General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
A lot of handwaving going on here, and motivated reasoning too. I'm voting Green in May but that doesn't mean I have to believe they are perfect. They do and have done a lot of dumb things. I voted Labour in 2024 and I criticised them at the time and still do now. Not sure why people need to support parties like football teams.
One thing I have to give Labour credit for (Ed Milliband in particular) is their Net Zero policies. They really are doing the hard work of decarbonising our country.
One thing I have to give Labour credit for (Ed Milliband in particular) is their Net Zero policies. They really are doing the hard work of decarbonising our country.
Miliband is the only thing keeping me sane. Well, him and the renters' and workers' rights bills.
green development gets blocked
The Greens control 12 councils and the only example the article brings up of the Greens blocking development is the pylon thing is Suffolk. While wrong, I don't think it's enough to say it's a systemic issue with the party.
There are lots of other examples of them blocking or voting against development, including green development, but often as they're in opposition it's not enough to block it entirely (or they team up with whoever the local blockers are and so only contribute to, rather than cause, the problem).
Their default position on everything is 'This is good, but not perfect, so we're going to vote against it', which then leads to nothing happening or just to bizarre contradictions. It's not just housing and pylons, either: look at their position on HS2 and it's the same thing: 'More public transport! But not that.' Or even on the oil and gas crisis it's the same thing, with them now arguing that the government should subsidise scarce fossil fuel resources (which is baffling on its own), but not do anything to increase our own production (which is a contradiction). Again, it's 'Do this, but not like that' and the default to stasis.
Sure, the Green party has a historic current of conversationalist small-c conservatives who are only Greens because they want to keep landscapes pretty. Doesn't help that the only council the Greens have a majority in (Mid Suffolk) is held by that faction, but that will almost certainly change in May. Every party has cranks, but they do stand out a lot more and have a lot more influence in the Greens due to how small the party has historically been. Just look at the 'natural births' thing the Greens only dropped in the run up to the 2024 General Election.
Hopefully the Greens with all the momentum behind them now can leave most of that stuff behind, Polanski himself has come out in support of pylons and the people in my local Green party are from this new wave and are pretty sensible, so I have hope.
arguing that the government should subsidise scarce fossil fuel resources
No, they argue that the government should provide support to cap people's energy bills. This unfortunately means paying for fossil fuels, but that's just the nature of our current energy grid. Reeves has announced intentions to provide support for energy bills as well, they're just less broad than the Greens proposal and will mean people on the over whatever threshold the Treasury decides don't get the support they likely need. Do you think it'd be fair to brand the Labour government as subsidising fossil fuels when these measures are actually announced?
A caveat: The Greens proposal only really makes sense when done along with the Greens proposed broad tax rises.
but not do anything to increase our own production
Unless you're arguing for fracking, North Sea drilling won't bring in enough gas to meet our needs or even affect the price very much. We'll still need to buy most of it from Norway and arguing over domestic production is frankly a distraction.
No, they argue that the government should provide support to cap people’s energy bills. This unfortunately means paying for fossil fuels, but that’s just
In practical terms, this is the same thing! I agree with you that Reeves' proposal is equally as foolish. The government should leave it alone and spend the money on direct financial support for the poorest people.
Conservatives (and the FT are very muchsmall-c conservatives) are starting to panic because the Greens are in with a chance. Expect much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth in the next few weeks.
I agree that the Greens are not only in with a chance but near-certain to make huge gains in the local elections. But given their propensity for blocking necessary changes, I imagine they'll garner a lot of small-c conservative support themselves!
Populists gonna popul.