Share this post:
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has exposed the Labour Party’s hypocrisy over green energy – although you might not get that from the mainstream media’s coverage.
Here’s the BBC:
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has criticised government plans to build a new generation of nuclear reactors, calling it old technology that is like “creating a fax machine”.
Centrica and US firm X-energy aim to create up to 2,500 jobs in Hartlepool by building 12 new advanced modular nuclear reactors.
Polanski said it was technology “from a long time ago” and that money would be better spent on wind and solar power, which could deliver thousands of jobs.
Labour MP for Hartlepool Jonathan Brash said the technology was being pioneered in the United States and that the companies were also working with schools and colleges to recruit a local workforce.
“If the green party wanted to destroy 2,500 jobs in Hartlepool, they’re welcome to advocate for it, but I’m right behind this,” Brash told BBC Politics North.
A textbook clash of priorities
What’s really happening here isn’t just a row between the Greens and Labour — it’s a clash between two visions of “the future”.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving – in SIX days!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
Zack Polanski frames nuclear power as obsolete technology — the “fax machine” line neatly crystallises that. It’s a direct attack on the idea that nuclear is modern, clean, or forward-thinking.
His line is soundbite gold. It’s short, vivid, and immediately comprehensible to voters who sense that the Labour government is chasing an outdated industrial dream.
That kind of clarity is exactly why the Green Party is rising. When Labour tries to be both “pro-jobs” and “pro-green”, it ends up in contradictions like this.
Jonathan Brash, meanwhile, frames it as cutting-edge — “advanced modular technology”, “leading the world”, “2,500 jobs”. These are phrases designed to sound futuristic and economically patriotic, appealing to Labour’s working-class base in the north-east.
But there’s a fundamental tension: you can’t call something both “clean” and “nuclear” without addressing the waste problem. The BBC article, predictably, doesn’t mention that at all — it just reproduces both sides’ soundbites and leaves them unexamined.
The real question: what kind of ‘green jobs’?
Brash’s 2,500 local jobs sound impressive until you put them next to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s own rhetoric. He recently spoke about a plan to create 400,000 green jobs in renewable energy.
hat figure — if Labour is serious about it — dwarfs this nuclear scheme.
So the key question becomes: why is a Labour MP celebrating a fossilised technology when his own party leadership says it wants to lead a renewables revolution?
If you’re building fission reactors that will produce dangerous waste for thousands of years, that’s not green energy — it’s just another stopgap that burdens future generations.
Nuclear as political theatre
There’s a sense here that nuclear power is being used as a symbol of industrial revival rather than an actual solution to the energy crisis.
“£12 billion unlocked for the north-east” seems great in a press release, but those numbers often hide long timelines, huge subsidies, and risk transfer from corporations to taxpayers.
Centrica and X-energy get to trumpet “clean power” and “jobs”, while the UK government says it’s “backing British industry” (falsely – X-energy is based in the United States) — but the long-term costs and clean-up fall on the public purse.
The underlying issue
If the United Kingdom genuinely wants clean, secure, long-term energy, then renewables are already delivering more return for less risk.
Solar and wind can be scaled faster, with far lower environmental costs — and without 10,000-year waste storage plans.
Nuclear power, by contrast, locks the country into a 50-year dependency on expensive infrastructure and hazardous materials.
It’s not “homegrown” energy — it’s imported technology, imported fuel, and exported waste liability.
The UK stands at a crossroads. One path leads to genuine renewables, green industry, and national self-reliance; the other, to legacy tech dressed up as progress, to keep old industrial and political loyalties alive.
Polanski’s stance isn’t radical – it’s simply realistic.
The future of energy isn’t atomic — it’s atmospheric.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Labour’s love of nuclear shows it still doesn’t understand the words ‘green energy’
Share this post:
Here’s the BBC:
A textbook clash of priorities
What’s really happening here isn’t just a row between the Greens and Labour — it’s a clash between two visions of “the future”.
Zack Polanski frames nuclear power as obsolete technology — the “fax machine” line neatly crystallises that. It’s a direct attack on the idea that nuclear is modern, clean, or forward-thinking.
His line is soundbite gold. It’s short, vivid, and immediately comprehensible to voters who sense that the Labour government is chasing an outdated industrial dream.
That kind of clarity is exactly why the Green Party is rising. When Labour tries to be both “pro-jobs” and “pro-green”, it ends up in contradictions like this.
Jonathan Brash, meanwhile, frames it as cutting-edge — “advanced modular technology”, “leading the world”, “2,500 jobs”. These are phrases designed to sound futuristic and economically patriotic, appealing to Labour’s working-class base in the north-east.
But there’s a fundamental tension: you can’t call something both “clean” and “nuclear” without addressing the waste problem. The BBC article, predictably, doesn’t mention that at all — it just reproduces both sides’ soundbites and leaves them unexamined.
The real question: what kind of ‘green jobs’?
Brash’s 2,500 local jobs sound impressive until you put them next to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s own rhetoric. He recently spoke about a plan to create 400,000 green jobs in renewable energy.
hat figure — if Labour is serious about it — dwarfs this nuclear scheme.
So the key question becomes: why is a Labour MP celebrating a fossilised technology when his own party leadership says it wants to lead a renewables revolution?
If you’re building fission reactors that will produce dangerous waste for thousands of years, that’s not green energy — it’s just another stopgap that burdens future generations.
Nuclear as political theatre
There’s a sense here that nuclear power is being used as a symbol of industrial revival rather than an actual solution to the energy crisis.
“£12 billion unlocked for the north-east” seems great in a press release, but those numbers often hide long timelines, huge subsidies, and risk transfer from corporations to taxpayers.
Centrica and X-energy get to trumpet “clean power” and “jobs”, while the UK government says it’s “backing British industry” (falsely – X-energy is based in the United States) — but the long-term costs and clean-up fall on the public purse.
The underlying issue
If the United Kingdom genuinely wants clean, secure, long-term energy, then renewables are already delivering more return for less risk.
Solar and wind can be scaled faster, with far lower environmental costs — and without 10,000-year waste storage plans.
Nuclear power, by contrast, locks the country into a 50-year dependency on expensive infrastructure and hazardous materials.
It’s not “homegrown” energy — it’s imported technology, imported fuel, and exported waste liability.
The UK stands at a crossroads. One path leads to genuine renewables, green industry, and national self-reliance; the other, to legacy tech dressed up as progress, to keep old industrial and political loyalties alive.
Polanski’s stance isn’t radical – it’s simply realistic.
The future of energy isn’t atomic — it’s atmospheric.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Labour wins price battle as E.On cuts tariffs; the war continues
Like this:
Now British Gas has cut its standard tariff – by much less than it should
Like this:
Another energy firm cuts prices – but it’s too little, too late
Like this:
Like this: