It’s a bad situation because the SNP are net disappoved on almost every area in every metric, but almost certain to win again. That’s a recipe for major discontent.

The SNP has been really good at building windfarms, got to give them credit there. I’m still pro some nuclear, as a back-up when it’s still and cloudy (or just night time - long nights in the Scottish winter!), especially because solar panels are less useful at that latitude, so you’re really reliant on wind.

I’m not sure what to make of it because it seems good but the campaigners sound nonplussed in the article! But, yes, I agree that it’s seismic if implemented.

I’m all in favour of optimism. However, the reason Labour is failing to build homes is that there are real, difficult barriers to building enough homes, and those barriers will still exist if the Greens win.

Trump starting an open war with China is well and truly a possibility ATM.

It is possible but I think he’ll wuss out.

EDIT: Just had a vision of a gravestone with

Western Civilisation

?-2026

“I Think He’ll Wuss Out”

carved into it.

There is no reason to doubt the veracity of this story.

No problem at all! The Greens in the UK often vote against building things, including eco-friendly deveopment. They argue that they’re in favour in principle, but then find reasons to oppose specific developments over and over again. This is known as ‘nimbyism’, which comes from the phrase ‘Not In My Back Yard’ used when people say things like ‘I am in favour of (e.g.) new homes but not in my back yard’.

My comment was intended to convey my scepticism that a party that keeps opposing building even green infrastructure is now going to build a lot of new housing, as they claim here. Even at the event, Polanski made comments about opposing new developments if they didn’t meet certain nebulous standards, which is a classic nimby tactic!

I read somewhere that even the much-mythologised white working class voted Green in the recent Manchester by-election, so the whole culturally conservative thing seems to be much overblown.

i work for a council housing dept so am biased but i do really believe that a strong social housing sector is the best way to to start reducing the cost of housing & cost of living overall

I agree with you here! I just worry their track record suggests that they’d tend to block anything that didn’t meet an impossibly high standard.

I don’t know, just writing cheques would be popular, I think!

Yeah, the Polanski geezer is a conman and I’m amazed people can’t see it a mile off. I’ve seen deeper puddles.

The other thing I worry about is if they displace the Labour party as the main centre left force in the country, that would be regressive, in that the organised working class would no longer have any political power at all and the centre left would be represented by the petit bourgeoisie, essentially (which is who makes up most political parties, Labour included), without a workers’ voice. Polanski’s been talking to trade unions, sure - but so did David Cameron. It’s not the same as having a labour party.

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.

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.

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!

If it’s drawing conclusions from actual examples where they’ve been elected, it’s by definition not entirely speculative.

The FT article entirely fails to capture the balance that the Green Party tried to achieve between development and sustainability.

This is what everyone* wants to do. The point is that the Greens have a tendency to oppose development, including sustainable development. So, far from balancing the two, they end up achieving neither.

*Well, perhaps not Reform or the current Tories, but Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems and Plaid would all say this is what they want.

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.

The NIMBY party wants to focus on building, huh?

I don’t know the details, but I do remember people before the election saying that was likely to be a big stumbling block. Seems they were right, unfortunately!

You’re right and the government agrees with you! They’re doing all that but there are real limits to how quickly it can be done.

You’ve hit the nail on the head, there. The gas companies are betting that demand for gas won’t go away any time soon. If they’re right and they have the licences to extract it, they’ll still profit, even if the profits are smaller.