UK Politics

[lost]

6 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Greens are just nimbys. This country desperately needs to start building stuff and the greens oppose everything and anything. 

 

Not just on the green stuff. Aren't their immigration policies the same? Let lots of people come but don't build any new housing, roads etc..

[fraybentos1]

14 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Not just on the green stuff. Aren't their immigration policies the same? Let lots of people come but don't build any new housing, roads etc..

They're also staunchly anti nuclear power which is daft. Take Germany for example, the Greens crying about nuclear led to them having to burn more coal. 

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

2 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

I don't think that can be described as lying 🤣

 

hmmm, any proof or examples of this? or just plucking it out of thin air as you usually do?

if its that important to you, you can google for it to prove yourself wrong.

 

As someone who lives here and takes an interest, i know what they've said at elections since 2010.

 

i also saw the bullshit they gave this time, stuff like claiming every candidate was as good as Caroline Lucas - i don't remember Lucas's anti semetic speeches.

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

As someone who lives here and takes an interest, i know what they've said at elections since 2010.

You are wrong about almost everything though to be fair

 

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

i also saw the bullshit they gave this time, stuff like claiming every candidate was as good as Caroline Lucas

political party says their candidates are great - what a shock!

[Neil]

4 hours ago, mattiloy said:

 

the greens will say anything  stuff like claiming every candidate was as good as Caroline Lucas - i don't remember Lucas's anti-semetic speeches. 😛 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

You are wrong about almost everything though to be fair

 

political party says their candidates are great - what a shock!

its still a lie against the facts: if Lucas had been giving AS speeches she wouldn't have the big rep she has. i don't free pass anything, i'm not that dumb.

[steviewevie]

 

[fraybentos1]

16 minutes ago, Neil said:

i don't free pass anything, i'm not that dumb.

I've yet to see you criticise any Labour party candidate to the same level of scrutiny... almost like you have a weird agenda

 

oh wait maybe Corbyn and Abbott but that's it... 

[steviewevie]

Reeves lifts ban on onshore wind...

[steviewevie]

 

[lazyred]

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

 

Our local ex Tory MP (yey) campaigned against pylons and turbines and it won her some support.

I do wonder how the UK is going to sort the future cos everybody wants electicity but nobody wants to see the stuff that delivers the electricity.

There are many ways to do it - the exisitng ways which are mostly what National Grid are pushing being those hated by most or new ways of offshore grid stations and burying cables. The latter has problems of it's own as the machinery to do it is massive and will rip apart our countryside.

All the issues have been known about for a long time - but nobody in power has bothered to do anything about them.

The main problem with burying cables is t costs 7X more. I actually like pylons and wind turbines but those that don't will have to suck it up.

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

shows the two sides of Green party...the nimbyism that helps them win in rural tory seats against the radical net zero policies that helps them win in places like Bristol.

Yeah this. As someone who voted for and has supported them in Bristol, I have a very cautious view of them more nationally. They've always courted a NIMBY vote in rural Tory seats, and I didn't and still don't see that changing.

 

Labour attack them on NIMBYism here, but over the last 5 years the Green councillors have voted for more home building projects than Labour. The 3 they didn't vote for, 2 of them had scaled back their % of affordable flats, and the other one was for yet more "luxury student flats" by a developer whose pockets were open to Rees' grubby corrupt hands.

 

I do think every party has at least 2-sides to them that show up in different seats. The Greens aren't any different in that. 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Yeah this. As someone who voted for and has supported them in Bristol, I have a very cautious view of them more nationally. They've always courted a NIMBY vote in rural Tory seats, and I didn't and still don't see that changing.

 

Labour attack them on NIMBYism here, but over the last 5 years the Green councillors have voted for more home building projects than Labour. The 3 they didn't vote for, 2 of them had scaled back their % of affordable flats, and the other one was for yet more "luxury student flats" by a developer whose pockets were open to Rees' grubby corrupt hands.

 

I do think every party has at least 2-sides to them that show up in different seats. The Greens aren't any different in that. 

well it depends on their constituencies...there will be Labour MPs now in areas that will not like all these new houses/turbines/pylons being built...but Labour have the luxury of having a big majority and some time...which is why got to get going now...

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

Got to feel sorry for Jon Ashworth, that should be him.

[Nobody Interesting]

22 minutes ago, lazyred said:

The main problem with burying cables is t costs 7X more. I actually like pylons and wind turbines but those that don't will have to suck it up.

 

Agreed.

The other problem the UK has is that we need the new capacity very fast and having done little or nothing to enhance the grid time is now too limited to do what is really needed.................. that being brand new power grid stations which can be set off shore so no new on land structures to carry the power needed in most places but they take longer to build, though are cheaper to build.

A shame we had so many years of 'let's put it off' mentaility. Let's hope that5 changes.

I find it bizarre that many protesting against pylons live in homes that have had pylons in their views their entire lives and nobody was bothered - now they seem bothered cos some politician suggested the ought to be. Good job electricity is not something ew cos we would all be living by candlelight for decades as people campaigned to stop anything  being built anywhere.

[kaosmark2]

5 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Got to feel sorry for Jon Ashworth, that should be him.

I don't tend to feel sorry for racist bullying c**ts. This is a huge improvement.

 

One thing to mention about Shockat Adam, is that while he's an independent candidate, he and several other local independent councillors held a hustings and a selection process to decide who would run against Ashworth, and then rallied behind him as a team. This wasn't Galloway's thugs, this was a coordinated local response to have a centre-left candidate not badmouthing a large section of the local community.

[Nobody Interesting]

26 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Yeah this. As someone who voted for and has supported them in Bristol, I have a very cautious view of them more nationally. They've always courted a NIMBY vote in rural Tory seats, and I didn't and still don't see that changing.

 

Labour attack them on NIMBYism here, but over the last 5 years the Green councillors have voted for more home building projects than Labour. The 3 they didn't vote for, 2 of them had scaled back their % of affordable flats, and the other one was for yet more "luxury student flats" by a developer whose pockets were open to Rees' grubby corrupt hands.

 

I do think every party has at least 2-sides to them that show up in different seats. The Greens aren't any different in that. 

 

So much of what people think of parties is governed by what they read about them - all over the place stories are written about how the Greens 'tried to stop/or did stop something' but rarely, if ever, stories about how much they have done.

I disagree with some of what they oppose but fully support opposition to housing that is just more 4/5 bed luxury homes excluding anything small and 'affordable'.

I saw a while ago visitor stats for their policy documents on their website - so so low....................... so how do all these people who 'know all about their policies' actually know when it is likely they have never bothered to read past some headline?

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

So much of what people think of parties is governed by what they read about them - all over the place stories are written about how the Greens 'tried to stop/or did stop something' but rarely, if ever, stories about how much they have done.

I disagree with some of what they oppose but fully support opposition to housing that is just more 4/5 bed luxury homes excluding anything small and 'affordable'.

I saw a while ago visitor stats for their policy documents on their website - so so low....................... so how do all these people who 'know all about their policies' actually know when it is likely they have never bothered to read past some headline?

I agree.

 

Locally here, there's been about 15 major (over 100 flat) buildings/complexes that have been pushed for since Labour lost their council majority. The main things Greens have done opposing them, is holding the building developers to their commitment on what % should be "affordable housing". Bearing in mind that the previous three from when Labour had had full control, had been approved at 40% affordable housing, and when they finally got built they only had 5-10%, and Labour just said "oh well, that's good enough, at least it's more housing", and didn't push the developers to stick to their commitments from when it had first gone for planning permission. Every "Greens stop housing developments being built in Bristol" story of the past 8 years, has actually been, if you go into the details on the local papers or council motions, "Greens make developers stick to 20% affordable housing by revoking planning permission when developers don't want to do that".

 

There are times I've read more into it and just classed them as NIMBYs, more in Oxfordshire than here, but plenty of them do seem pretty damn good on the detail.

 

Although I wish they'd stop opposing Nuclear power.

[zahidf]

Im guessing the SNP's collapse in Scotland puts their whining about a second referendum on the backburner

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Im guessing the SNP's collapse in Scotland puts their whining about a second referendum on the backburner

depends how the scottish parliament elections go I guess.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Im guessing the SNP's collapse in Scotland puts their whining about a second referendum on the backburner

 

They've got a massive rebuilding job to do. There's still a lot of resentment amongst older generations of Scots towards Swinney personally for the ferries scandal. Then the younger supporters who are socially liberal detest their backwards thinking homophobic deputy leader. They're also absolutely broke, they'd already had all the corruption stuff under Sturgeon, and now their Westminster funding for total MPs has gone down from ~£1.6m to ~300k.

 

Add in the Tories holding all 5 of their Scottish seats (or did they lose 1 gain 1?), and SNP didn't make gains against anyone. And this is with Lib Dems not even focusing any campaigning up there. Having reclaimed the South West, I'd expect the Lib Dems to look at their former long-established Scottish seats as future targets.

[Nobody Interesting]

15 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I agree.

 

Locally here, there's been about 15 major (over 100 flat) buildings/complexes that have been pushed for since Labour lost their council majority. The main things Greens have done opposing them, is holding the building developers to their commitment on what % should be "affordable housing". Bearing in mind that the previous three from when Labour had had full control, had been approved at 40% affordable housing, and when they finally got built they only had 5-10%, and Labour just said "oh well, that's good enough, at least it's more housing", and didn't push the developers to stick to their commitments from when it had first gone for planning permission. Every "Greens stop housing developments being built in Bristol" story of the past 8 years, has actually been, if you go into the details on the local papers or council motions, "Greens make developers stick to 20% affordable housing by revoking planning permission when developers don't want to do that".

 

There are times I've read more into it and just classed them as NIMBYs, more in Oxfordshire than here, but plenty of them do seem pretty damn good on the detail.

 

Although I wish they'd stop opposing Nuclear power.

 

Even on more 'educated' pilitical forums like this place there are those who just grab the innacurate headline and throw it out there as some kind of proof and will not listen or take notice of anything - I think some are really scared of things that are just a tad different!

I like their opposition to nuclear - dirty and dangerous and in a world of more and more terrorism why give them ever more targets to cause maximum harm with minimal effort. It is expensive and takes far too long to come on line so as there are cheaper quicker ways we really should use those and once more than enough is up and running and 'storage' systems such as generating hydrogen from excess electricity and then burning that to create elecricity when needed then and only then can we start to decommission nuclear we have now.

It is very possible and remarkable cheap to do - if we wanted.

[lazyred]

41 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

that being brand new power grid stations which can be set off shore so no new on land structures to carry the power needed in most places but they take longer to build, though are cheaper to build.

This is a geniune question. How is the power transmitted without cables? Is it just there are lots of offshore/near shore facilities nearer where the power is needed so the cable runs are shorter?

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Even on more 'educated' pilitical forums like this place there are those who just grab the innacurate headline and throw it out there as some kind of proof and will not listen or take notice of anything - I think some are really scared of things that are just a tad different!

I like their opposition to nuclear - dirty and dangerous and in a world of more and more terrorism why give them ever more targets to cause maximum harm with minimal effort. It is expensive and takes far too long to come on line so as there are cheaper quicker ways we really should use those and once more than enough is up and running and 'storage' systems such as generating hydrogen from excess electricity and then burning that to create elecricity when needed then and only then can we start to decommission nuclear we have now.

It is very possible and remarkable cheap to do - if we wanted.

it was originally about pylons, not housing.