How the Greens have changed – politicalbetting.com

System

How the Greens have changed – politicalbetting.com

In 2019, one in ten Green voters was from the most progressive/left segment of voters; now that’s one in four. Big difference in policy preferences, priorities and pressure on the leadership, as we’ve seen in e.g reaction to Denyer’s Biden statement.

Read the full story here

Icarus

First -Like Harris and Walz

Icarus

Isn't the problem that Labour activists from the left of the Labour -some actually expelled - needed a party to play in and have adopted the Greens.

I wonder if similarly some Liberal Democrats will miss being in a fringe party with no power or money and join the Conservatives as they drop into insignificance in council elections and at the next General Election.

Taz

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

Fishing

FPT:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

ANECDOTE KLAXON

I had drinks tonight with an old lefty friend. Firmly Labour, and always has been

He was notably reluctant to defend Starmer. He was unaware of the varied discourse over the riots, so that wasn't a fact (he thought it was just football hoons having a go). Yet, still notably dispirited. He had no idea how Labour might make things better and no confidence they will, and admitted as much

That's quite striking, and he can be quite forceful if he really believes something. eg he was an impassioned Remainer

There is no enthusiasm behind Starmer. even his alleged supporters don't like him. The Tories, if they are clever, can sweep this putrid government away in one term

Shape up. Tories!

Do we expect the next set of local elections to be a GE hangover, and therefore bad for the tories, or the first green shoots of a recovery? Overall the tories kept hold of a surprising number of council seats over their years in national governent - many more than Labour did 1997-2010 for comparison.

I seriously believe the Tories can undo this pathetic Woke Labour government in one term. Starmer only got 33.7% on a shit turnout, this can be overturned in moments, and Starmer is a clueless nasal-voiced Woke twat like all his Cabinet, he won't fix anything, he will make most things worse

But the Tories need a really good leader, able to harness Reform voters yet stay centre right, and unfortunately I cannot see who that is - yet

I don't think that's necessarily true. If Labour f*ck up badly enough it won't matter much who the Conservative leader is or what they say. As you say, Starmer is a dismal politician with no judgement, vision or charisma but still trounced an exhausted, discredited government while Corbyn got within a couple of points of Theresa May. Obviously a decent leader helps, but if the government is dismal enough, people will give the opposition a shot.

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

Foxy

Early days, but there does need to be a voice for the formerly Corbynite left made homeless by timid yet authoritarian Starmerism.

It isn't any easier for Labour to recover these voters than for the Tories to pick up Reform voters.

Foxy

Be careful too of Green subsamples, the windfarm poll has only 141 respondents.

Additionally note that the 2019 Green vote was distorted by an electoral pact with Lib Dems over Brexit so a lot of that 2019 vote was LD voters rather than true Greens (and vice versa of course).

TheScreamingEagles

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

I think though you really Pict it just to annoy certain posters...

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

I think though you really Pict it just to annoy certain posters...

He's Scot a track record...

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

I think though you really Pict it just to annoy certain posters...

He's Scot a track record...

A Stirling reply.

Eabhal

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

Sandpit

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

BlancheLivermore

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

Whalley in Lancashire is the nearest settlement to the centre of mainland Britain

Sheffield is slightly to the south of Whalley

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

I think though you really Pict it just to annoy certain posters...

We ignore his childish attempts at humour

occasionalranter

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

I think though you really Pict it just to annoy certain posters...

We ignore his childish attempts at humour

Caledonia cannae condone ya

malcolmg

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

bondegezou

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Luckyguy1983

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. 1983, that does suggest Germany has the same earthquake/tsunami risk as Japan, which is not necessarily the case.

FeersumEnjineeya

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

squareroot2

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

I didnt take note of who wrote the above but a sentence in and it was absolutely clear as to who had....

TheScreamingEagles

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

It will be fascinating where Scottish independence supporters go.

I cannot see Alba getting much more than the 1.7% they received in 2021 so the Greens might do very well with those supporters.

FeersumEnjineeya

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

SandyRentool

The Green Party has become The Red Party.

Environmentalists, my arse. Shame.

SandyRentool

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

But doesn't Germany still use plenty of nuclear power, just as long as it is generated in another country?

Alanbrooke

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

If a tsumami took out the power stations in Bavaria nuclear would be the least of their problems

DavidL

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

Surely not. Their contribution to the SNP government was so catastrophically bad that they stood out clearly even against a background of SNP incompetence. The bottle recycling scheme which has cost tens of millions, the unnecessary deaths on the A9, the absurd rent freeze that gave Edinburgh the fastest rising rents in the UK and Patrick Harvie, a man so odious that words simply fail me.
The Scottish Greens gained considerably from the second vote for an alternative independence party but having destroyed the government of Yousaf (admittedly because of his own stupidity) I would not think that they would get the same again.

malcolmg

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

I get your point but our Greens are a lot worse than your average.

malcolmg

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

It will be fascinating where Scottish independence supporters go.

I cannot see Alba getting much more than the 1.7% they received in 2021 so the Greens might do very well with those supporters.

Only the ones with IQ's in single digits. The greens are not Independence supporters.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

Surely not. Their contribution to the SNP government was so catastrophically bad that they stood out clearly even against a background of SNP incompetence. The bottle recycling scheme which has cost tens of millions, the unnecessary deaths on the A9, the absurd rent freeze that gave Edinburgh the fastest rising rents in the UK and Patrick Harvie, a man so odious that words simply fail me.
The Scottish Greens gained considerably from the second vote for an alternative independence party but having destroyed the government of Yousaf (admittedly because of his own stupidity) I would not think that they would get the same again.

Ah, rent controls. Just about the only government policy that can be definitively proved to have failed every time it’s ever been introduced. Yet there are still politicians who like to think it can work.

HYUFD

In England and Wales and Scotland the green parties are largely socialist, socially liberal, republican and in Scotland pro independence too so for leftwingers who backed Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 and for whom Starmer is too centrist they offer an ideal home. Especially in England.

The LDs are also no longer an option for hard leftwingers as they were under Charles Kennedy after having been in a coalition government with the Tories

Sandpit

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

Which is nuts, as Germany isn’t exactly famous for earthquakes and tsunamis. Angela Merkel, with a doctorate in chemistry and an academic career as a scientist, should really have been able to explain this.

Benpointer

squareroot2 said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

I didnt take note of who wrote the above but a sentence in and it was absolutely clear as to who had....

Very true. Quite a few posters are easily identifiable from their posting style: HY, Dura, Pagan, Morris, AlanBrooke, Leon of course...

Dura_Ace

Benpointer said:

squareroot2 said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

I didnt take note of who wrote the above but a sentence in and it was absolutely clear as to who had....

Very true. Quite a few posters are easily identifiable from their posting style: HY, Dura, Pagan, Morris, AlanBrooke, Leon of course...

Don't lump me in with those shits. (HY excepted)

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pointer, I must disagree. My own posting style is as difficult to discern as the political arrangements between Anastasius and Theoderic.

Benpointer

Sandpit said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

Which is nuts, as Germany isn’t exactly famous for earthquakes and tsunamis. Angela Merkel, with a doctorate in chemistry and an academic career as a scientist, should really have been able to explain this.

The counter argument is that quite a few scientists and engineers with doctorates etc. were no doubt involved in the design and build of Fukushima.

Alanbrooke

Dura_Ace said:

Benpointer said:

squareroot2 said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

I didnt take note of who wrote the above but a sentence in and it was absolutely clear as to who had....

Very true. Quite a few posters are easily identifiable from their posting style: HY, Dura, Pagan, Morris, AlanBrooke, Leon of course...

Don't lump me in with those shits. (HY excepted)

How disappointing I always feel we have an affinity of expression

Alanbrooke

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

Which is nuts, as Germany isn’t exactly famous for earthquakes and tsunamis. Angela Merkel, with a doctorate in chemistry and an academic career as a scientist, should really have been able to explain this.

The counter argument is that quite a few scientists and engineers with doctorates etc. were no doubt involved in the design and build of Fukushima.

Which is in Japan not Germany

Benpointer

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pointer, I must disagree. My own posting style is as difficult to discern as the political arrangements between Anastasius and Theoderic.

Your classical references are a give away but the refusal to use blockquotes is the clearest indicator.

Did they not have blockquotes in ancient Rome?

geoffw

Benpointer said:

squareroot2 said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

I didnt take note of who wrote the above but a sentence in and it was absolutely clear as to who had....

Very true. Quite a few posters are easily identifiable from their posting style: HY, Dura, Pagan, Morris, AlanBrooke, Leon of course...

It is quite difficult to hide, like a person's gait that allows them to be recognised from afar

Sandpit

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pointer, I must disagree. My own posting style is as difficult to discern as the political arrangements between Anastasius and Theoderic.

Your classical references are a give away but the refusal to use blockquotes is the clearest indicator.

Did they not have blockquotes in ancient Rome?

Mr Dancer once replied to one of my posts, and I took a screenshot of it because it happens so rarely!

StillWaters

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Germany does not face tsunami risk

And it has not been invaded by Russia recently

geoffw

John Burn-Murdoch is surely the king of the telling graph, and his analysis of the watermelon party spot on

StillWaters

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

FeersumEnjineeya

Sandpit said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

Which is nuts, as Germany isn’t exactly famous for earthquakes and tsunamis. Angela Merkel, with a doctorate in chemistry and an academic career as a scientist, should really have been able to explain this.

The problem is that electorates are notoriously resistant to rational explanation. When Fukushima happened, Merkel's government was deeply unpopular, and Merkel was simply unable to resist the pressure of public opinion. Hence her about-turn on nuclear power.

Carnyx

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pointer, I must disagree. My own posting style is as difficult to discern as the political arrangements between Anastasius and Theoderic.

Your classical references are a give away but the refusal to use blockquotes is the clearest indicator.

Did they not have blockquotes in ancient Rome?

They did keep things short. Had to, doing their postings on bits of digital wood.

https://minimusthemouse.blogspot.com/2020/04/virtual-vindolanda-tablet.html?m=1

geoffw

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

switched back

Carnyx

DavidL said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

Surely not. Their contribution to the SNP government was so catastrophically bad that they stood out clearly even against a background of SNP incompetence. The bottle recycling scheme which has cost tens of millions, the unnecessary deaths on the A9, the absurd rent freeze that gave Edinburgh the fastest rising rents in the UK and Patrick Harvie, a man so odious that words simply fail me.
The Scottish Greens gained considerably from the second vote for an alternative independence party but having destroyed the government of Yousaf (admittedly because of his own stupidity) I would not think that they would get the same again.

"fastest rising rents" - but held down for some time, no? Do be fair with your comparators.

Alanbrooke

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

worth a read

https://ejfoundation.org/resources/downloads/EJF-German-Coal-Usage-Briefing-June-2023.pdf

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, the screenshot must be a deepfake

Alanbrooke

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

Germany's gaslighting us on its green credentials

Malmesbury

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

I did like the elaborate arguments, by some, that Germany using lignite was greener than nuclear power.

And that lignite was greener than LNG imports. Though not *piped* gas.

StillWaters

Alanbrooke said:

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

Germany's gaslighting us on its green credentials

That’s totally unfair of you.

The stats are as trustworthy as their diesel emissions testing

Fairliered

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.

Clutch_Brompton

On topic - I have a lot of respect for Burn-Murdoch but he is perhaps overstating things here. The Greens have always been much more left-wing than most of their voters. Since at least the early 1990s. That only seriously becomes a problem when they are in power. At the UK level that seems a way away!

TSE is absolutely right about the fact a Lab decline will not automatically help the Cons. But then in the collapse of the Cons most didn't auto go to Lab. Those sorts of assumptions are now very outdated.

StillWaters

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

FeersumEnjineeya

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

I have checked recently, and Germany's use of both anthracite and lignite has fallen since 2011, but obviously not by as much as it would have if they'd kept nuclear power.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, the screenshot must be a deepfake

Okay, so have the link instead!

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4778644/#Comment_4778644

Malmesbury

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

I feel the decisison was taken for security reasons. If you look at Fukushima and Zaporiza (sp?), nuclear installations are pretty dangerous things to have. Viewed in that regard, it cannot really be seen as a policy failure yet - if the situation in Europe deteriorates (as I hope it will not) it may prove wise in the long term.

Fukushima was the final straw in Germany. At the time, Merkel was resisting strong pressure to phase out nuclear power, but she eventually crumbled after public opinion turned strongly against it after Fukushima.

Which is nuts, as Germany isn’t exactly famous for earthquakes and tsunamis. Angela Merkel, with a doctorate in chemistry and an academic career as a scientist, should really have been able to explain this.

The problem is that electorates are notoriously resistant to rational explanation. When Fukushima happened, Merkel's government was deeply unpopular, and Merkel was simply unable to resist the pressure of public opinion. Hence her about-turn on nuclear power.

Joking aside, much of the real issue was about power station age. Much as in France and the U.K., most nuclear power stations needed replacement.

Shutting the existing ones down *earlier than might have been managed* was suboptimal.

But keeping them running would have meant granting life extensions to a number. And to keep nuclear power gong would have required a commitment to and starting building new ones

Fairliered

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.

Haltwhistle sells itself as being the centre of Britain, which makes @TSE a soft southerner.

Malmesbury

StillWaters said:

Alanbrooke said:

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

Germany's gaslighting us on its green credentials

That’s totally unfair of you.

The stats are as trustworthy as their diesel emissions testing

I always liked the fact that under California emissions testing laws, electric cars were initially, technically illegal.

No exhaust pipe for a testing probe to be placed in, to check the emissions….

Carnyx

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

Pity that the SSP had such a terminally difficult time. Would have made things even more interesting.

We still have to see how far Slab can tolerate being subordinated to Starmerism, too. Probably quite far, but can it split? Probably not, but I am not clear on the mechanics and specifically what happens to list seats - precedent has been that people in a list seat who shift parties or go independent haven't been ejected, but IIRC that was perhaps because there was little point in the circumstances of the time for the deprived party to raise a fuss (near election, or much the same politically).

Carnyx

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.

Haltwhistle sells itself as being the centre of Britain, which makes @TSE a soft southerner.

HAltwhistle has obviously not updated itself to consider the recent annexation of Sgeir Rocail.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, you're clearly using some sort of false coding shenanigans.

StillWaters

FeersumEnjineeya said:

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

I have checked recently, and Germany's use of both anthracite and lignite has fallen since 2011, but obviously not by as much as it would have if they'd kept
nuclear power.

Please post a link

According to this report (Jan 23) hard coal/lignite accounts for 35% of German power production, more than the entire renewables industry

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.

Many years ago I met a Scot at a wedding, we became really good friends but this was our initial conversation

James: I cannot place your accent, where are you from?

Me: I am a Northerner

James: Nah, you're not from Aberdeen

Me: No, I'm originally from Sheffield

James: Oh so you're a Midlander because Yorkshire is in the middle of Britain

Carnyx

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

‘North Britain’ - Naughty !

It's geographically accurate.

But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.

Many years ago I met a Scot at a wedding, we became really good friends but this was our initial conversation

James: I cannot place your accent, where are you from?

Me: I am a Northerner

James: Nah, you're not from Aberdeen

Me: No, I'm originally from Sheffield

James: Oh so you're a Midlander because Yorkshire is in the middle of Britain

Quite right too. Some of us are *real* Northerners.

BartholomewRoberts

Environmental NIMBY is an oxymoron.

Objecting to wind farms or pylons etc does worse than nothing for the environment, it makes climate change and the environment worse.

Muesli

As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:

- why rent controls don’t work, and
- how nuclear power is good for the environment?

I am asking this with an open mind.

StillWaters

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).

When did they do that?

An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

MarqueeMark

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

It will be fascinating where Scottish independence supporters go.

I cannot see Alba getting much more than the 1.7% they received in 2021 so the Greens might do very well with those supporters.

Only the ones with IQ's in single digits. The greens are not Independence supporters.

Indeed. A double-digit IQ is a prerequisite to support the SNP.

FeersumEnjineeya

Malmesbury said:

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

I did like the elaborate arguments, by some, that Germany using lignite was greener than nuclear power.

And that lignite was greener than LNG imports. Though not *piped* gas.

Back in the day, I had a number of arguments with German Greens about the need to prioritise the replacement of fossil fuels over the closure of nuclear plants. Some agreed with me, but in the end it was politically easier to go after nuclear because of its poor public image. Sadly.

Carnyx

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).

When did they do that?

An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

Manifestoes for Holyrood and Westminster elections.

StillWaters

Muesli said:

As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:

- why rent controls don’t work, and
- how nuclear power is good for the environment?

I am asking this with an open mind.

For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.

Each year the real value of that rental income goes down

Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.

Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing

Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts

FeersumEnjineeya

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

I have checked recently, and Germany's use of both anthracite and lignite has fallen since 2011, but obviously not by as much as it would have if they'd kept
nuclear power.

Please post a link

According to this report (Jan 23) hard coal/lignite accounts for 35% of German power production, more than the entire renewables industry

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany

Our two statements are not incompatible. Yes, Germany does still produce marginally more power from coal then renewables. And yes, Germany's use of coal has fallen since 2011.

Edit: I'm on a phone so a bit tricky to post links, but easy to see on e.g. Wikipedia.

StillWaters

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).

When did they do that?

An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

Manifestoes for Holyrood and Westminster elections.

To repeat: An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

It’s a fairly basic constitutional principle.

Additionally the UK is a partnership - it’s not reasonable for one party to be able to perpetually destabilise the arrangement. A periodic vote is fair (to quote Alex Salmond “once in a generation”) but more frequent than that is an imposition on your partners

StillWaters

FeersumEnjineeya said:

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

StillWaters said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Sandpit said:

Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?

Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.

It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.

Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal

I have checked recently, and Germany's use of both anthracite and lignite has fallen since 2011, but obviously not by as much as it would have if they'd kept
nuclear power.

Please post a link

According to this report (Jan 23) hard coal/lignite accounts for 35% of German power production, more than the entire renewables industry

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany

Our two statements are not incompatible. Yes, Germany does still produce marginally
more power from coal then renewables. And
yes, Germany's use of coal has fallen since
2011.

But you are looking in absolute terms which is pretty meaningless given that it’s been a staple of policy to reduce power generation

Flatlander

BartholomewRoberts said:

Environmental NIMBY is an oxymoron.

Objecting to wind farms or pylons etc does worse than nothing for the environment, it makes climate change and the environment worse.

I was doing some environmental stuff yesterday.

I spoke to someone involved in a fairly high profile landscape-scale habitat restoration project.

They were very worried about the new governments attitude with regard to wind farms and were extremely worried about plans for a VERY large wind "farm" in their local area.

Wind farms are not an unalloyed good if they are built on peat or upland areas with significant habitat interest.

Indeed - they can actually contribute to climate change.

We are just getting to a phase where peat moorlands - such as in the Pennines - are being recovered for nature after decades / centuries of decline due to industrialisation. This involves stopping the degredation of the soils (which emits vast quantities of CO2) and fast run-off of rain (which leads to flooding in places like Calderdale).

Driving large numbers of tracks through this landscape and dumping massive concrete bases are not what is needed for peat recovery or hydrology.

We do not need to go from one disaster to another.

What is wrong with Dogger Bank?

PS A number of people expressed concern about the new government and how "green" they appeared to be. None of them were obviously Tories - it was more a shrug of "I thought we might get something better but it appears not".

Taz

Alanbrooke said:

Dura_Ace said:

Benpointer said:

squareroot2 said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

I didnt take note of who wrote the above but a sentence in and it was absolutely clear as to who had....

Very true. Quite a few posters are easily identifiable from their posting style: HY, Dura, Pagan, Morris, AlanBrooke, Leon of course...

Don't lump me in with those shits. (HY excepted)

How disappointing I always feel we have an affinity of expression

Never meet your heroes.

Taz

StillWaters said:

Muesli said:

As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:

- why rent controls don’t work, and
- how nuclear power is good for the environment?

I am asking this with an open mind.

For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.

Each year the real value of that rental income goes down

Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.

Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing

Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts

Labours upcoming renters reform act will end up making worse situations it aims to remedy and we are already seeing many smaller landlords selling up.

Carnyx

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).

When did they do that?

An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

Manifestoes for Holyrood and Westminster elections.

To repeat: An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

It’s a fairly basic constitutional principle.

Additionally the UK is a partnership - it’s not reasonable for one party to be able to perpetually destabilise the arrangement. A periodic vote is fair (to quote Alex Salmond “once in a generation”) but more frequent than that is an imposition on your partners

Doesnt change the fact that the policy was in the manifestoes of the relevant parties. If that is good enough to be accepted at Westminster when it pertains to Unionist parties ...

kamski

Not sure about Burn-Murdoch's analysis of E&W Greens, but this comment on the German Greens is unconvincing:

"We’ve seen something very similar play out with the German Greens since entering power.

After losing progressive young voters over support for Ukraine, and moderate voters over botched heat pump policy, they’re now polling at their lowest level in 7 years, well behind the AfD."

At the last federal election in 2021 Germans were not in power, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine hadn't started. Greens got 14.7%. They are now polling around 12%, so they have lost about a fifth of their support. Could this be because of heat pumps, or is it more likely that it is because they are part of an extremely unpopular coalition?

Let's check the other governing parties:
SPD 2021 vote 25.7% current polling about 15% so they have lost over 2 fifths.
FDP 2021 vote 11.4% current polling about 5% so they have lost more than half.

Yes, the AfD are ahead of the Greens in polling. This is more due to an increase in AfD support than loss in Green support. AfD 2021 vote 10.4% current polling about 17%. The AfD are also now ahead of the SPD and FDP, so the remark about the AfD being ahead of the Greens seems a bit irrelevant.

Also I don't think many Germans have the idea that the Greens a 'hard left' party. For example, the Greens have been in coalition with the CDU in the state government of Baden-Württemberg since 2016.

Sandpit

Muesli said:

As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:

- why rent controls don’t work, and
- how nuclear power is good for the environment?

I am asking this with an open mind.

(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).

Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.

Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.

Luckyguy1983

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. 1983, that does suggest Germany has the same earthquake/tsunami risk as Japan, which is not necessarily the case.

It has lower natural disaster risk but higher risk of invasion/war.

Theuniondivvie

DavidL said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

Surely not. Their contribution to the SNP government was so catastrophically bad that they stood out clearly even against a background of SNP incompetence. The bottle recycling scheme which has cost tens of millions, the unnecessary deaths on the A9, the absurd rent freeze that gave Edinburgh the fastest rising rents in the UK and Patrick Harvie, a man so odious that words simply fail me.
The Scottish Greens gained considerably from the second vote for an alternative independence party but having destroyed the government of Yousaf (admittedly because of his own stupidity) I would not think that they would get the same again.

You missed out the number of men of a certain age killed by red-faced apoplexy. There are many dangers out there for these chaps but the Greens have played their dastardly part.

StillWaters

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).

When did they do that?

An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

Manifestoes for Holyrood and Westminster elections.

To repeat: An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

It’s a fairly basic constitutional principle.

Additionally the UK is a partnership - it’s not reasonable for one party to be able to perpetually destabilise the arrangement. A periodic vote is fair (to quote Alex Salmond “once in a generation”) but more frequent than that is an imposition on your partners

Doesnt change the fact that the policy was in the manifestoes of the relevant parties. If that is good enough to be accepted at Westminster when it pertains to Unionist parties ...

Sure it was in the manifesto. But it wasn’t in the power of the Holyrood government (it’s a reserved matter) and the SNP doesn’t have a majority in westminster

ClippP

Icarus said:

Isn't the problem that Labour activists from the left of the Labour -some actually expelled - needed a party to play in and have adopted the Greens.

I wonder if similarly some Liberal Democrats will miss being in a fringe party with no power or money and join the Conservatives as they drop into insignificance in council elections and at the next General Election.

Liberals are always very good at supporting minorities, especially when they are weak, feeble and powerless.

I think this is the most powerful argument that the Conservatives could use to entice Liberal Democrats to vote Conservative....

eek

Luckyguy1983 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. 1983, that does suggest Germany has the same earthquake/tsunami risk as Japan, which is not necessarily the case.

It has lower natural disaster risk but higher risk of invasion/war.

Really? In 2011 there was a plausible risk that Germany would be invaded?

Scott_xP

One of these is bigger than the other...

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822451176240996422

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822438670005088294

rcs1000

StillWaters said:

Muesli said:

As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:

- why rent controls don’t work, and
- how nuclear power is good for the environment?

I am asking this with an open mind.

For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.

Each year the real value of that rental income goes down

Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.

Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing

Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts

To which I would add: because the only way to change the rental level is for tht tenants to move, it encourages landlords to engage in unethical behavior in order to "encourage" tenants to move.

MattW

Good morning everyone.

Aaaaargggghhhh ... a ginormous dose of Stretch The Viable Conclusions From The Data Guy, John Burn-Murdoch. I'll come back to that .

On a more important point, I can't help feeling that William Henson, Youtube Table Manners Guy, is an ex-habitue of PB.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdyyin_9izI

Test question: Is it acceptable to stir the tea in your teacup clockwise, or anticlockwise?

malcolmg

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

Utter bollox, only subjugated countries are NOT Independent.

FeersumEnjineeya

kamski said:

Not sure about Burn-Murdoch's analysis of E&W Greens, but this comment on the German Greens is unconvincing:

"We’ve seen something very similar play out with the German Greens since entering power.

After losing progressive young voters over support for Ukraine, and moderate voters over botched heat pump policy, they’re now polling at their lowest level in 7 years, well behind the AfD."

At the last federal election in 2021 Germans were not in power, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine hadn't started. Greens got 14.7%. They are now polling around 12%, so they have lost about a fifth of their support. Could this be because of heat pumps, or is it more likely that it is because they are part of an extremely unpopular coalition?

Let's check the other governing parties:
SPD 2021 vote 25.7% current polling about 15% so they have lost over 2 fifths.
FDP 2021 vote 11.4% current polling about 5% so they have lost more than half.

Yes, the AfD are ahead of the Greens in polling. This is more due to an increase in AfD support than loss in Green support. AfD 2021 vote 10.4% current polling about 17%. The AfD are also now ahead of the SPD and FDP, so the remark about the AfD being ahead of the Greens seems a bit irrelevant.

Also I don't think many Germans have the idea that the Greens a 'hard left' party. For example, the Greens have been in coalition with the CDU in the state government of Baden-Württemberg since 2016.

It does seem to be a given that the more minor coalition partners get hammered the most during their time in government.

Malmesbury

eek said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. 1983, that does suggest Germany has the same earthquake/tsunami risk as Japan, which is not necessarily the case.

It has lower natural disaster risk but higher risk of invasion/war.

Really? In 2011 there was a plausible risk that Germany would be invaded?

It was already quite apparent then, that Putin was using The Gas Weapon to strong arm what he regards as the Near Abroad.

The building of pipelines, so that he could deliver gas to Western Europe separately, was quite clearly designed so that he could create leverage between Eastern and Western Europe by threatening gas supplies to one or other (or both).

rcs1000

Scott_xP said:

One of these is bigger than the other...

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822451176240996422

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822438670005088294

To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana

DavidL

Scott_xP said:

One of these is bigger than the other...

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822451176240996422

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822438670005088294

I am absolutely up for a dig at Trump but what is being compared there is the audience in front of Harris and the audience behind Trump. You surely don't go to these things to see the back of his head and that fact that people are sitting there might suggest that there is not a lot of space in front of him.

Still, if its winding him up its not time wasted.

malcolmg

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:

malcolmg said:

Eabhal said:

I still have my hunch that the Greens could do very well in the next Scottish Parliament election, bringing voters across from the SNP and Labour - now both incumbents.

And there is a slight chance the Conservatives pick a leader who goes for a "Teal" strategy, aiming to pick up older Greens, Lib Dems and Trad Tories (basically the RSPB member cohort) with a patchwork and inconsistent policy package of NIMBYism, protection of landscape, opposition to onshore turbines (but pro offshore), anti pollution and big on EVs etc

What you smoking, the greens in Scotland are just a bunch of weirdo degenerates, halfwits and retreads. They certainly do not espouce any normal "Green" policies.
In any normal country they would have zero representation in any governing body, ie they are a bunch of dangerous Fcukwits.

So, are you saying Scotland is not a normal country?

Normal countries are independent.

Normal countries are whatever the population wants it to be.

In Scotland the voters decided it should remain part of the UK.

In Scotland the voters decided they wanted to consider changing their mind. That was not allowed on spurious grounds (vide HYUFD postings ad nauseam).

When did they do that?

An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

Manifestoes for Holyrood and Westminster elections.

To repeat: An election for a representative body is on a much broader range of topics than a single issue

It’s a fairly basic constitutional principle.

Additionally the UK is a partnership - it’s not reasonable for one party to be able to perpetually destabilise the arrangement. A periodic vote is fair (to quote Alex Salmond “once in a generation”) but more frequent than that is an imposition on your partners

Doesnt change the fact that the policy was in the manifestoes of the relevant parties. If that is good enough to be accepted at Westminster when it pertains to Unionist parties ...

Sure it was in the manifesto. But it wasn’t in the power of the Holyrood government (it’s a reserved matter) and the SNP doesn’t have a majority in westminster

The Colonial overlords decided it was reserved, usual for all slave master states.
How the Fcuk can 59 have a majority out of 650 you halfwitted cretin. It is far far far from a partnership , master slave relationship.

rottenborough

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

One of these is bigger than the other...

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822451176240996422

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1822438670005088294

To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana

Why is Trump in Montana with only 100 days to go?