And so is Australia, which appears to have been firmly entrenched in the south.
It's like saying the global right and including left wing parties.

The real reason that Google has been suffering is that their business model relies on advertising. Traditional media relies upon advertising and they want their competitors stopped. Traditional media has strong ties to the political and judicial class so they're being rogered through this channel.

Compared to the monopoly practices of Microsoft and others, Google is really a minor transgressor. For instance Microsoft should have to separate it application business from it cloud business as they're using predatory practices to force users to use this platform. Essentially they're gluing the cloud to the operating system in a manner similar to the way that they forced their way into the browser market decades ago.

Look its part of the operating system.

First remember that we're talking about the the very poor. Fossil fuel energy is appealing to the poor because it can provide power when and where people need it and is healthier and easier than wood.
A liquid fuel is easy to store, doesn't require power lines and can be used when and where you want it, can provide lighting at night, power for agriculture or transport, and heat for cooking.
It is going to take time to wean the poor off fossil fuel without catastrophic impact.

Many of these countries don't have effective grids yet so investment is needed to develop their grids. But you can't just say no more fossil fuel until you build a grid.
Solar and Wind require huge grids because the power is diffuse, at least double the size of a conventional (fossil) grid, and a large component of electricity bills is actually devoted to paying for the grid.
Nuclear is one of the few technologies which can provide concentrated power similar to conventional electricity generation without requiring the size of the grid to be doubled. It also can provide 24x7 power so that hospitals and other essential infrastructure can remain on-line. It also supports and educated and well paid operational community.

Now for wealthy countries the priorities are significantly different there is one camp spraying for solar and wind and another camp suggesting nuclear. Solar and wind are a good, low cost source of power for dispatchable demand, such as heating a hot water tank, or charging a battery. This doesn't include industrial power loads because most industrial power like electrolytic smelting, ammonia creation or hydrogen electrolysis require 24x7 power loads.

The world needs cheap baseload power and lots of it. If you have the climate and the topology hydro-power might work however it requires you to flood enormous expanses of land with associated environmental and social impact. If you have the geology like Iceland geothermal might work. Otherwise you can use a combination of intermittent solar and wind plus fossil to provide baseload or your can use a combination of nuclear with wind and solar providing cheap power for dispatchable demand.
If you want zero emissions the renewables backed by fossil option doesn't get you there. This is the reality of the situation.

There already example of primarily nuclear grids which are virtually fossil free. These don't exist for renewables unless you have hydro or a volcano underneath you.

Nuclear can drop in price by at least an order of magnitude, wind and solar can't, they're already done this, for example the electricity generator in an nuclear plant costs 10x the equivalent wind turbine generator and it's practically the same. It's up to the wealthy countries to make this happen so that we can provide a bridge for the poor in the world to break away from fossil fuels.
This won't happen while there are people in the world turning off nuclear plants to fire up coal plants in spite of voluminous evidence that this a terrible idea.

By the way nuclear waste is a non-issue compared to CO2

Yes interest rates are a blunt instrument however they target risk. When you borrow you are making a risk based decision based upon the information at hand feeding the economy. Unfortunately some of these decisions will turn out to be poor ones if low interest rates have been baked in which creates financial stress.
There is a greater structural issue where debt has been used to inflate housing prices in some countries, effectively transferring wealth to the elderly and indirectly taxing the young. Debt should be financing industry not housing however it has been becoming politically more difficult to tax the elderly as they grow in numbers and have become a significant voting block.

This is all about energy. The countries which are suffering the most are closely tied to fossil fuels to power their industrial economy, supplies of which have been disrupted due to the Ukraine war. Both German and Italian manufacturing industry and their economies in general have been smashed by high energy prices. What is not commonly understood is that every MW of renewables brought online, 1.2 MW of gas generation is require to back it. So countries with high renewable penetration are over a barrel and are having to embrace heavily polluting power sources such as coal to lower their gas bill.

It's interesting to contrast these economies with the French economy which has significantly greater energy security due to their use of nuclear, while the German economy shrank the French economy grew. This was while a number of their reactors were off-line due to maintenance, so over the next year this difference will become even more apparent.
Ironically the wind turbine manufacturers in Europe whose products are in high demand are in crisis, Siemens lost nearly $1 billion on wind last year; pure-play Vestas saw an operating profit decline of 369%. GE Renewable Energy posted a loss of $2.24 billion so something is clearly broken. Costs of wind turbines will clearly have to rise if this industry is to grow which will be a blow to those predicting every reducing costs for wind.

What is clear is that across the board countries using nuclear are doing better economically are those with a significant amount of nuclear power. The only outliers are countries which export fossil fuels.

Apple and Microsoft are large abusers of the market.
Apple should be forced to open it's platform to third parties and also make it's messaging platform available to third parties. The right to repair and repairable design should be a requirement.
Microsoft is current leveraging it's dominance of the corporate compute market to gain dominance in the cloud marketplace. The cloud should be unbundled and separated from their other software product. Based on the current growth rates Azure will end up dominating the cloud marketplace as well.

The key point is that neither wind or solar produces power when consumers want it. So invariably gas is used to fill the gaps. If you don’t use gas, you need to massively overbuild (7x) wind and solar and install batteries etc to fill the gaps. Suddenly your 10-14 MW per person is divided by 7, and this doesn’t account for the storage management. This is why countries with renewables and no nuclear pay higher prices for power. France = cheap power, Germany, Denmark etc very expensive power.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1328679/attitudes-toward-nuclear-energy-germany/
This showed that 82% of the German population wanted to either keep the nuclear plants open in the medium or long term and only 18% wanted them shut down.

Another survey finds that more than 50% of Germans see nuclear as playing a future role in power generation.
The winds of change are blowing away old antinuclear fogies.

The German renewable industry has been based entirely on subsidies. It can’t compete without them.

Countries with nuclear have consistently lower electricity power prices than those trying do do renewables only. So either nuclear is cheaper or all the countries doing renewables are somehow stuffing it up.

Wind and Solar are only suitable for dispatchable loads or discretionary loads. For example if you have a big hot water system and power is super cheap you can heat the water, when power is expensive you can switch it off.
It's not suitable for meeting constant loads such as powering a grid 24x7, for that you need something that is not intermittent. Nuclear fits this role.

The problem for Wind and Solar is that the cost of nuclear is almost all in the construction cost, they have very low running costs, so that Wind and Solar now have to compete with a technology that can produce power at near zero cost during competitive periods and then make money when the demand is high.

The only way to make this model work is to subsidise wind and solar either by guaranteeing a base price or prioritising wind and solar over wind. However this makes Nuclear need to charge more in the off peak times so people end up needing to pay more for ideology rather than an efficient system.

The gist of this argument is that Wind and Solar are better from a moral standpoint and even if Nuclear is a better solution technically and economically it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Intermittent energy generation is only suitable for dispatchable loads. ie loads which are not time critical. Think pumped Hydro off peak water heating or chlorinating your swimming pool.
The only way to make it work to form a large part of the grid capacity is to back it with a second dispatchable power generation system. To date only gas has been deployed at scale to make this model work and gas is a dirty CO2 generating source of power. For every MW of renewables deployed 1.2MW of gas generation has been deployed worldwide.
Battery storage models show just 4 hour storage costs for batteries will cost $198 kWh by 2030 and that's just for 4 hours, so by introducing this gas peaking is still required to take over when this is exhausted, so now you need 3 stacked sources and the capital costs keep climbing.

In reality Wind and Solar are only good when powering up to about 25% of your grid, the rest needs to be powered by a baseload plant which can provide power non-stop as required.

On what basis?
France can and does buy uranium on the International market from places like Australia and Canada.
France can also reprocess uranium from spent fuel which is slightly more expensive but still provides fuel.

While solar generates cheap power during the day it doesn't work at night when there is the greatest demand. Maybe you could buy some cobalt from those African countries which apparently will no longer want to trade with Europe?

Nuclear plant can load follow through two standard mechanisms.
They can change the reactivity of the core generally between about 100%-60% however this is only possible when the reactor is newly fuelled, as the fuel is almost spent you can't load follow quickly because it takes longer to ramp.
Secondly you can bypass the turbines, steam generators pump steam straight to the condensers. You're still burning fuel however you aren't generating power. You want to do this at times when the prices is negative.

But the real question is why should you would want to stop generating nuclear power. Nuclear power costs very little apart from plant cost, so from an input side as long as the sell price is positive you should will keep making power. The problem for wind and solar is that they have a competitor who can sell power for near zero prices when they're on-line so they become unprofitable.
The only way to change this is the prop intermittent sources up with subsidises so they get paid for making power when the buy price is negative or to store the power that you're making until the sell price is better. But storage is very expensive and often inefficienty so your sell price must be significantly higher and you need to install even greater capacity.