Sure, the Green party has a historic current of conservationists small-c conservatives who are only Greens because they want to keep landscapes pretty. Doesn’t help that the only council the Greens have a majority in (Mid Suffolk) is held by that faction, but that will almost certainly change in May. Every party has cranks, but they do stand out a lot more and have a lot more influence in the Greens due to how small the party has historically been. Just look at the ‘natural births’ thing the Greens only dropped in the run up to the 2024 General Election.
Hopefully the Greens with all the momentum behind them now can leave most of that stuff behind, Polanski himself has come out in support of pylons and the people in my local Green party are from this new wave and are pretty sensible, so I have hope.
arguing that the government should subsidise scarce fossil fuel resources
No, they argue that the government should provide support to cap people’s energy bills. This unfortunately means paying for fossil fuels, but that’s just the nature of our current energy grid. Reeves has announced intentions to provide support for energy bills as well, they’re just less broad than the Greens proposal and will mean people over whatever threshold the Treasury decides don’t get the support they likely need. Do you think it’d be fair to brand the Labour government as subsidising fossil fuels when these measures are actually announced?
A caveat: The Greens proposal only really makes sense when done along with the Greens proposed broad tax rises.
but not do anything to increase our own production
Unless you’re arguing for fracking, North Sea drilling won’t bring in enough gas to meet our needs or even affect the price very much. We’ll still need to buy most of it from Norway and arguing over domestic production is frankly a distraction.
No, they argue that the government should provide support to cap people’s energy bills. This unfortunately means paying for fossil fuels, but that’s just
In practical terms, this is the same thing! I agree with you that Reeves’ proposal is equally as foolish. The government should leave it alone and spend the money on direct financial support for the poorest people.
True, direct financial support is basically always better than these convoluted financing schemes. Too bad the media will eat you alive if you try to do it.
Sure, the Green party has a historic current of conservationists small-c conservatives who are only Greens because they want to keep landscapes pretty. Doesn’t help that the only council the Greens have a majority in (Mid Suffolk) is held by that faction, but that will almost certainly change in May. Every party has cranks, but they do stand out a lot more and have a lot more influence in the Greens due to how small the party has historically been. Just look at the ‘natural births’ thing the Greens only dropped in the run up to the 2024 General Election.
Hopefully the Greens with all the momentum behind them now can leave most of that stuff behind, Polanski himself has come out in support of pylons and the people in my local Green party are from this new wave and are pretty sensible, so I have hope.
No, they argue that the government should provide support to cap people’s energy bills. This unfortunately means paying for fossil fuels, but that’s just the nature of our current energy grid. Reeves has announced intentions to provide support for energy bills as well, they’re just less broad than the Greens proposal and will mean people over whatever threshold the Treasury decides don’t get the support they likely need. Do you think it’d be fair to brand the Labour government as subsidising fossil fuels when these measures are actually announced?
A caveat: The Greens proposal only really makes sense when done along with the Greens proposed broad tax rises.
Unless you’re arguing for fracking, North Sea drilling won’t bring in enough gas to meet our needs or even affect the price very much. We’ll still need to buy most of it from Norway and arguing over domestic production is frankly a distraction.
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.
True, direct financial support is basically always better than these convoluted financing schemes. Too bad the media will eat you alive if you try to do it.
I don’t know, just writing cheques would be popular, I think!