Yeah, but demand has ramped up, and it seems that wind/solar is no longer able to keep up, unless I’m missing something

Ah, fair enough.

Yeah, if it really was one of Farage (leader of Reform)’s strategies to make reform more appealing/get more votes, it’s ridiculously stupid — then again, it’s wouldn’t be the dumbest thing he did, nor will it be his last. It almost wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if it came to light…

The problem with that is, Restore Britain has taken a significant share of former Reform and Conservative votes (I don’t know the exact stats off the top of my head, but in the last few local elections and by-elections, the right wing vote was pretty split between the 3 factions). Plus, for the last few years, the Labour Party (centre left-left wing party) has been the main target/political weapon of Reform, mainly since the last general election (wether that’s simply because Labour won the election seems likely, but also the party’s dwindling support under Keir Starmer before Burnham took over and boosted its numbers). Its also alleged that the Restore leader had a major falling out with the Reform leader; partially causing the split.

Interesting. What kind of energy sources does your co-generation use? Part renewables, part fossil fuels I presume?

May I ask what you do if you don’t mind me asking?

deleted by creator

At least here in the Netherlands, the far right is not much better

That doesn’t mean necessarily that the far left isn’t disorganised, only that the far right is as disorganised. If the far right is likewise disorganised over there, it doesn’t mean the far left isn’t, only that they’re both disorganised.

As for the rest of your comment, I’m afraid I’m not sure of who most of them people/groups are, though that’s purely because I’m from the Netherlands and don’t have knowledge of how your government works. But I’ll be sure to look into your country, it sounds like it could be interesting to see the disorganisation on both sides of the political spectrum.

Fair enough

Innit

True in terms of set-up, but afterwards, maybe?

Funny enough, here in England, something similar to that happened on the far right: there’s this political party called ‘Reform UK’ which is considered the far-right, refuses to align with the Conservative Party (centre-right), but then one of their own disagreed and pushed for Reform UK to adopt even further-right policies. But when they refused to budge, he splintered and formed his own political party, ‘Restore Britain’, which is even further to the right of Reform Uk, but the two parties refuse to work together/form a coalition.

In other words: the super-critical far-left pricks ruin it for the rest of the left wing non-pricks?

Honestly, no. But I have to ask: are they far-left? Where on the left do they sit?

I would still argue that that means sugar consumption can lead to type 2 in some sense, even if it’s not the direct cause, perhaps an indirect cause.

Wind, solar and geothermal. Nuclear is far too expensive per kilowatt to even compare

Don’t suppose you have the statistics to back that one up, do you?

I see, so you believe it’s regional dependent, and we should be focussed on the least harmful methods/plan?

I’m more wondering, is one better than the other? Is it practical for them to co-exist?

To answer your question directly: I don’t know, depends on if it can work ig. But also: we have finite resources, so where should those resources be spent/focused?

Yet, it seems like there’s always this massive push in the UK to build more nuclear plants, so where (and why) does that idea come from? Is it about quick, cheap energy?

This veers dangerously close to the horseshoe analogy…