to it, and sadly the Greens are not that, but they could be with a bit more pragmatism.
If they had any understanding, knowledge or interest in the environment that would make sense. As it goes right now they are ignorant, uneducated misanthropes.
Yes, that's what they should be. But they also have a very strong NIMBY element, especially on the local level, and a romantic anti-science streak. I am not sure whether that can be avoided - it just comes with the territory.
if the greens got behind a single issue it would probably be Gaza at this point, the environment is an afterthought in their mess of a party
That’s sort of what they’ve been doing, but it doesn’t work very well. As soon as one a local level MP is elected then they have to vote on national level issues.
I guess the issue is there's a few different ways to fix the environment. It can be done with technology and pursuing rapid growth while fixing the incentive structures within capitalism, or it can be done by reducing demand and degrowth.. plus.. socialism? I think the latter is absolutely potty because the implications on global population and I have never seen a convincing argument on how it relates to workers owning the means of production, but that broadens the scope quite significantly to economic questions too
Indeed, you can't just have an "environmentalist" party, because everyone wants something completely different - especially when local and global ecology are at odds with each other (a common problem which is perhaps best seen with HS2). And whilst some matters will be agreed to on both sides (both sides will agree that our annual decision to set national parks on fire so hunters can shoot at grouse ought to stop), there are many approaches which simply fail to be compatible with each other. And heck, even people generally on the same "side" of the divide on prioritising local vs global will disagree with each other (Nuclear Power is generally the big one here). That being said, as someone who thinks that "capitalism and growth will somehow 100% guarenteed create the technology to survive" is objectively more potty than "live within our means and distribute resources more effectively", I'm going to do something that the Green Party really needs to, and posit a basic argument on why worker ownership is linked directly to ecology. Like, you might not find it convincing, but you have effectively asked for one! Imagine a factory along a river - it converts resources into widgets and waste. The waste is unavoidable - so there's a question of how to handle it. We can either recycle it, or dump it into the river, where local kids like to play in the summer. Dumping it is definitely cheaper though - even though it'll spoil the local area. If the factory is owned by the workers, then I'd put decent money on the workers deciding that spending the money to recycle the waste is worth having the natural rivers for their kids to play in. There is a direct and natural consequence to the environmentally poor choice that would impact everyone involved. However, if the factory is owned by a wealthy person who lives in a different town, the scenario is quite different. The wealthy person has no inherent interest in protecting the local environment, so they will choose the cheapest option - this causes long-term environmental damage. Essentially, if you have worker-ownership of the means of production, the incentives for avoiding ecologically damaging behaviour are far more real and far more respected than if the ownership of the means of production is held in the hands of those largely isolated from its effects. (I suppose you can make the argument that if there are enough financial penalties for dumping the waste, then the decision to recycle will eventually be seen as more profitable. The reality, however, is that this simply doesn't happen - fines are either not applied or otherwise evaded, which makes this argument fall flat for me - though your mileage may vary)
That wouldn't work. You know it, I know it. In order to exert pressure, they need to be getting a significant portion of the votes and seats. As much as people might like to believe otherwise, the public doesn't care that strongly about the environment, issues like the cost of living tend to override it on a national level. They haven't been able to get significant support in the past, and nothing suggests they would be able to. They won't get more support as a single issue party. It's a total non-starter. What has worked is when people don't see the Tories as an option and don't see Labour as an option for wider political issues, such as the child benefit cap, housing, the economy, etc then voters have considered other alternatives, such as the Greens. This has been quite clear the past couple of years. In fact, I think their issue to an extent is that people still seem to think of a single issue party. You're trying to force this image on them and it's just not true. The environment is not the only issue that the mainstream perception needs to be challenged.
UKIP got Brexit with only a couple seats. The idea is that if they are able to influence the narrative enough, it puts on pressure regardless of seats.
UKIP in 2015 seemed to get 12.6% of the vote at GE. Their support was probably localised and also FPTP, so one seat. They gained support because the EU was scapegoated for issues with immigration, austerity and so on. However, with that portion of the vote, the Tories saw them as a threat, so in an attempt to neuter UKIP they promised the referendum, but some underestimated the displeasure many people felt at these issues, others exploited it, so we got Brexit. Now, how are the Greens supposed to scapegoat the Environment for falling living standards, high housing costs, and so on and so forth? They would need to generate real anger. How do they do that?
They’re policies are not even remotely Green though
> I seriously think the Greens should become a single issue party and campaign solely on the basis of the environment problem is them being against nuclear power which is some of the cleanest energy we have at the moment. remember fusion is 5-10 years away 20 years ago.
See that wouldn't be a Green Party, Green politics is basically rebranded socialism.
Their whole image is faked and built out of hype alone. I know of someone who joined them post Corbyn exile but have rejoined Labour since because the Greens were so toxic internally. They don't actually want to be in power, just perpetual opposition so they can screech about shit. They have a bunch of socially regressive nimbys who just want to avoid building anything near their holiday homes, under the pretence of environmental concern. That's why being a practical left winger, I would never vote for them. They're a junkball party.
I can totally believe this. There are many, many people who appear to love bitching about everything, who love to have an enemy, a cause to protest about. They're not interested in solutions.
But if not the greens, what other left wing party is there to vote for?
If your Scottish or Welsh than the answer is easy, if you’re not then it’s a bit harder
Vote Labour/Lib dem where they have a chance to win, even if their policies don't match your aspirations it's better to kick the tories out. Don't take the polls for granted, Labour are not guaranteed anything until after votes are counted. If everyone is apathetic, we will end up with another tory government and generations of regret.
I can't vote for Starmer, lib dems I guess, maybe.
My God. I feel like there's no one to vote for. I like my local Labour MP. But I am aghast at Kier Starmer's Red Tories.
***"we want to make Britain greener"*** *Excellent thanks, what is the plan?* ***"Firstly, let's close down all nuclear power plants and block any new ones"*** *great, any other policies?* ***"Not yet, got to look further up my own arshole for some"***
Should we build some solar panels to replace that nuclear power? **Absolutely, renewables are the future** Awesome. How about here? **No** Here? **Also no**
In *MY* back yard!? Fuck off!
"Second, we won't invest in any public transport infrastructure!"
"Third, we'll actively promote agricultural practices that result in lower yields, higher pesticide use and higher CO2 emissions. We'll also actively campaign and demonise agricultural practices that do the opposite of these things. Well.... well because the former makes me feel better about myself, you see".
Their original policy in 2019 was no new nuclear because even they realised it was needed to fight climate change, and then slowly phase out once Net Zero goals had been achieved. I didn’t agree with that policy but they could definitely still win my vote (living in a safe Tory seat that year you kind of just vote whoever you want), and thought it was a good compromise when compared with other green parties such as the one in Germany. Their new goal is no nuclear. Not only is that vague and probably completely unachievable but it will at least in the short term increase reliance on fossil fuels as fossil fuels are the only other resource that can reliably produce energy at any time of year while renewables can’t fill the gap until enough energy storage is provided. The Green manifesto is definitely distinct from the others which is a good thing, for all the wrong reasons.
Anti-imperialism, except if Russia's doing it, in which case it's fine. Pro-environment, except when it comes to one of the cleanest forms of energy, in which case it must be opposed. Supports a strong society, except you can't build anything. What exactly is the point of this party?
The Greens are a moronic extension of student politics Quite why a political party that values the environment is opposed to nuclear power makes me think they aren't serious. It's the cleanest, safest and most reliable power source we have today. Couple with their general thoughts that we should either use less or pay more at the expense of the poorest in society, or even at the expense of the enjoyment of society, is absurd. And their overriding principle that everything should be looked at with the primary lense of the environment, rather than human life/progress is just silly. If their policy was to invest heavily into R&D for green energy/storage so the UK would be a world leader in this see stuff but in the menatime they invested in nuclear I wouldn't be against them. With the UK being something like 1% of global emissions even if the UK disappeared overnight the world would still have a climate problem. Being a leader in the technology that China, India, USA etc adopts is the way forward. Not making energy more expensive through grand feel good projects that will mean people will have to choose between food or heating
If they weren't called The Green Party I don't think they'd get 1/10th the amount of votes. They benefit massively from being a protest vote for people that just want action on climate change but haven't actually read the manifesto or seen how the Greens actively harm that agenda with their mental policies and rampant nimbyism
Having been under a green and Lib Dem council until last year they are truly awful, huge sums of money wasted on green stuff that didn’t work and now most roads in our area are in dire neeed of replacement as they stopped all road repairs to fund said green projects. It’s all well and good to be green but not like they party are
Thankfully it's moot as they've got zero chance of ever having to implement their batshit policy platform.
“The whole program is predicated on the widespread leftist outlook that views the role of government as dictating exactly how the wealth of the country ought to be properly distributed” Is this an argument against a fairer tax system? I don’t quite understand the criticism here.
"Fairer tax system" doesn't mean "the state gets to spend all the surplus money".
You can have higher taxes on the rich without having the government directing the minutiae of the economy - for instance, by using wealth taxes to fund VAT cuts or a higher tax free allowance.
The Critic is the de facto media mouth piece of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a right wing think tank. So yeh, they don't like progressive tax systems or social programmes. Got to remember the inherent bias of all media publications.
I like progressive tax systems, I don’t think pulling £150 billion out of your backside is a responsible way to run a country
I like progressive tax systems, I don’t think pulling £150 billion out of your backside is a responsible way to run a country
Being against nuclear is unelectable.
I don't know what 'The Critic' is, so I clicked it's headbanner. Top article? ' It's ok to be Angry about Socialism'. Yeah, I'm good thanks.
I had a look through a few other articles. Anger does seem to be the overriding emotion. Robert Hutton, the sketch writer, can be hilarious on Twitter at times.
I might vote Green, but it's a signal to the major parties that they can win my vote by having good environmental policies. I don't actually want a Green MP.
That has been exactly my logic voting green before, I suspect it’s more than half of their support. I just wish there was a pro-nuclear, pro building stuff, techno-greens party. I’m worried that my candidate would take my Green support as a NIMBY signal instead of an environmental signal.
I think though, they'll look at the green policies, and decide you're an irrelevance, 'cos you're a NIMBY who cares more about anti-imperialism signalling than environmental concerns.
out of curiosity, what party would you prefer as mp?
Probably Lib Dems, but they're hardly a perfect fit.
How is that a signal given the Greens are winning your vote while not having serious environmental policies?
This is a rather hyperbolic article that is hard to take seriously. 'Stalinist purges', yeah not quite
Given that it's a conservative magazine, founded by a member of the pro-Brexit ERG, that's not overly surprising. The ERG influence also makes it difficult to take any accusations of "wishful thinking and dangerous naivety" seriously.
I couldn't finish this article. I'm always open to fair criticism of any political party and eager to learn something new, but the overly contemptuous tone undermines the substance of the author's points. If the they wanted to argue that the Green Party's policies are impractical, overly idealistic, and misguided, it would have been far more effective to simply say that directly instead of relying on derision.
NIMBYs 'R' us, you mean? I don't take them seriously. I would say something like "they're well meaning" but their ideas are so damaging and idiotic, that I just don't think they are.
They are a protest vote party. Like Reform but for nice cuddly lefties instead of being horrid nasty right wingers.
Not cuddly, super selfish weird anti-"imperialist" (of a sort of imperialism that hasn't existed for 100 years) NIMBY's, I think describing them as cuddly rather than reform-like crazy is part of the problem.
Indeed With a few mad, nasty lefties mixed in
Those few write the manifesto, clearly
that britmonkey video opened my eyes, absolutely ridiculous party
They are always against green energy proposals, what is even the point of them?
Against nuclear yes, which is controversial within the party and I'm increasingly not a fan. The manifesto includes the desire to build '80GW of offshore wind, 53 GW of onshore wind, and 100 GW of solar by 2035.'
Yet they've refused / campaigned against a few wind and solar projects previously, one that comes to mind was in Derbyshire.
I feel like naive is better than corrupt, populist or fascist
I'm not saying the point they're making about the Greens is entirely wrong but... "The Critic is a monthly British political and cultural magazine.[3] Contributors include David Starkey, Joshua Rozenberg, Peter Hitchens and Toby Young.[3" I wouldn't wipe my arse with any publication with that list of contributors. Also, https://x.com/lucaajwatson
This seems like a very balanced and reasonable article…
I know we all hate to use it, but the /s might just be necessary there.
Absolutely not. No surrender to the /s.
Not much discussion in this election about the catastrophic effects we're now seeing. Ask the main parties about this and you'll get the usual faff. I imagine almost a majority of the population is resigned to some kind of collapse.
Thing is the Greens don't offer an alternative. They oppose nuclear power and high speed rail which could transform the country to fight the climate crisis. They generally oppose development of renewable power sources at a local level.
They are basically middle class tory nimby's who want to do some climate virtue signalling. In my local council the greens are in a coalition with the tories because their views on many issues are aligned.
And the carbon industry is delighted.
It really sucks. We need someone to build high density homes, rail links, and renewable power alongside nuclear.
I don't think the majority of the population is resigned to collapse at all. They probably see [headlines like this](https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/uk-carbon-emissions-fall-to-lowest-level-since-1879-lkc3r2rjk) and think we're doing pretty well at reducing emissions.
>Not much discussion in this election about the catastrophic effects we're now seeing We are not seeing "catastrophic" effects. We are seeing broadly what we would expect for around 1.2C of warming from the preindustrial. We do see storms, but people have to be careful to not confuse dramatic footage on the news meant to hype things with the broad experience of people. [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy) People are wealthier, healthier, better fed and have vastly more access to health care, clean water and other utilities than ever. We are concerned about climate change because it will slow or even reverse those trends in the coming decades when we get above 2C warming. And if action was not being taken we could have been looking at 3-4C warming in the longer term. >I imagine almost a majority of the population is resigned to some kind of collapse. Britain has a good chance of hitting net zero by 2050, Labours plans are to accelerate wind power and likely will continue or accelerate nuclear.
The only catastrophic effects are from degrowth doomers destroying our economy.
You think fanatical degrowth green politicians are in charge of the country?
[удалено]
>It’s interesting that any politicians that have any social conscience are vilified by the right wing media This is just self pity, not willing to admit flaws in a party and just lying and pretending everything they want is just wonderful and lovely. All political parties have cranks who associate with them. The Greens far from being an exception and neck deep in middle class anti science woo and seem to have a weird soft spot for Islamofascism.
Which particular point/s in the article did you find misleading?
The greens manifesto may have been very wishful thinking in terms of public spending, but their general ideas are (mostly) alright (except for immigration). Their wealth tax idea policy is actually a very good one.
Their energy policies are shit, their migration policies are insane (and I say that as someone who's more relaxed than most on immigration), their military policies are actively dangerous, and there's a smorgasbord of ridiculous smaller policies (10:1 pay ratio being one example but there are loads). They do at least admit to the need for tax rises, but they're severely understating the extent of them.
They're a party with no chance at power. These types of parties, wherever you are, tend to have manifestos littered with nonsense policy. Not only nonsense policy, but in so many areas. This is not unique to them, it's boringly typical. If they were to suddenly get 25 MPs (they won't, but if) then I imagine you'd find a lot of the policies suddenly getting more serious for the next election. Because as you get closer to having to actually put your plans into action, and as your sources of funding get more diverse, those plans tend to get more serious and less single issue.
I agree except for their energy policy, yes phasing it nuclear seems crazy now but it’s more of a long term plan to prevent any future disasters (especially as they could be targets in a future conflict). Offshore wind along with sand batteries could provide enough power for the entire nation quite easily.
They are against nuclear power - I disagree with that. They are against GMO - I disagree with that. But I'm still going to vote for them because climate change is the most important issue we're facing and the other parties aren't doing enough.
Friends of the Earth just rated the Lib Dem manifesto excellent. Just because the greens have a green rosette they aren’t the only people that care.
I was planning on voting green, I voted green back in 2015 and locally and fully expected to again... until I read the manifestos. Lib Dems is better in almost every way if you are left leaning. Money is well financed and not borrowing insane amounts of money overnight. Lib Dems have an insanely progressive manifesto, are looking to make steps to rejoin the EU etc. Greens want to end the nuclear deterrent while Russia are threatening to nuke half of Europe 5 times a week. Nuclear energy has also got a lot cleaner and I'd rather that than more oil and gas. Lib Dems have an incredibly positive and forward thinking manifesto while still living in the real world.
I mean... if they're going to actively oppose things that will directly contribute positively towards reducing emissions like nuclear power and GM, then it's a push to think they'll be able to actually achieve their goal.
If they actively block energy sources that would relieve dependence on fossil fuels, the biggest reasons for climate change, why would you trust them to do this nationally? The Lib Dems have better stances, as do Labour.
That seems counterintuitive. You would vote for a party against things that will be essential in dealing with climate change ? Lib dems make more sense.
One of my biggest issues is their soft support for the secessionist movements in June UK which really doesn't get spotlighted a lot. It probably would it thru began to grow considerably bigger.
As a natural supporter of the Greens, I'm always eager for pieces that critique their politics and policies in thoughtful, careful and constructive ways. This felt like more of a standard-issue election attack piece (fair enough at the moment). There was some very reasonable stuff, like pointing out an attitude to nuclear power that isn't as pragmatic as I'd like. Much of it, though, could have been a hastily bashed-out Reddit post with an angry sneer on the writer's face. [Full disclosure though: I probably wouldn't mind that sort of thing if it was directed against the Tories, so I'm not consistent (though I wouldn't enjoy lazy attacks on Labour, the Lib Dems or the SNP; I think all can be contributors to progress in their way).] The author is a student at Bristol Uni, so there may be an edge of the unhelpful bile that both local parties have directed at each other in their battles over the past few years. My fluffy desire is for Greens and climate-focused Labourites and others to work harmoniously together, in an effort to help us ride out the horrors to come.
>Instead of “simply calling for more policing”, the Council provided “emergency bleed kits and staff training for night-time venues” alongside more street lighting and CCTV. The Greens therefore favour discontinuing more traditional and empirically effective approaches, calling for an end to “traumatising tactics like stop and search” and the use of facial recognition software. So police will be stopped from searching for and seizing knives, but when you do get stabbed you can rest assured that the first aid will be excellent. Garbage article, but I think this paragraph shows why. No evidence presented showing the the idea doesn't work. Just a vague call to common sense, and the blind assertion that crime can only be solved by more police, more conflict, and more prosecutions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"We want the very richest in society to pay a little more tax" turns out that means 8% more NI for anyone on over £50k. They can get f\*\*\*ked, tbh.
Excellent critique of the greens. Totally unserious party, of course.
I don't feel as if a piece that ends with the word 'cretins' is an especially serious or constructive critique.
You are free to read the rest.
Hah, good response. I thought those final words summed up the tone of the whole quite effectively.
At this point I'm convinced the Green parties everywhere are just a fifth column. Not for Russia, China or anybody else in specific. They just hate their own countries and people. The US greens hate America, the UK greens hate the British, The German greens hate Germans. If aliens invade and start exterminating humanity I bet the Greens would support them 100%.