But they do elect leaders, as I understand, to act as spokespeople, and in this case they’ve elected as a spokesperson someone who’s opposed to green infrastructure.

Another way of putting it is to say that at least 25% of Green MPs oppose green infrastructure.

If you had a case at all, you’d attack the facts, not the source.

There’s no bullshit involved. I have an anti-Green agenda because I have a pro-green agenda. Both in and out of power, the Greens oppose actual green development in favour of nimbyism. They have shown this in this case by immediately using their much-vaunted quadrupling in representation to oppose a project which would help meet the goal of decarbonising the grid by 2030. This is very much part of a pattern.

Whatever my limited influence on green development, I can guarantee it’s of smaller impact than Ramsay’s nimbyism.

He is the co-leader of the Greens, so it’s fair to say that he speaks for the party.

He is opposed to a policy which has already been thoroughly consulted on. The consultation found that the only alternatives would be to bury the lines, which would be more environmentally destructive, or do nothing, which would be more environmentally destructive. So, yes, he is opposed to green infrastructure, which is sadly quite consistent with the actual record (as opposed to the rhetoric) of the Green party.

I know, so unexpected given their local government track record of nobly opposing solar farms.

I think a lot of people struggle to tell the difference between something that changes the view and something that ruins the view. Wind turbines will change a view, of course, because they’re a new addition. But there’s no sense in which they make it worse!

Putting it underground is worse for the environment in and of itself, because of the direct damage to soil and plantlife (and so indirect damage to animal life). It’s also more expensive, which leaves you with less money to spend (on, e.g., just picking an example at random, green development). And it takes longer, which means relying on fossil fuels for longer.

So, his proposed solution is worse for the environment in three different ways. If his solution is less green than the thing he’s opposing, then it’s fair to say he opposes green development.

And yet, even with all you say about the policy being true, the Tories still committed to it over multiple PMs and Home Secretaries, while Labour opposed it at every step and scrapped it at the first opportunity. This does constitute a difference between the two. And even if it’s (just) that Labour can tell when something’s unpopular, expensive, cruel and doesn’t work, that’s a positive difference.

FIFA. Every man and boy in England loves FIFA, except me. I find it totally boring and pointless.

I might keep doing this every time Labour do anything (unless they do something really Tory, of course).

Odd, as I had been told Labour were the same as the Tories, yet this seems quite different! Much to consider.

Don’t know about the first, but the second two are definitely part of their plans. Fingers crossed the plans translate into reality!

Sort of tangential, but Democritus was right about atoms, but obviously he worked it out in a very different way to how modern scientists did — though we don’t know his exact reasoning.

Even more tangential: Aristotle (and others) were wrong about the four elements making all matter, but they do correspond to the four basic states of matter, which is kind of fun: earth=solid, water=liquid, air=gas, fire=plasma.

Starmer will say he hates dogs, I reckon.

He is indeed part of the same phenomenon as known misogynistic rapist and people trafficker, Andrew Tate.

Funny how Farage is suddenly okay with people trafficking, though.

I’m canvassing for Labour all morning, voting in the afternoon, seeing Arcade Fire in the evening. So, it’s going to be a good day!

Private healthcare doesn’t come into it. It’s about people who don’t regularly interact with the health service, which is most of us, having stronger opinions about how healthcare is delivered than whether it is.

Nah. This is like the Lib Dems becoming the Official Opposition. Would be great. Not gonna happen.

Average life expectancy for a 61 year-old man is 85, in which case we won’t rejoin till 2048 at the earliest.

That’s also not a fair characterisation of Streeting’s argument. It’s not that they want people to suffer, just that they’re not exposed to the consequences of the policies they’re advocating.