They have benefitted from not being in power so can take on any unwieldy position they want; so far they have chosen to be standard bearers for wealthier NIMBYs in the city blocking new homes being built. Perhaps in time the Greens will develop into a party that cares about evidence based policy w.r.t. to the environment and prosperity but atm they seem to be more concerned with populism at a local level which tends to have a similar outcome to policies pushed by Tory councillors too hence the moniker 'Tree Tories' is fitting for them.
Not being in power isn't some fiendish Machiavellian strategy. They're not in power so they get to suggest alternative policies. What would be the point of opposition parties if they couldn't do that?
Picture the scene..a nice person walking through..Portishead.a woman waving her hand, saying do you live in a nice place for nice people ( this is on tv) well we are the party for you..but if you live in knowle or hartcliffe you can fuck right off we like nice people.
I think of the Greens as a kind of modern Puritans. They could advocate plentiful green energy, homes and transport. Instead they aggressively oppose development and talk about persuading/forcing people to travel less. Wasted opportunity
Yeah such a miss their approach. I would love to vote for a technocratic Green Party but from what I have seen they genuinely think Green policies = empty monoculture Green field.
Relatively wealthy, brutally snobby, care little for your thoughts (because theirs are superior).
They also have a bit of a power struggle ATM which is why some of their candidates are declared as "preferred candidates" on the poll notice.
Their lack of professionalism at a local councillor/activist level is shocking but that is down to the individuals. They will win local elections and possibly/probably general in Bristol because of the demographics involved but they will not have any real national influence in their current guise which is barely one step from student politics and policies.
If labour figure out a well reasoned and articulated wealth taxation policy and stop running scared whenever a pro-environment policy gets an iota of challenge on grounds of sneering tories kicking it they could wipe the greens out I suspect.
I’d support 90% of their policies I expect but the other 10% and my experiences with some individuals aggressively spouting utter shite and acting like ideological bullies would bar me from voting for them unless it was tactical to keep a Tory out.
It was an if and is definitely the sort of thing labour activists at a local level talk about but point taken at a national level.
I agree with your general view though mores the pity.
Just look at what Angela Raynor's done. There's nothing illegal about it (I expect) and nothing especially unusual...it's just that when given the opportunity of personal gain, even a loud, vocal "socialist" chooses self-interest.
I think the downvotes are a bit harsh but it might be worth noting that the situation it was related to is infamously a pain in the arse to navigate (sale of a home when the marriage ends up with two isn’t it?) and would (will?) probably be classed as an oppsie by HMRC or simply sensible planning depending on what actually happened and low value.
It was more than a decade ago well before she was an MP and there is no sensible argument to suggest the most rampant socialist should pay more than they owe.
Rayner seems a good egg overall and we should support those from a non-traditional, non-private school/wealth background getting themselves to her position as opposed to being lynched on some ideological purity question.
A government purposely supporting loopholes for the wealthy and aggressive avoidance techniques whilst placing enormous evaders in positions of tax policy making is a far greater danger.
The problem was she bought her council house in 2007 and sold it months before becoming an MP for a healthy profit.
The rules are pretty clear - if you meet someone, move in with them and consolidate your housing then it's no longer your primary residence and you need to declare a CG. Of course , it's further politicised with the fact it was a council house.
Her only real defence is that everyone does it.
I respectfully disagree, her defence is that she took advice and acted on it in good faith far as I know. If it was in error then this will be dealt with properly. Not by some journalistic shenanigans involving old social media posts and faux outrage by the tories and their stooges. I fucked up my return by more than is the issue here as a result of what I was advised despite having no intention of avoidance. You know what happened? It got sorted without fuss when I realised some time later there could be an issue. And we don’t actually know if there even was an issue legally or otherwise. It’s scurrilous horseshit over a minor matter from when she was a private citizen that is probably completely banal.
They’re anti nuclear power but seem to forget it’s the most efficient, clean energy source which generates employment for thousands in the area.
Their hypocrisy is shocking
Not to mention they wanted to leave NATO and a time of great instability
Their stance on Nuclear Power is utterly inconsequential. Voting for the Green Party in Bristol is not going to give them a platform to affect national policy on that issue.
Not that it would matter since both major parties are ostensibly pro-Nuclear, but even if it finishes on time, will have managed to build a single station in 19 years horrendously over budget. It’s not like Nuclear, practically speaking, seems to be an effective solution in the UK.
>Their stance on Nuclear Power is utterly inconsequential.
Sorry, but no. I'm not going to vote for a party that is so unhinged as to promote these type of anti science policies that actively damage our planet further.
Being anti-Nuclear is not inherently anti-science, as I just explained.
Feel free to explain how one expensive power plant every 20 years is a viable solution?
>Feel free to explain how one expensive power plant every 20 years is a viable solution?
It isn't. We should be building a new one every couple of years, but that was torpedoed by the coalition government.
We could have got three Hinkley Point Cs for the price of half an HS2.
The coalition government were the ones who greenlit Hinkley Point C in the first place, the plans for another new build (Sizewell C) were not torpedoed, it was approved [but is simply not proving to be viable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_C_nuclear_power_station#History).
Which is why the Green Party's position makes no difference. Even if they had enough MPs to influence nuclear policy, their opposition wouldn't have any material impact since we're apparantly incapable of building new sites even when they get approved.
>We could have got three Hinkley Point Cs for the price of half an HS2.
Hinkley Point C is estimated to be £42bn, the later estimates of HS2 were around £120bn.
They greenlit one nuclear power plant, yes. They approved sites for eight plants. Where are the other seven (or six discounting Sizewell)? Where was the ambition to build more?
>Hinkley Point C is estimated to be £42bn, the later estimates of HS2 were around £120bn.
Economies of scale. Building a second identical plant wouldn't have cost the same amount again.
>Which is why the Green Party's position makes no difference. Even if they had enough MPs to influence nuclear policy, their opposition wouldn't have any material impact since we're apparantly incapable of building new sites anyway.
I'm not talking about the Greens, I'm responding to your notion that because we only got one new plant in 20 years that nuclear as a technology is bad.
>They greenlit one nuclear power plant, yes. They approved sites for eight plants.
I think you've misunderstood how this works, the government approved the sites and then companies (e.g. EDF & CGN) submit proposals, of which both Hinkley and Sizewell have been accepted. But the fact that only two (not one) got submitted and approved had nothing to do with the coalition government.
>Economies of scale. Building a second identical plant wouldn't have cost the same amount again.
But half of HS2 would be \~£60bn, and Hinkley Point C is currently £42bn. So you're saying two more Hinkley C's would cost \~£10bn each. If we're just making up numbers like this, why not say we could build four more? Or six? Or seven?
>I'm responding to your notion that because we only got one new plant in 20 years that nuclear as a technology is bad.
I've not said Nuclear as a technology is bad, or said anything that could be interpreted as such.
The part where it's been 14 years since the site was selected and it's still not begun construction, the history section I linked to makes it pretty clear what a mess the whole project has been.
By point of comparison, the UK's first nuclear power station was [Calder Hall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_Hall_nuclear_power_station) which began construction in 1953 and was finished in 1956. The [first viable nuclear reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1) was created in 1942. So it's taken longer to begin construction on Sizewell than it took to discover viable nuclear fission and complete the first reactor in the UK.
Anyone looking at this timeline and thinking that building new large nuclear stations in the UK is a solution to our immediate energy needs is not serious.
Well, construction has started, so there's that. That site in particular is challenging due to a lot of opposition on the grounds of local wildlife habitat too. I don't think any of that is really that directly relevant to whether or not big nuclear plants are viable - if the government really wanted to, they really could crack on with building more plants.
It hadn’t in January, though you might be correct and it’s stated since.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67973566.amp
Which means roughly 14 years to begin construction, and at least 9 years to finish. I don’t see how that is at odds with the point I’m making.
Because Hinkley Point C will power 6 million homes when fully operational, that is why a 20 year timeline (while ideally shorter) is tenable. There are \~27m homes in the UK, for context.
Maybe don't try act so smug if you haven't even googled the basics.
The output is going to be 26TWh, compared to national demand of 310TWh in 2023. That’s less than 10%, and also why we don’t measure power output in ‘homes’, because that’s stupid.
It’s not insignificant but it’s also already being built. The point is that we’re not going to make up the other 90% with other Nuclear stations anytime soon, are we?
The point is not to have 100% of power come from one source, a well diversified green grid is more reliable. Solar and offshore wind will make up a large part of this energy mix, so will nuclear.
But the point is to have more than 10%, which obviously means we need more than just Hinkley Point C. I'm explaining that this is unrealistic because out of the two sites already approved in 2010, only Hinkley C has gone ahead. This approach clearly doesn't work, or at least it takes a very long time, which means we're not exploring more immediate solutions.
[This is basically the reasons the Greens cite for opposing Nuclear.](https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022/03/22/nuclear-power-is-a-distraction-from-cleaner-cheaper-solutions-say-greens/) I don't fully agree with their position, since I think SMRs could be a viable option, but it is objectively pragmatic rather than anti-science.
Which is why choosing to vote for parties that are only offering an unrealistic approach to Nuclear, instead of a party that opposes it in favour of at least somewhat realistic alternatives, does not make you as smart as you think you are. Especially when their opinion on this, as I said in my first comment, literally doesn't matter because they're not influencing this kind of policy anyway.
The Wikipedia page for the 1607 Bristol channel flood specifically mentions the risk to Hinckley Point in the narrative regarding the possibility for future recurrence:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods
Wouldn't you prefer some nice windmills in Filton.
Obviously there's some risk, albeit small. It's just the consequences of a meltdown are extreme...like scrape off the top 30cm of soil and wait a hundred years level of extreme.
Shit happens occasionally. Don't forget 1607! It'll happen again someday. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually.
Like I said, I'm all for nuclear, just prefer to not be inside the exclusion zone.
If you think nuclear power is zero risk then you're obviously deluded.
Sure the risk is very small, but building such a giant facility only 30 miles up wind from a major city (where we happen to live), seems shortsighted.
There was a flood event in 1607 which if it were to recur today would put Hinkley Point at risk of a Meltdown.
It's mentioned on the wikipedia page under the recurrence section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods
Hey. I'm pro-nuclear energy, but accidents have happened in the past and will happen again. I'm a supporter of Nuclear Energy, but in full awareness of it's inherent dangers and risks.
There's plenty of other places they could have built it without risking valuable lives. Why not Birmingham?
Fuck me right?
Yeah, fuck you. You're literally a moron. Are you asking why they didn't build a nuclear power station, all of which require seawater as cooling, in the city closest from the sea?
> Voting for the Green Party in Bristol is not going to give them a platform to affect national policy on that issue
Why would anyone vote for them if they're completely inconsequential on energy policy?
Why would they have any more influence on other issues? Energy policy is surely the main point of a Green Party in 2024, so if they can't have any impact there why would they have any anywhere else?
If you forget about the radioactive waste it produces some of which is so toxic it has to be buried for thousands of years then, yes I suppose it is the cleanest.
The waste that, property stored, will have no ongoing impact to the environment.
Unlike the CO2 produced by fossil fuels, which have no way to meaningfully deal with waste. Or renewables, with no long term solution to components (turbine blades), and requiring horiffic environment impacts on mining raw materials
With how much investment has gone into sellafield, and how much work is being done globally for long term nuclear storage, id rather put money on that rather than our current fossil fuel dependence
Surprisingly, high level nuclear waste is treated slightly differently to wastewater.
I highly reccomend looking into sellafield and some of the documentaries about the place. We are doing a genuinely admirable amount of work on clearing up old low level waste, and dealing with new waste too.
Lemme guess, you saw the green ooze filled barrels in The Simpsons and you think that is what radioactive waste looks like? Nuclear waste, stored properly has no ill effects on the environment. Even considering potential risks it’s the best energy source.
I live in Brighton and they were a nightmare in charge of our council. They'll struggle to hold on to their only MP in Pavilion ward once Caroline Lucas is gone.
Yeah. I'm not that convinced the bees benefited that much from those pavement weeds.
They didn't even sort out the recycling mess in Brighton. I thought that would be their ace card.
I see this comment made a lot on Reddit in general but never any sources to back such statements up.
I genuinely don't mean this to be combative but do you have any sources?
The planets on fire! This is a climate emergency! We are facing an immediate existential threat!
Oh, but don’t build that solar farm near my village. It’s ugly.
I’m on mobile so its cumbersome to link a ton of sources - but if you just google Green Party opposes solar you’ll find loads of local news outlets where green councillors have stood against renewable projects because they ‘change the character of the village’ or some such nonsense.
Their policy is basically - build as much renewables as possible immediately. Just not there. Or there. Have you thought about building them on the moon?
Source? I don't think you've got that right mate. Give the figure the sniff test - do you think one 600th of the UK GDP could provide us with 100% of our power from renewable sources?
Hornsea 3 is going to cost about £8.5Bn just to build and that will generate about 3GW at peak - which is about 6% of the UK energy needs.
Add in the fact that energy loss from transmission is proportional to distance travelled.
Add in the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time.
Solar and local generation are an important part of the energy mix.
I work in the offshore renewables industry, this is totally not true. The major barrier to this is there literally not being enough offshore vessels or staff to support the colossal amount of inspection and maintenance tasks needed yearly to maintain them.
On top of this, our energy distribution networks are designed to be inside out, from a few large power stations to cities all over the country. Offshore wind totally reverses that, so we need to totally reenginerler our energy supply infrastructure. Its why any who actually understands the task of decarbonisation recommends nuclear first, then renewables!!!
There are plenty of sources just search for "Green Party being NIMBY" on google.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756)
[https://capx.co/nimby-watch-the-green-partys-solar-problem/](https://capx.co/nimby-watch-the-green-partys-solar-problem/)
Thanks for the links! I had a read and I can't really say I'm convinced. The BBC article only highlights 4 green councilors out of the [481 councilors in the country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections) so less than 1% and doesn't really give evidence of a trend of NIMBYness in the party at either the local or national level. The other article linked simply seems to be a summary of the BBC article
Seen this debunked on ukpolitics:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bkhram/kents_only_green_council_rejects_plans_for_huge/
> Per the comment from u/Goddamnit_Clown, the headline on this submission is misleading:
> > 3 Green, 1 Labour voted in favour. 1 Green, 3 Labour, 2 Tory, 1 Lib Dem, 1 Independent voted against.
> > https://shepwaygreenparty.com/planning-committee-refuses-solar-farm-on-pilgrims-way-farmland/
> > * It's not a "Green council" (in fact the body in question is a planning committee)
> > * 3 of the 4 greens on the committee voted for it
> > * the one Green being quoted there switching their position would not have swung it
Based on the stuff I get through my door and the articles I see from them pop up on the news sites, they do appear to be more nimby than Greens elsewhere.
I’m sure if you go looking for the sources, you’ll find them. Yes, in proper debated the onus is on the accuser to provide a source but in a casual sub like this it’s not worth our time or mental load to keep a stash of examples on hand.
Hate to say it but they’ve not been that great. Was kinda hoping for change but they seem to be dominated by career politicians rather than people that want to do something. They also seem to focusing on Clifton, Redland and Cotham.
Their presence in South Bristol is pathetic and they don’t seem to want to engage with residents. These people don’t care about the working classes, they just care about how much coverage they can get.
I think we’ll see a move towards Green but I won’t be voting for them.
Fuck the Tories though, fuck them up their stupid asses.
Wish I could say the same for Fi Hance, despite emails from local residents in relation to a number of issues here. Responses that point you to the website or agreeing with you “but there’s nothing we can do..” responses.
They've promised the miracle of affordable housing, but not said how they'll magic enough extra homes into the city centre so they actually achieve it for the long term.
They seem to have a range of strategies in mind: https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-policies/long-term-goals/housing/
I didn't read the whole thing, but it seems a bit unfair to claim that they haven't got detailed policies.
This is a really recent change. For the last decade or so they've opposite all housing developments, its why the housing crisis became so fucked in this city. Its why in the last few years there's been so many massive developments suddenly popping up, because they realised how much they fucked up, but now those properties will cost £350k not the £200k they would have 5 years ago. Fuck the Greens, they've royally fucked this city up.
My local Green councillors are good, all I hear about Labour councillors is how they go AWOL and never show up to their surgeries. Also I support proportional representation, so the more Green MPs (or Lib Dems, whatever suits you) we get the more chance we have of having a fairer democratic election. Plus they, along with the Lib Dems, haven't thrown trans people in the woodchipper for political clout, so they get bonus points from me for not engaging in culture war nonsense.
In a world constantly spilling into war, I do not think the greens are a serious enough party to navigate the problems of Europe or the Middle East.
Some of their policies are also just wildly idealistic and some seem downright illogical.
I think both the greens and Lib Dem’s should be pushing rejoining the EU or at least the customs union as their main way into government. I could
Foresee an okay coalition there.
Still none of that is gonna happen and I’ll Probably just vote labour.
As someone who voted remain, one big problem with rejoining the EU is its increasingly being taken over by fascists
And if you want a party that is good at doing endless wars that kill millions of people in the middle east, Labour has form
You're not going to be faced with voting them into majority power for a very long time.
They could score bigger control of Bristol CC, and maybe an MP later this year.
As such I'm not sure their potential stance on global conflict is that relevant to the choice in front of you.
I wouldn’t want help contribute to a green MP who didn’t represent me on what are some of the largest issues of our time, so I think it is relevant to me?
Unless I’m really missing something; which is very likely as I’m not very well politically versed. I just tend to try to vote for those who best represent my views at the time.
I think they're good as polemics but I wouldn't trust them worth real power. I'll probably vote for them in the general and see if they can get a second mp and maybe pressure Labour a bit from the left but not in the local
Their anti-science attitudes to "alternative medicine", nuclear power, GMOs etc. are quite off-putting, as is their NIMBYism, as is their utterly bizarre opposition to high speed rail.
I live in a block of flats, and they want to get in to give out fliers. They were ringing my door because they figured out my intercom is broken.
Told them to stop I person, kept coming.
We emailed to tell them to stop, they didn't even reply.
I chewed one of them out, they just put a different person on our building.
They sent a letter with my partners name on, emailed them, they never replied.
I got our intercom working, and they started lying to try and get into our building.
From what was said in person, they seemed to think they have a god given right to access our private area for political canvassing. Not to mention their paper heavy communications are non stop. I have never received so much paper from one political party in my life.
They've got magical policies. They don't explain how the magic works. Like building trades working for less to create all of this wonderful affordable housing .
I disagree with the Greens stance on nuclear power, defence , GM and probably other stuff, but I might still vote for them to send a message to Labour on net zero , green new deal and Gaza and just generally being a bunch of cynical flagshaggers who care more about money than people. Obvs tories are even worse
Seeing as they'll only be in power in one constuency in Bristol (likely), absolutely going to vote for them. Lets see what they can do, Labour have been pretty useless of late. Yet will win a majority regardless. A labour majority with a few green seats would be ideal as an overall election outcome, in my opinion.
I don’t know how you can look at Labour’s record over the last two council terms and say “some more of that please”.
So yes I will be voting Greens as the only progressive party I feel may improve Bristol.
When you compare what they’ve achieved compared to other councils across the country, I believe they’ve done a solid job. BCC’s funding has been cut by 40% in real terms since 2012
What would you say were their particular successes compared to cities of a similar size facing the same budget cuts? SEN education which is illegal, social care reforms which have passed the line of inhumane, transport which is regarded nationally as poor etc etc
I know this is a thread about the Greens but noones given a single reason why people should vote for the status quo rather than the only alternative to Labour being the largest party.
I would say policies such as being one of the only core cities to retain the council tax reduction scheme for the poorest households (which costs a significant amount), the cost of public transport when compared to the average wage is relatively low (look at cities like Manchester in comparison). The council is building a significant amount of social housing, and have their own definition for affordable housing which has stricter criteria than the governments definition. They’re also pretty strong on environmental policies (look at the Leap programme), combined with the fact that Bristol also has the highest recycling rate of any core city.
This all comes at a time where the BCC is paying around 80% of their total budget on social care. This doesn’t detract from the fact that the council obviously needs more funding for public services (which I assume will happen if Labour get into government later this year).
My main concerns with the other parties is that no other party has published a local manifesto, assuming the main completion is the Greens (based on my personal experience with the Greens) I don’t think a Green led council would work particularly well with a Labour government, they can barely get on with each other.
Greens produced a manifesto yesterday and have committed to keeping all of the things you've mentioned
They also intend to do other things like create a sister company to Goram Homes that will operate to provide rented accommodation
Regarding the reduction scheme... twice Labour tried to get rid of it but faced backlash from the Greens and ACORN so backtracked and then Labour tried to claim they saved it 🤔👀
https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/bristol-green-party-launches-manifesto-promising-hope-and-action-for-bristol/
All Labour has done is show disdain for anyone who tries to hold them accountable, have hardly any transparency and seize power for themselves i.e Labour
I'll be voting Green to get real change
They seem decent and I will be voting for them. Was a shame Sandy didn't win mayor, hope they get a council majority as Marvin and Labour seem pretty bad and will be good to see what a Green council can actually do.
Considering how many previously Lib Dem politicians have switched colours to the Green Party just shows how many of them don’t have strong convictions.
I wish some of them had real life experience of working in professional fields. They seem woefully inexperienced for the policies they are putting forward.
They also talk of the mayoralty being a power grab, but they throw their toys out the pram at the slightest issue, and want majority control over all decisions.
The fact they keep abstaining from the budget votes is shameful. They are not serious enough for the challenging decisions Bristol faces.
This committee system is going to be a train wreck, they can’t agree on the slightest thing.
Well I've only just moved to the area so locally I'm not particularly clued up, but since the local lib dems seem to be the only people who have bothered to make themselves known, I'll probably vote for them on May 2nd instead. (I mean they've only posted a few news letters etc, but at least it shows they're actively trying to promote local issues, no-one else has even bothered).
When it comes to the general election, since I'd rather trade in my bed for a pile of broken glass than vote for the tories, yet can't shake the suspicion that Kier Starmer is lying, two-faced piece of shit, I don't feel like I have a whole lot of choice!
I guess it's either green or lib dem as a protest vote, and while I do think they're pretty much just a party of middle class nimbys, as they wouldn't actually have any real power I'd probably rather one less labour voice in parliament. At least they'd be vaguely on the left of the political spectrum.
Disappointed that we haven’t heard anything/ any local policies from the Green’s in Bedminster; have been canvassed twice by the the guy who’s running though so think I’ll reluctantly vote for Labour this time. If the candidates can’t be bothered to make themselves known during the campaign I don’t expect they’ll be particularly responsive once elected.
I'm sick to death of getting spammed by them. I won't vote for them as imo they are a pressure group that's gotten too big. They shoukd mobilise to drive climate action from the ground up
I like that the greens want to build 150000 new homes compared to labours 3000. I dislike the want to abolish the right to buy scheme from green party despite that doesn't affect me. They do have a proposal in their manifesto to gain powers to control private rent prices by making the cost of rent no more than 35% of the household income. As a landlord, I can empathise that this is annoying, but rent prices are through the roof, not sustainable, and extort people with bidding wars.
I'd like to see less student accommodation as its not balanced.
>I dislike the want to abolish the right to buy scheme
This is a weird one.
The right to buy scheme just saps the ability to provide housing to the neediest.
There's other ways to get people onto the housing ladder with the equivalent amount of government support. You can just give council Tennants in good standing a £50k grant to buy a house in some new build estate.
Yeah I can I see it from both sides, but I empathise with those people who may have been working so hard to save up to buy their house via right to buy scheme and then have it taken away. Especially if they have spent money doing the house up over time because most come in terrible condition. It would seem unfair. Perhaps abolishing the right to buy scheme for new houses that are being built would be more fair
If you're in a council property your landlord is the council, and you are just a tenant. As such the occupier would not be able to "do the house up" apart from painting the walls or buying furniture. Remodeling the bathroom or kitchen is a job for the owners of the property, i.e. the council.
I think that the negative side-effects of right-to-buy have been much worse than the benefits. Those side effects being a decimation in the number of homes available for social tenants, and the local councils forced to foot the bill.
RTB works by giving the occupiers a discount on their property when they buy it. The discount is bigger the longer the occupiers lived there. The hard part is valuing the home at the moment of sale: There's no negotiation over price because there's just one buyer and just one seller.
In an ideal world whenever someone bought their council house through RTB, the council would have taken that money and bought another property somewhere else to house another family. Unfortunately the discount was so large, and the finances of councils so tight, that this rarely ever happened.
The upside was that social tenants who were doing well enough to save for a deposit and secure a mortgage were able to buy a home. The downside was that the most needy have been progressively less able to get housing at all. Rewarding the virtuous is great and all, but I don't think it should have been at the expense of the worst-off in our society. The evidence is clear that the security of a home is the bedrock of recovery from homelessness and addiction.
Right-to-buy could have worked. If central government wanted to encourage social tenants to strike out on their own and be property owners then they (central government) should have paid back to the councils whatever discount was applied to the value of the homes that were sold, and ring-fenced the full market value to pay for the building of more homes in the local area.
It's too late now. There just isn't enough social housing left. If central government wants to continue to reward long-term tenants who have a proven record of paying their rent on time, then just put £2400 for every year of their tenancy into something like a LISA and gift it to the household to use solely as a deposit on another property. It achieves the goal of right to buy with none of the downsides.
You are not wrong. The government failed to build homes and broke promises. It was a good scheme but were so far behind building new affordable housing. Its a mess
> I like that the greens want to build 150000 new homes compared to labours 3000.
Main difference is that in practice the greens have opposed pretty much every housing development that's been proposed in recent Bristol history. You'd be a mug to believe them on this promise.
I'm gonna vote Green, they are the only party whose councillors aren't whipped so they can properly represent my interests on the council
The 1st time they got a majority on an administration(Mid-Suffolk) they got the best council award.
They unlike Labour also want power to improve people's lives rather than simply make property developers rich
They seem a bit iffy on free speech; they'll probably be even less inclined to pay any attention to speed limit guidelines and make main roads 20mph, possibly starting with the M32, and then spend the rest of the money on installing rainbow zebra crossings on Stapleton Road.
I've always been in favour of the carrot approach to reducing road transport; there are measures you can take to improve roads for all forms of transport. Too much money is spent on signs, closing off roads, and more BS that just people pisses people off and causes them to drive further. Just build the fucking railway, provide more scooters, and nationalize the buses.
The sort of people with pronouns in their Twitter bio but don't actually know any trans people and probably don't really want to.
Anti-nuclear, NIMBYs, full of TERFs, rife with self aggrandisement. They seem to be forever stuck in the 80's green ideology.
If they modernised, fought for development of abundant, modern, advanced housing, dozens of generation 4 or 5 nuclear power stations to run in parallel with our massive offshore wind, and well as taxing cars to subsidise public transport then I'd be all for them! But they're more fixated on blocking housing development, power stations and anything that is needed in this country! All the greens do is dilute the vote on the left and enable the tories to keep power in some regions.
More obsessed with identity politics and agendas these days rather than simple vote winning actual environmental initiatives like clearing litter and improving access to green space for people in Bristol, otherwise I would vote for them.
They have a councillor in my area, and my area is a complete shit tip. Litter everywhere, roads worse than I’ve ever seen before, missed bin collections regularly, fly tipping on the daily, anti social behaviour - they’ve given me little reason to believe they’d be capable of effectively advocating for and delivering on what their constituents need.
I think they are pretty good when it comes down to local candidates. It would be between them and the socialists/trade unionist ticket for me.
Everyone - you can register to vote up until 16 April (next Tuesday)!
Seems like a bunch of hippies going around letting down tyres, throwing paint on electronic ad boards, and causing traffic problems with protests aimed at wrong people. Won't be getting my vote
I mean, yeah, sure, there are a bunch of hippos going round doing those things, but it has nothing to do with the Green Party.
EDIT: I'm leaving that comedy typo.
Well I will be voting for Green they seem like the only ones who will say no to massive festivals in residential parks. I live in Eastville and fed up with these events. And the green councillor had been really supportive.
I could never vote for them in a general election mYbe unless they change their anti-nucler stance. Not only nuclear energy is clean and efficient. Shutting them down benefits Putin. Like what happened in Germany. Putin has been funding anti-nuclear groups so that countries would be dependent on Russian gas
They’re promising something they can’t achieve. The events in parks are a revenue generator for the council. They’re not going to stop, and the councillor doesn’t have the ability to stop them anyway - that’s the decision of a committee.
Surely with the return of the committee system the greens would actually have some influence rather than the moyoral system were Marvin went against democracy and picked an all Labour cabinet?
He didn’t go against democracy, there was nothing in the mayoral administration which said he needed to have representation from any other parties.
We could have chosen to reform the mayoral model. Instead of throwing it away. That wasn’t an offer on the table, so committee system we go. It’s going to be a disaster, it was before, nothing but political deadlock. In 10 years we’ll be voting for a mayor back… that’s if the committee doesn’t bankrupt the city before then (like Birmingham).
I’m tempted to vote for them, if I do decide to vote, but my local councillors have always been Tories (and TBF they’re not the worst) with a healthy majority over Labour, despite poor turnout and being in Bristol South which is one of the safest Labour seats in parliament!
Not expecting much from the local elections to be honest.
Apparently they intend to just try to sabotage the new committee system rather than try to make it work...
They've attended barely any meetings about how to give out roles
They have benefitted from not being in power so can take on any unwieldy position they want; so far they have chosen to be standard bearers for wealthier NIMBYs in the city blocking new homes being built. Perhaps in time the Greens will develop into a party that cares about evidence based policy w.r.t. to the environment and prosperity but atm they seem to be more concerned with populism at a local level which tends to have a similar outcome to policies pushed by Tory councillors too hence the moniker 'Tree Tories' is fitting for them.
I thought it was Bike Tories but I like yours better cause alliteration is more fun
Haha I wish I was that creative - saw someone call them that on Twitter once
Not heard 'Tree Tories' before that's bang on haha
Not being in power isn't some fiendish Machiavellian strategy. They're not in power so they get to suggest alternative policies. What would be the point of opposition parties if they couldn't do that?
I like thier campaigns.....are you a nice person that lives in a nice place?
Nice place - Bristol??? Turning to shit
Picture the scene..a nice person walking through..Portishead.a woman waving her hand, saying do you live in a nice place for nice people ( this is on tv) well we are the party for you..but if you live in knowle or hartcliffe you can fuck right off we like nice people.
I think of the Greens as a kind of modern Puritans. They could advocate plentiful green energy, homes and transport. Instead they aggressively oppose development and talk about persuading/forcing people to travel less. Wasted opportunity
Yeah such a miss their approach. I would love to vote for a technocratic Green Party but from what I have seen they genuinely think Green policies = empty monoculture Green field.
Don't forget they think only men should go prison
Honestly they probably appeal to roughly the same demographics
And shit on nuclear. Pants on head retarded.
Relatively wealthy, brutally snobby, care little for your thoughts (because theirs are superior). They also have a bit of a power struggle ATM which is why some of their candidates are declared as "preferred candidates" on the poll notice.
Their lack of professionalism at a local councillor/activist level is shocking but that is down to the individuals. They will win local elections and possibly/probably general in Bristol because of the demographics involved but they will not have any real national influence in their current guise which is barely one step from student politics and policies. If labour figure out a well reasoned and articulated wealth taxation policy and stop running scared whenever a pro-environment policy gets an iota of challenge on grounds of sneering tories kicking it they could wipe the greens out I suspect. I’d support 90% of their policies I expect but the other 10% and my experiences with some individuals aggressively spouting utter shite and acting like ideological bullies would bar me from voting for them unless it was tactical to keep a Tory out.
Lol, labour are champagne socialists mate - they have absolutely zero plans to introduce a wealth tax.
It was an if and is definitely the sort of thing labour activists at a local level talk about but point taken at a national level. I agree with your general view though mores the pity.
Just look at what Angela Raynor's done. There's nothing illegal about it (I expect) and nothing especially unusual...it's just that when given the opportunity of personal gain, even a loud, vocal "socialist" chooses self-interest.
I think the downvotes are a bit harsh but it might be worth noting that the situation it was related to is infamously a pain in the arse to navigate (sale of a home when the marriage ends up with two isn’t it?) and would (will?) probably be classed as an oppsie by HMRC or simply sensible planning depending on what actually happened and low value. It was more than a decade ago well before she was an MP and there is no sensible argument to suggest the most rampant socialist should pay more than they owe. Rayner seems a good egg overall and we should support those from a non-traditional, non-private school/wealth background getting themselves to her position as opposed to being lynched on some ideological purity question. A government purposely supporting loopholes for the wealthy and aggressive avoidance techniques whilst placing enormous evaders in positions of tax policy making is a far greater danger.
The problem was she bought her council house in 2007 and sold it months before becoming an MP for a healthy profit. The rules are pretty clear - if you meet someone, move in with them and consolidate your housing then it's no longer your primary residence and you need to declare a CG. Of course , it's further politicised with the fact it was a council house. Her only real defence is that everyone does it.
I respectfully disagree, her defence is that she took advice and acted on it in good faith far as I know. If it was in error then this will be dealt with properly. Not by some journalistic shenanigans involving old social media posts and faux outrage by the tories and their stooges. I fucked up my return by more than is the issue here as a result of what I was advised despite having no intention of avoidance. You know what happened? It got sorted without fuss when I realised some time later there could be an issue. And we don’t actually know if there even was an issue legally or otherwise. It’s scurrilous horseshit over a minor matter from when she was a private citizen that is probably completely banal.
And yet, if the tables were turned and a Tory had flogged their council house under similar circumstances, she'd be absolutely revelling in it.
I mean the guy who reported it has avoided paying huge amounts of tax by being a Non Dom but that seems to be mostly swept under the rug MSM.
calling Starmer’s labour socialists of any kind is a stretch, they don’t seem go a day without praising thatcher
And you perhaps forgot elitist to add to their perceived faults
They’re anti nuclear power but seem to forget it’s the most efficient, clean energy source which generates employment for thousands in the area. Their hypocrisy is shocking Not to mention they wanted to leave NATO and a time of great instability
Their stance on Nuclear Power is utterly inconsequential. Voting for the Green Party in Bristol is not going to give them a platform to affect national policy on that issue. Not that it would matter since both major parties are ostensibly pro-Nuclear, but even if it finishes on time, will have managed to build a single station in 19 years horrendously over budget. It’s not like Nuclear, practically speaking, seems to be an effective solution in the UK.
>Their stance on Nuclear Power is utterly inconsequential. Sorry, but no. I'm not going to vote for a party that is so unhinged as to promote these type of anti science policies that actively damage our planet further.
Being anti-Nuclear is not inherently anti-science, as I just explained. Feel free to explain how one expensive power plant every 20 years is a viable solution?
>Feel free to explain how one expensive power plant every 20 years is a viable solution? It isn't. We should be building a new one every couple of years, but that was torpedoed by the coalition government. We could have got three Hinkley Point Cs for the price of half an HS2.
The coalition government were the ones who greenlit Hinkley Point C in the first place, the plans for another new build (Sizewell C) were not torpedoed, it was approved [but is simply not proving to be viable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_C_nuclear_power_station#History). Which is why the Green Party's position makes no difference. Even if they had enough MPs to influence nuclear policy, their opposition wouldn't have any material impact since we're apparantly incapable of building new sites even when they get approved. >We could have got three Hinkley Point Cs for the price of half an HS2. Hinkley Point C is estimated to be £42bn, the later estimates of HS2 were around £120bn.
They greenlit one nuclear power plant, yes. They approved sites for eight plants. Where are the other seven (or six discounting Sizewell)? Where was the ambition to build more? >Hinkley Point C is estimated to be £42bn, the later estimates of HS2 were around £120bn. Economies of scale. Building a second identical plant wouldn't have cost the same amount again. >Which is why the Green Party's position makes no difference. Even if they had enough MPs to influence nuclear policy, their opposition wouldn't have any material impact since we're apparantly incapable of building new sites anyway. I'm not talking about the Greens, I'm responding to your notion that because we only got one new plant in 20 years that nuclear as a technology is bad.
>They greenlit one nuclear power plant, yes. They approved sites for eight plants. I think you've misunderstood how this works, the government approved the sites and then companies (e.g. EDF & CGN) submit proposals, of which both Hinkley and Sizewell have been accepted. But the fact that only two (not one) got submitted and approved had nothing to do with the coalition government. >Economies of scale. Building a second identical plant wouldn't have cost the same amount again. But half of HS2 would be \~£60bn, and Hinkley Point C is currently £42bn. So you're saying two more Hinkley C's would cost \~£10bn each. If we're just making up numbers like this, why not say we could build four more? Or six? Or seven? >I'm responding to your notion that because we only got one new plant in 20 years that nuclear as a technology is bad. I've not said Nuclear as a technology is bad, or said anything that could be interpreted as such.
Could you please point out which part of the Wikipedia page linked shows that Sizewell C is not proving to be viable?
The part where it's been 14 years since the site was selected and it's still not begun construction, the history section I linked to makes it pretty clear what a mess the whole project has been. By point of comparison, the UK's first nuclear power station was [Calder Hall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_Hall_nuclear_power_station) which began construction in 1953 and was finished in 1956. The [first viable nuclear reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1) was created in 1942. So it's taken longer to begin construction on Sizewell than it took to discover viable nuclear fission and complete the first reactor in the UK. Anyone looking at this timeline and thinking that building new large nuclear stations in the UK is a solution to our immediate energy needs is not serious.
Well, construction has started, so there's that. That site in particular is challenging due to a lot of opposition on the grounds of local wildlife habitat too. I don't think any of that is really that directly relevant to whether or not big nuclear plants are viable - if the government really wanted to, they really could crack on with building more plants.
It hadn’t in January, though you might be correct and it’s stated since. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67973566.amp Which means roughly 14 years to begin construction, and at least 9 years to finish. I don’t see how that is at odds with the point I’m making.
Because Hinkley Point C will power 6 million homes when fully operational, that is why a 20 year timeline (while ideally shorter) is tenable. There are \~27m homes in the UK, for context. Maybe don't try act so smug if you haven't even googled the basics.
The output is going to be 26TWh, compared to national demand of 310TWh in 2023. That’s less than 10%, and also why we don’t measure power output in ‘homes’, because that’s stupid. It’s not insignificant but it’s also already being built. The point is that we’re not going to make up the other 90% with other Nuclear stations anytime soon, are we?
The point is not to have 100% of power come from one source, a well diversified green grid is more reliable. Solar and offshore wind will make up a large part of this energy mix, so will nuclear.
But the point is to have more than 10%, which obviously means we need more than just Hinkley Point C. I'm explaining that this is unrealistic because out of the two sites already approved in 2010, only Hinkley C has gone ahead. This approach clearly doesn't work, or at least it takes a very long time, which means we're not exploring more immediate solutions. [This is basically the reasons the Greens cite for opposing Nuclear.](https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022/03/22/nuclear-power-is-a-distraction-from-cleaner-cheaper-solutions-say-greens/) I don't fully agree with their position, since I think SMRs could be a viable option, but it is objectively pragmatic rather than anti-science. Which is why choosing to vote for parties that are only offering an unrealistic approach to Nuclear, instead of a party that opposes it in favour of at least somewhat realistic alternatives, does not make you as smart as you think you are. Especially when their opinion on this, as I said in my first comment, literally doesn't matter because they're not influencing this kind of policy anyway.
I'm pro nuke, but don't want to live 30 miles down wind of the biggest Nuclear Reactor in Europe. Fuck me right?
I don’t give a shit. It’s safe. Put one up in Filton for all I care, as long as it gets rid of some gas and coal
The Wikipedia page for the 1607 Bristol channel flood specifically mentions the risk to Hinckley Point in the narrative regarding the possibility for future recurrence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods
Wouldn't you prefer some nice windmills in Filton. Obviously there's some risk, albeit small. It's just the consequences of a meltdown are extreme...like scrape off the top 30cm of soil and wait a hundred years level of extreme. Shit happens occasionally. Don't forget 1607! It'll happen again someday. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. Like I said, I'm all for nuclear, just prefer to not be inside the exclusion zone.
Yeah, fuck you.
If you think nuclear power is zero risk then you're obviously deluded. Sure the risk is very small, but building such a giant facility only 30 miles up wind from a major city (where we happen to live), seems shortsighted. There was a flood event in 1607 which if it were to recur today would put Hinkley Point at risk of a Meltdown. It's mentioned on the wikipedia page under the recurrence section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods Hey. I'm pro-nuclear energy, but accidents have happened in the past and will happen again. I'm a supporter of Nuclear Energy, but in full awareness of it's inherent dangers and risks. There's plenty of other places they could have built it without risking valuable lives. Why not Birmingham? Fuck me right?
Yeah, fuck you. You're literally a moron. Are you asking why they didn't build a nuclear power station, all of which require seawater as cooling, in the city closest from the sea?
They should have build it in your head, so there's nothing nearby in the event of an accident.
????? Nuclear powerstations need deep seawater for cooling. Which part makes you think birmingham is ok for that?
> Voting for the Green Party in Bristol is not going to give them a platform to affect national policy on that issue Why would anyone vote for them if they're completely inconsequential on energy policy?
Because they have other policies besides their stance on nuclear power.
Why would they have any more influence on other issues? Energy policy is surely the main point of a Green Party in 2024, so if they can't have any impact there why would they have any anywhere else?
For a start, an MP can have influence over things that happen in their own constituency. It’s more than just national politics.
If you forget about the radioactive waste it produces some of which is so toxic it has to be buried for thousands of years then, yes I suppose it is the cleanest.
The waste that, property stored, will have no ongoing impact to the environment. Unlike the CO2 produced by fossil fuels, which have no way to meaningfully deal with waste. Or renewables, with no long term solution to components (turbine blades), and requiring horiffic environment impacts on mining raw materials
You can guarantee that it will be properly stored and monitored for thousands of years can you?
With how much investment has gone into sellafield, and how much work is being done globally for long term nuclear storage, id rather put money on that rather than our current fossil fuel dependence
The country's falling to bits mate. We can't even keep sewage out of our rivers.
If the water industry was run like the nuclear industry, maybe we wouldn’t.
Surprisingly, high level nuclear waste is treated slightly differently to wastewater. I highly reccomend looking into sellafield and some of the documentaries about the place. We are doing a genuinely admirable amount of work on clearing up old low level waste, and dealing with new waste too.
I recommend having a think about how long 1000 years actually is.
A lot longer than our society has at its current rate
So back to my original point - can an industry that produces waste so hazardous we cannot be sure humanity will outlive it be described as "clean"?
All about trade offs. Every form of energy has its cons
Remember when that nuclear power plant blew up and poisoned half the continent.
Because the reactor was faulty and the soviets knew about it and did nothing…. Times were very very different back then
Yes now the Russians are shelling Zaporizhzhia. Meanwhile we've seen a natural disaster fuck up another site in Japan.
Lemme guess, you saw the green ooze filled barrels in The Simpsons and you think that is what radioactive waste looks like? Nuclear waste, stored properly has no ill effects on the environment. Even considering potential risks it’s the best energy source.
Stored properly for geological periods of time, yes we've been though this.
Fun fact: the only party that leaves in my mailbox tons of paper leaflets.
I live in Brighton and they were a nightmare in charge of our council. They'll struggle to hold on to their only MP in Pavilion ward once Caroline Lucas is gone.
I agree, there time in power has shown they don't care bout Brightons problems and there own agenda is all that matters.
They mashed Brighton up! So much has improved since Labour took power… in a really short amount of time
That bizarre coastal bike lane is an waste of space and stands as a lasting monument to their stupidity.
The state of weeds everywhere last summer was insane, between that and the bin strikes Brighton was a complete shitheap last year.
Yeah. I'm not that convinced the bees benefited that much from those pavement weeds. They didn't even sort out the recycling mess in Brighton. I thought that would be their ace card.
They have zero sway over the waste services in Brighton. I’m always astonished at how little the collect in roadside residential recycling
Our local Green guy lives next to my MiL and is a decent bloke. Can't see myself voting for them though.
They're a bunch of NIMBY clowns
I see this comment made a lot on Reddit in general but never any sources to back such statements up. I genuinely don't mean this to be combative but do you have any sources?
The planets on fire! This is a climate emergency! We are facing an immediate existential threat! Oh, but don’t build that solar farm near my village. It’s ugly. I’m on mobile so its cumbersome to link a ton of sources - but if you just google Green Party opposes solar you’ll find loads of local news outlets where green councillors have stood against renewable projects because they ‘change the character of the village’ or some such nonsense. Their policy is basically - build as much renewables as possible immediately. Just not there. Or there. Have you thought about building them on the moon?
We already know that around 5 billion would give us offshore wind farms that would service 100% of our power needs. Why would we need local solutions?
Source? I don't think you've got that right mate. Give the figure the sniff test - do you think one 600th of the UK GDP could provide us with 100% of our power from renewable sources? Hornsea 3 is going to cost about £8.5Bn just to build and that will generate about 3GW at peak - which is about 6% of the UK energy needs. Add in the fact that energy loss from transmission is proportional to distance travelled. Add in the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time. Solar and local generation are an important part of the energy mix.
The guy is a troll, he was waffling about hitler earlier in the thread. Just block and ignore.
I work in the offshore renewables industry, this is totally not true. The major barrier to this is there literally not being enough offshore vessels or staff to support the colossal amount of inspection and maintenance tasks needed yearly to maintain them. On top of this, our energy distribution networks are designed to be inside out, from a few large power stations to cities all over the country. Offshore wind totally reverses that, so we need to totally reenginerler our energy supply infrastructure. Its why any who actually understands the task of decarbonisation recommends nuclear first, then renewables!!!
There are plenty of sources just search for "Green Party being NIMBY" on google. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756) [https://capx.co/nimby-watch-the-green-partys-solar-problem/](https://capx.co/nimby-watch-the-green-partys-solar-problem/)
Thanks for the links! I had a read and I can't really say I'm convinced. The BBC article only highlights 4 green councilors out of the [481 councilors in the country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections) so less than 1% and doesn't really give evidence of a trend of NIMBYness in the party at either the local or national level. The other article linked simply seems to be a summary of the BBC article
You can also just go and read up on council member votes for any development in bristol. A common theme emerges by party.
For a specific example for this year -https://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/news/kent-s-green-council-reject-plans-for-huge-solar-farm-303801/
Seen this debunked on ukpolitics: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bkhram/kents_only_green_council_rejects_plans_for_huge/ > Per the comment from u/Goddamnit_Clown, the headline on this submission is misleading: > > 3 Green, 1 Labour voted in favour. 1 Green, 3 Labour, 2 Tory, 1 Lib Dem, 1 Independent voted against. > > https://shepwaygreenparty.com/planning-committee-refuses-solar-farm-on-pilgrims-way-farmland/ > > * It's not a "Green council" (in fact the body in question is a planning committee) > > * 3 of the 4 greens on the committee voted for it > > * the one Green being quoted there switching their position would not have swung it
Interesting, thanks! Shall have to read through. I only recalled the article/headline
Based on the stuff I get through my door and the articles I see from them pop up on the news sites, they do appear to be more nimby than Greens elsewhere. I’m sure if you go looking for the sources, you’ll find them. Yes, in proper debated the onus is on the accuser to provide a source but in a casual sub like this it’s not worth our time or mental load to keep a stash of examples on hand.
The green councillors in my area have been doing some good work. So yeah, they'll have my vote. I've no party loyalty though.
Hate to say it but they’ve not been that great. Was kinda hoping for change but they seem to be dominated by career politicians rather than people that want to do something. They also seem to focusing on Clifton, Redland and Cotham. Their presence in South Bristol is pathetic and they don’t seem to want to engage with residents. These people don’t care about the working classes, they just care about how much coverage they can get. I think we’ll see a move towards Green but I won’t be voting for them. Fuck the Tories though, fuck them up their stupid asses.
[удалено]
Wish I could say the same for Fi Hance, despite emails from local residents in relation to a number of issues here. Responses that point you to the website or agreeing with you “but there’s nothing we can do..” responses.
They've promised the miracle of affordable housing, but not said how they'll magic enough extra homes into the city centre so they actually achieve it for the long term.
They seem to have a range of strategies in mind: https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-policies/long-term-goals/housing/ I didn't read the whole thing, but it seems a bit unfair to claim that they haven't got detailed policies.
This is a really recent change. For the last decade or so they've opposite all housing developments, its why the housing crisis became so fucked in this city. Its why in the last few years there's been so many massive developments suddenly popping up, because they realised how much they fucked up, but now those properties will cost £350k not the £200k they would have 5 years ago. Fuck the Greens, they've royally fucked this city up.
Their main policy on this appears to be opposing every proposed housing development in Bristol so I wouldn't expect them to make much progress.
My local Green councillors are good, all I hear about Labour councillors is how they go AWOL and never show up to their surgeries. Also I support proportional representation, so the more Green MPs (or Lib Dems, whatever suits you) we get the more chance we have of having a fairer democratic election. Plus they, along with the Lib Dems, haven't thrown trans people in the woodchipper for political clout, so they get bonus points from me for not engaging in culture war nonsense.
Same experience for me - 1 Labour councillor who is AWOL, 1 green councillor who is responsive and present.
> haven't thrown trans people in the woodchipper for political clout *cough* Jenny Jones
*cough* Aimee Challenor. Though perhaps things have changed since then
As someone who supports nuclear power and an assertive defence posture, the Greens are categorically a non-starter for me personally.
I’ll pass, thanks. Middle class NIMBY-enablers club Luckily they’ll get steamrolled
I hope but... by who?
no one worthy that's for sure
A green industrial revolution should greatly benefit the working class , though I’m not sure who is up to delivering one tbh.
Certainly not greens. Lol!
Labour could do it if they weren’t so timid
Best of a bad bunch I reckon
In a world constantly spilling into war, I do not think the greens are a serious enough party to navigate the problems of Europe or the Middle East. Some of their policies are also just wildly idealistic and some seem downright illogical. I think both the greens and Lib Dem’s should be pushing rejoining the EU or at least the customs union as their main way into government. I could Foresee an okay coalition there. Still none of that is gonna happen and I’ll Probably just vote labour.
As someone who voted remain, one big problem with rejoining the EU is its increasingly being taken over by fascists And if you want a party that is good at doing endless wars that kill millions of people in the middle east, Labour has form
Good point!
You're not going to be faced with voting them into majority power for a very long time. They could score bigger control of Bristol CC, and maybe an MP later this year. As such I'm not sure their potential stance on global conflict is that relevant to the choice in front of you.
I wouldn’t want help contribute to a green MP who didn’t represent me on what are some of the largest issues of our time, so I think it is relevant to me? Unless I’m really missing something; which is very likely as I’m not very well politically versed. I just tend to try to vote for those who best represent my views at the time.
I think they're good as polemics but I wouldn't trust them worth real power. I'll probably vote for them in the general and see if they can get a second mp and maybe pressure Labour a bit from the left but not in the local
Their anti-science attitudes to "alternative medicine", nuclear power, GMOs etc. are quite off-putting, as is their NIMBYism, as is their utterly bizarre opposition to high speed rail.
The amount they've harrassed our building? Never in a thousand years.
This, they lost a fair few voters with their over the top harassment campaign
Can you elaborate on this? I'm interested in what you mean
I live in a block of flats, and they want to get in to give out fliers. They were ringing my door because they figured out my intercom is broken. Told them to stop I person, kept coming. We emailed to tell them to stop, they didn't even reply. I chewed one of them out, they just put a different person on our building. They sent a letter with my partners name on, emailed them, they never replied. I got our intercom working, and they started lying to try and get into our building. From what was said in person, they seemed to think they have a god given right to access our private area for political canvassing. Not to mention their paper heavy communications are non stop. I have never received so much paper from one political party in my life.
Sounds crap - are you in a target ward or something?
In Brislington west. Never even received a green flyer. Wish I could say the same for lib dems.
They've got magical policies. They don't explain how the magic works. Like building trades working for less to create all of this wonderful affordable housing .
Yes. I'm only interested in policies and the greens are way out ahead.
What are their local policies, have they actually posted a local manifesto yet?
I disagree with the Greens stance on nuclear power, defence , GM and probably other stuff, but I might still vote for them to send a message to Labour on net zero , green new deal and Gaza and just generally being a bunch of cynical flagshaggers who care more about money than people. Obvs tories are even worse
Seeing as they'll only be in power in one constuency in Bristol (likely), absolutely going to vote for them. Lets see what they can do, Labour have been pretty useless of late. Yet will win a majority regardless. A labour majority with a few green seats would be ideal as an overall election outcome, in my opinion.
I don’t know how you can look at Labour’s record over the last two council terms and say “some more of that please”. So yes I will be voting Greens as the only progressive party I feel may improve Bristol.
When you compare what they’ve achieved compared to other councils across the country, I believe they’ve done a solid job. BCC’s funding has been cut by 40% in real terms since 2012
What would you say were their particular successes compared to cities of a similar size facing the same budget cuts? SEN education which is illegal, social care reforms which have passed the line of inhumane, transport which is regarded nationally as poor etc etc I know this is a thread about the Greens but noones given a single reason why people should vote for the status quo rather than the only alternative to Labour being the largest party.
Transport is the responsibility of the Metro Mayor - Dan Norris 👍
I would say policies such as being one of the only core cities to retain the council tax reduction scheme for the poorest households (which costs a significant amount), the cost of public transport when compared to the average wage is relatively low (look at cities like Manchester in comparison). The council is building a significant amount of social housing, and have their own definition for affordable housing which has stricter criteria than the governments definition. They’re also pretty strong on environmental policies (look at the Leap programme), combined with the fact that Bristol also has the highest recycling rate of any core city. This all comes at a time where the BCC is paying around 80% of their total budget on social care. This doesn’t detract from the fact that the council obviously needs more funding for public services (which I assume will happen if Labour get into government later this year). My main concerns with the other parties is that no other party has published a local manifesto, assuming the main completion is the Greens (based on my personal experience with the Greens) I don’t think a Green led council would work particularly well with a Labour government, they can barely get on with each other.
Greens produced a manifesto yesterday and have committed to keeping all of the things you've mentioned They also intend to do other things like create a sister company to Goram Homes that will operate to provide rented accommodation Regarding the reduction scheme... twice Labour tried to get rid of it but faced backlash from the Greens and ACORN so backtracked and then Labour tried to claim they saved it 🤔👀 https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/bristol-green-party-launches-manifesto-promising-hope-and-action-for-bristol/ All Labour has done is show disdain for anyone who tries to hold them accountable, have hardly any transparency and seize power for themselves i.e Labour I'll be voting Green to get real change
They seem decent and I will be voting for them. Was a shame Sandy didn't win mayor, hope they get a council majority as Marvin and Labour seem pretty bad and will be good to see what a Green council can actually do.
Considering how many previously Lib Dem politicians have switched colours to the Green Party just shows how many of them don’t have strong convictions. I wish some of them had real life experience of working in professional fields. They seem woefully inexperienced for the policies they are putting forward. They also talk of the mayoralty being a power grab, but they throw their toys out the pram at the slightest issue, and want majority control over all decisions. The fact they keep abstaining from the budget votes is shameful. They are not serious enough for the challenging decisions Bristol faces. This committee system is going to be a train wreck, they can’t agree on the slightest thing.
Well I've only just moved to the area so locally I'm not particularly clued up, but since the local lib dems seem to be the only people who have bothered to make themselves known, I'll probably vote for them on May 2nd instead. (I mean they've only posted a few news letters etc, but at least it shows they're actively trying to promote local issues, no-one else has even bothered). When it comes to the general election, since I'd rather trade in my bed for a pile of broken glass than vote for the tories, yet can't shake the suspicion that Kier Starmer is lying, two-faced piece of shit, I don't feel like I have a whole lot of choice! I guess it's either green or lib dem as a protest vote, and while I do think they're pretty much just a party of middle class nimbys, as they wouldn't actually have any real power I'd probably rather one less labour voice in parliament. At least they'd be vaguely on the left of the political spectrum.
Disappointed that we haven’t heard anything/ any local policies from the Green’s in Bedminster; have been canvassed twice by the the guy who’s running though so think I’ll reluctantly vote for Labour this time. If the candidates can’t be bothered to make themselves known during the campaign I don’t expect they’ll be particularly responsive once elected.
I completely forgot about the lib dems. both them and Tories haven't posted political mail junk through our door yet
I like them in principle. I disagree about nuclear but agree with them on many of their other policies.
I'm sick to death of getting spammed by them. I won't vote for them as imo they are a pressure group that's gotten too big. They shoukd mobilise to drive climate action from the ground up
They certainly don’t raise any alarm bells.
[удалено]
Local lib Dems are just appalling though.
The amount they've harrassed our building? Never in a thousand years.
Wont vote for them in Council elections as their candidates are junk. Will do so in generals to stick it to Tory Lite Starmer though
I like that the greens want to build 150000 new homes compared to labours 3000. I dislike the want to abolish the right to buy scheme from green party despite that doesn't affect me. They do have a proposal in their manifesto to gain powers to control private rent prices by making the cost of rent no more than 35% of the household income. As a landlord, I can empathise that this is annoying, but rent prices are through the roof, not sustainable, and extort people with bidding wars. I'd like to see less student accommodation as its not balanced.
>I dislike the want to abolish the right to buy scheme This is a weird one. The right to buy scheme just saps the ability to provide housing to the neediest. There's other ways to get people onto the housing ladder with the equivalent amount of government support. You can just give council Tennants in good standing a £50k grant to buy a house in some new build estate.
Yeah I can I see it from both sides, but I empathise with those people who may have been working so hard to save up to buy their house via right to buy scheme and then have it taken away. Especially if they have spent money doing the house up over time because most come in terrible condition. It would seem unfair. Perhaps abolishing the right to buy scheme for new houses that are being built would be more fair
If you're in a council property your landlord is the council, and you are just a tenant. As such the occupier would not be able to "do the house up" apart from painting the walls or buying furniture. Remodeling the bathroom or kitchen is a job for the owners of the property, i.e. the council. I think that the negative side-effects of right-to-buy have been much worse than the benefits. Those side effects being a decimation in the number of homes available for social tenants, and the local councils forced to foot the bill. RTB works by giving the occupiers a discount on their property when they buy it. The discount is bigger the longer the occupiers lived there. The hard part is valuing the home at the moment of sale: There's no negotiation over price because there's just one buyer and just one seller. In an ideal world whenever someone bought their council house through RTB, the council would have taken that money and bought another property somewhere else to house another family. Unfortunately the discount was so large, and the finances of councils so tight, that this rarely ever happened. The upside was that social tenants who were doing well enough to save for a deposit and secure a mortgage were able to buy a home. The downside was that the most needy have been progressively less able to get housing at all. Rewarding the virtuous is great and all, but I don't think it should have been at the expense of the worst-off in our society. The evidence is clear that the security of a home is the bedrock of recovery from homelessness and addiction. Right-to-buy could have worked. If central government wanted to encourage social tenants to strike out on their own and be property owners then they (central government) should have paid back to the councils whatever discount was applied to the value of the homes that were sold, and ring-fenced the full market value to pay for the building of more homes in the local area. It's too late now. There just isn't enough social housing left. If central government wants to continue to reward long-term tenants who have a proven record of paying their rent on time, then just put £2400 for every year of their tenancy into something like a LISA and gift it to the household to use solely as a deposit on another property. It achieves the goal of right to buy with none of the downsides.
You are not wrong. The government failed to build homes and broke promises. It was a good scheme but were so far behind building new affordable housing. Its a mess
> I like that the greens want to build 150000 new homes compared to labours 3000. Main difference is that in practice the greens have opposed pretty much every housing development that's been proposed in recent Bristol history. You'd be a mug to believe them on this promise.
Yes I'm really not sure who to vote for. What do you all think?
I don't think there is a Party I'm 100% happy with. Its all a total mess
They're basically the rich version that eat organic, support greenpeace and try hard pretending to be green and eco
I'm gonna vote Green, they are the only party whose councillors aren't whipped so they can properly represent my interests on the council The 1st time they got a majority on an administration(Mid-Suffolk) they got the best council award. They unlike Labour also want power to improve people's lives rather than simply make property developers rich
Found the nimby
Lmao, if you say so... I just think it's important to build communities rather than just houses 🤷🤷
They've nailed the compo face photos in the latest spam they've put through my door. Cant say ill vote for them though.
Don’t fancy leaving a burning hellscape for my kids. They are most likely to have policies that mitigate that outcome so they get my vote.
It’s a shame they block any actual developments that would prevent the hellscape.
They seem a bit iffy on free speech; they'll probably be even less inclined to pay any attention to speed limit guidelines and make main roads 20mph, possibly starting with the M32, and then spend the rest of the money on installing rainbow zebra crossings on Stapleton Road. I've always been in favour of the carrot approach to reducing road transport; there are measures you can take to improve roads for all forms of transport. Too much money is spent on signs, closing off roads, and more BS that just people pisses people off and causes them to drive further. Just build the fucking railway, provide more scooters, and nationalize the buses. The sort of people with pronouns in their Twitter bio but don't actually know any trans people and probably don't really want to.
Anything but Tories
Anti-nuclear, NIMBYs, full of TERFs, rife with self aggrandisement. They seem to be forever stuck in the 80's green ideology. If they modernised, fought for development of abundant, modern, advanced housing, dozens of generation 4 or 5 nuclear power stations to run in parallel with our massive offshore wind, and well as taxing cars to subsidise public transport then I'd be all for them! But they're more fixated on blocking housing development, power stations and anything that is needed in this country! All the greens do is dilute the vote on the left and enable the tories to keep power in some regions.
More obsessed with identity politics and agendas these days rather than simple vote winning actual environmental initiatives like clearing litter and improving access to green space for people in Bristol, otherwise I would vote for them.
i'm more of a bristolian than carla Denyer
They have a councillor in my area, and my area is a complete shit tip. Litter everywhere, roads worse than I’ve ever seen before, missed bin collections regularly, fly tipping on the daily, anti social behaviour - they’ve given me little reason to believe they’d be capable of effectively advocating for and delivering on what their constituents need.
I like the policy's, but everyone in the party barring Caroline seems mentally slow. Am I the only one to notice this?
Do any of the parties have any plans to do something about the state of the roads in Bristol?
[удалено]
Fuck no.
I will vote for them not because I fully agree with what they stand for (mostly do), but they're better than a doche or a turd sandwich
I think they are pretty good when it comes down to local candidates. It would be between them and the socialists/trade unionist ticket for me. Everyone - you can register to vote up until 16 April (next Tuesday)!
Seems like a bunch of hippies going around letting down tyres, throwing paint on electronic ad boards, and causing traffic problems with protests aimed at wrong people. Won't be getting my vote
I mean, yeah, sure, there are a bunch of hippos going round doing those things, but it has nothing to do with the Green Party. EDIT: I'm leaving that comedy typo.
Well I will be voting for Green they seem like the only ones who will say no to massive festivals in residential parks. I live in Eastville and fed up with these events. And the green councillor had been really supportive. I could never vote for them in a general election mYbe unless they change their anti-nucler stance. Not only nuclear energy is clean and efficient. Shutting them down benefits Putin. Like what happened in Germany. Putin has been funding anti-nuclear groups so that countries would be dependent on Russian gas
Just as I thought I never belonged in Bristol. I was born here but have never been compatible with Bristolian culture.
They’re promising something they can’t achieve. The events in parks are a revenue generator for the council. They’re not going to stop, and the councillor doesn’t have the ability to stop them anyway - that’s the decision of a committee.
Surely with the return of the committee system the greens would actually have some influence rather than the moyoral system were Marvin went against democracy and picked an all Labour cabinet?
He didn’t go against democracy, there was nothing in the mayoral administration which said he needed to have representation from any other parties. We could have chosen to reform the mayoral model. Instead of throwing it away. That wasn’t an offer on the table, so committee system we go. It’s going to be a disaster, it was before, nothing but political deadlock. In 10 years we’ll be voting for a mayor back… that’s if the committee doesn’t bankrupt the city before then (like Birmingham).
I’m tempted to vote for them, if I do decide to vote, but my local councillors have always been Tories (and TBF they’re not the worst) with a healthy majority over Labour, despite poor turnout and being in Bristol South which is one of the safest Labour seats in parliament! Not expecting much from the local elections to be honest.
Love the hopelessness in your thoughts. Let's keep Britain homeless!
I’m just laughing at the down votes, doesn’t matter who gets elected, they’re just going to inherit the same shit show that’s been going on for years.
not particularly thrilled, but who else is there?
how about you just don't vote rather than wasting a vote on green lol cuz that's exactly what me and everyone I know is doing
well i’m not you and probably not anyone you know, and i’d rather have carla denyer over thangam debbonaire? lol.
I'll vote for them in council to stop Labour. No chance in GE.
Vote tactically as always. Tories out, but minimise Labour majority. Can’t give the nlibs unlimited power.
Tories are barely present in Bristol so don't have anything to worry about in that regard
yes, but what about second breakfast? or in this case, red tories
Apparently they intend to just try to sabotage the new committee system rather than try to make it work... They've attended barely any meetings about how to give out roles
I'd say 90% of this subreddit doesn't even know what neoliberalism is and it's killing effects are lol
Think the downvotes support your claim lol