UK Politics

3084 readers

80 users here now

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.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

Greens keep it short and sweet to avoid the don’t-want-to-knows (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Patch@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The more people find out about the Green party’s policies, the more they tend to switch off. So today’s campaign launch was over in 15 minutes

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AngusTheNerd@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which would make perfect sense if there was some way of adding '... but don't count my vote if it makes electing the Labour candidate less likely' to your ballot. As it is, the effect of voting Green is to make a Labour government, and therefore any effective action on climate change, less likely. So, your real choice is: A Labour government, that does something (even if it's less than you'd like) or voting Green and handing government back to the Tories, and getting nothing (which is definitely less than you'd like).

I agree, which is why I'm voting Labour in a Conservative stronghold. Granted they would still be the largest party after losing those 4 seats, even if they don't reach majority they'd still be able to make a coalition, most likely with the Lib Dems.

And right now, when Labour are promising to decarbonise the grid by 2030, which may well be impossible, it's especially absurd to insist they do 'more'. 'More' than borderline impossible?

That claim by Labour probably has about 10 caveats that would further delay proper decarbonisation.

We also need to decarbonizing everything, not just the grid. Get people out of cars and onto bikes/transit, switch vehicles to renewables, reduce plastic use and meat consumption etc. Pledges for these would require action that would antagonize the majority of Labours voter base so they'll never make any of substance.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

That claim by Labour probably has about 10 caveats that would further delay proper decarbonisation.

It doesn't. It's all well and good being sceptical but not about information that is freely available!

We do need to decarbonise everything, but the grid is the main thing. For example, there's no point putting everyone in new electric vehicles if they're powered by a carbon intensive grid, so it's absolutely right to prioritise fixing that first.

Labour is investing in public transport and cycling everywhere it's in power, which is exactly what we want. You are right about the difficulties of the voter coalition, but the voter coalition that would back green policies even better than these already very good policies is too small for any party to win power with their backing alone. Labour is doing as much as it possibly can given those constraints.