I'm happy they're doing this, and it's good and admirable to see people be able to change their minds on something they once believed so strongly, but this should have happened 30 years ago.
>People only "change their mind" when it becomes an existential crisis.
If only. There's people and parties (not in the UK) who would rather see the rest of the country suffer than admit they were wrong, so they feel compelled to die on that hill and take everyone with them, because defending their principle is more important.
Wow when nuclear power was the answer why we’re against it, but now nuclear power is too expensive compared with renewables plus solar they are for it.
How about some useful policies like removing planning constraints for grid expansion and solar farms and compulsory wind farms on golf courses owned by foreign billionaires
There are aspects of many political parties I agree with, but to me, being against Nuclear Power is the largest short sighted items this and a couple of other parties are/were against.
If many countries took the same road as France, the world would be in a much better place. Imagine the energy advances that could have happened if nuclear was supported for the past 50 years.
Or renewables. I remind you that nuclear power is completely economically unviable today because it is the single most expensive way to generate power. Even with Trump rolling back safety regulations, it's still too expensive when solar panels are 10 cents per watt, nuclear is 50, and the amount of backup storage to offset the unreliability does not bridge that gap.
Also France is around 7c (euro) per kwh from nuclear generation. If the whole west was all in on nuclear for last 50 years it would have resulted in lower per kwh costs.
and i remind you that this framing is completely misleading outside the world of simulations and calculations.
Nuclear doesn't need to be the only source of electricity generation. In fact, it can be the base on top of which a serious country expands electricity generation with renewable energy.
I will also remind you that there is not a single industrialised economy anywhere on earth that has successfully supplied new electricity growth with only renewable energy. Not one.
I find it fairly amusing that "green" parties were ever opposed to nuclear power. It was clearly lobbying by fossil fuel energy interests. If we're gonna generate electricity at night without burning coal, oil or gas, we need nuclear. Storing solar and wind overnight is an even more absurd proposition than nuclear power plants. Burning more fossil fuels is even more absurd than nuclear power plants.
Once upon a time, there was also the Soviet propaganda effort in the West. Many of the Cold War reactors could be used to produce not just electricity, but fission material for nuclear warheads. Meaning that if you could persuade big countries to give up nuclear energy for good, you'd also reduce your adversary's capability to build and maintain their nuclear arsenal, or preempt its future acquisition in the first place.
I think both this and their past opposition are actually principled positions; I welcome the change.
Nuclear power was not without accidents and risk, and things are improved, plus there are options for greener nuclear power.
Alas this is a party which cannot in its current form be allowed near power (whatever your position on the Gaza conflict, the "Zionism is racism" motion is grim, callous political insanity), with (for now at least) a leader who is so mindblowingly mediocre, overconfident and overpromoted that really nothing they do will be taken seriously until he is removed.
Netanyahu is actively sliming all of the Arab Israeli as "cheaters" and "stealer".
The opposition could ally with those parties and end Netanyahu corruption and start the Oct 7 investigation that Netanyahu blocks but they don't.
Explain to us, in light of these very evident and present facts, how Zionism isn't racism. Give us an idea what is going to happen if the Arab citizens part of the Israeli population grows more than the current 20% in regards to "self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland".
Why is "Zionism is racism" insanity? Based on the definitions of those words it's a simple true statement, no? And our political system is insane if simple true statements send it over the edge.
Because it is part of a pact that seeks to deny the existence of Israel and “restore historical Palestine” to that region which means Israel can no longer exist.
The Green Party has jumped the shark now that it’s been colonised by these single-issue loons.
A Jewish drama student LARPing as the leader of an Islamist, pro-Palestinian party standing on a ticket of Israel not existing wasn’t on my 2026 political bingo card.
I'm happy they're doing this, and it's good and admirable to see people be able to change their minds on something they once believed so strongly, but this should have happened 30 years ago.
People only "change their mind" when it becomes an existential crisis. And energy security in Europe has reached that stage 10x.
>People only "change their mind" when it becomes an existential crisis.
If only. There's people and parties (not in the UK) who would rather see the rest of the country suffer than admit they were wrong, so they feel compelled to die on that hill and take everyone with them, because defending their principle is more important.
This is such a bummer. Russia still has good long term energy plans for Germany. (if you are European this is sarcasm).
Now by selling them uranium!
> Russia still has good long term energy plans for Germany
What do you mean?
Finally, but useful idiots already caused a lot of damage. Best time for European nuclear power buildout was 30 years ago.
Wow when nuclear power was the answer why we’re against it, but now nuclear power is too expensive compared with renewables plus solar they are for it.
How about some useful policies like removing planning constraints for grid expansion and solar farms and compulsory wind farms on golf courses owned by foreign billionaires
What's your take on why every hyperscaler is getting into nuclear if the economics are actually as you suggest?
> but now nuclear power is too expensive compared with renewables plus solar
Brit here: we need renewables and storage and nuclear.
> compulsory wind farms on golf courses owned by foreign billionaires
We need this x100.
Too little, too late.
There are aspects of many political parties I agree with, but to me, being against Nuclear Power is the largest short sighted items this and a couple of other parties are/were against.
If many countries took the same road as France, the world would be in a much better place. Imagine the energy advances that could have happened if nuclear was supported for the past 50 years.
Or renewables. I remind you that nuclear power is completely economically unviable today because it is the single most expensive way to generate power. Even with Trump rolling back safety regulations, it's still too expensive when solar panels are 10 cents per watt, nuclear is 50, and the amount of backup storage to offset the unreliability does not bridge that gap.
Do you mean kwh? Your per Watt is way off.
Also France is around 7c (euro) per kwh from nuclear generation. If the whole west was all in on nuclear for last 50 years it would have resulted in lower per kwh costs.
and i remind you that this framing is completely misleading outside the world of simulations and calculations.
Nuclear doesn't need to be the only source of electricity generation. In fact, it can be the base on top of which a serious country expands electricity generation with renewable energy.
I will also remind you that there is not a single industrialised economy anywhere on earth that has successfully supplied new electricity growth with only renewable energy. Not one.
Cheque from Kremlin didn't clear?
I mean if nuclear fusion ever becomes commercially viable, you'd be nuts not to support it.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
The "Green" part of "Green Party" refers to the colours of Hamas now.
Rube
You can call them a name, or do a little research…
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/ehrc-writes-green-p...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/10/30/thousands-qu...
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/green-party-zio...
I find it fairly amusing that "green" parties were ever opposed to nuclear power. It was clearly lobbying by fossil fuel energy interests. If we're gonna generate electricity at night without burning coal, oil or gas, we need nuclear. Storing solar and wind overnight is an even more absurd proposition than nuclear power plants. Burning more fossil fuels is even more absurd than nuclear power plants.
Once upon a time, there was also the Soviet propaganda effort in the West. Many of the Cold War reactors could be used to produce not just electricity, but fission material for nuclear warheads. Meaning that if you could persuade big countries to give up nuclear energy for good, you'd also reduce your adversary's capability to build and maintain their nuclear arsenal, or preempt its future acquisition in the first place.
Military forces never had any problem running extra reactors to acquire their material.
In this case, the green is now for Islamism.
I think both this and their past opposition are actually principled positions; I welcome the change.
Nuclear power was not without accidents and risk, and things are improved, plus there are options for greener nuclear power.
Alas this is a party which cannot in its current form be allowed near power (whatever your position on the Gaza conflict, the "Zionism is racism" motion is grim, callous political insanity), with (for now at least) a leader who is so mindblowingly mediocre, overconfident and overpromoted that really nothing they do will be taken seriously until he is removed.
Yeah. I don't agree with their polices, but at least Caroline Lucas (previous leader) was credible. Zack, not so much.
Netanyahu is actively sliming all of the Arab Israeli as "cheaters" and "stealer".
The opposition could ally with those parties and end Netanyahu corruption and start the Oct 7 investigation that Netanyahu blocks but they don't.
Explain to us, in light of these very evident and present facts, how Zionism isn't racism. Give us an idea what is going to happen if the Arab citizens part of the Israeli population grows more than the current 20% in regards to "self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland".
Why is "Zionism is racism" insanity? Based on the definitions of those words it's a simple true statement, no? And our political system is insane if simple true statements send it over the edge.
Because it is part of a pact that seeks to deny the existence of Israel and “restore historical Palestine” to that region which means Israel can no longer exist.
The Green Party has jumped the shark now that it’s been colonised by these single-issue loons.
A Jewish drama student LARPing as the leader of an Islamist, pro-Palestinian party standing on a ticket of Israel not existing wasn’t on my 2026 political bingo card.