The Green Party

[BobKowalski]

Or it’s quite possible that his supporters completely switch off when they see actual criticisms of his policies and/or don’t follow accounts online that are critical?

Whenever I’ve posted something either Polanski or a member of his party have put forward as an idea, it roundly gets ignored or you get accused of being some sort of fascist.

What is your view on his candidate in Scotland wanting to abolish prisons? The Green’s general view about having a borderless society and more immigration than we’ve already had? Banning landlords? Legalising all drugs? Legalising prostitution? Scrapping the nuclear deterrent (seems genius right now)? Even more income tax?

These questions generally don’t get answered, they get denied or ignored.

His policies aren’t anywhere near as popular as you state and the fact you’ve described Labour as right wing has given me a chuckle.

Polanski doesn’t have brains compared to the others, Starmer is a far more impressive individual and if, which he thankfully won’t, Polanski ever got into power, he’d sink very quickly with his utopian bollocks.

I’m unlikely to vote Green, but I am in favour of sending less people to prison, legalising pot, and a ‘relaxed’ immigration policy (shocked surprise). Prostitution is already legal. It’s a no on banning landlords and I would favour a European based nuclear deterrent with no US involvement. Previously, I favoured winding down the deterrent and rebuilding our conventional forces. Events have caused me to rethink that idea.

Still can’t take Greens seriously though.

 

[Ban-jani]

So you agree other parties lead people up the garden but you see that as at least some sort of positive? Erm........

Every party flips from community to community, they are selling themselves for votes. Everything you claim the Greens do to get votes can be levelled at the other parties, your just more happy to accept their sales pitch. Im not sure with the make up of our country you could even call the Greens populist.

Anyhow no point going round in circles, my opinion is you are looking for reasons which you needn't bother with, just vote Tory, labour or lib dem. You're gonna get whatever your gonna get anyhow.

At best the Greens may make a coalition, I wouldnt worry yourself about a prisonless UK.

Yes I do agree. There is quite literally nobody I actively want to vote for in the UK, which considering we have Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Tory, Reform - all of which will get at least a significant part of the vote, depresses me. I don’t blame people for voting for them, in fact I totally understand why they would, as the two parties that have actually been in power, in my lifetime, have totally failed. It doesn’t mean they’re a good option though, not with their pie in the sky views.

My view on Green populism, is their flipping between communities isn’t just a slight deviation to appease a voter base, their policies directed at Western left wing voters are completely at odds with what they’re framing towards migrant populations of a particular religious deposition. I think it’ll cause significant issues for them finding the balance between the two in the years to come.

Nobody on here is going to convince another person to vote another way, I do sometimes find it healthy to discuss issues with those who may not agree with me on a particular subject.

 

[Ban-jani]

I’m unlikely to vote Green, but I am in favour of sending less people to prison, legalising pot, and a ‘relaxed’ immigration policy (shocked surprise). Prostitution is already legal. It’s a no on banning landlords and I would favour a European based nuclear deterrent with no US involvement. Previously, I favoured winding down the deterrent and rebuilding our conventional forces. Events have caused me to rethink that idea.

Still can’t take Greens seriously though.

Tbh I wouldn’t argue sex work being legalised. Not that I’m necessarily a big supporter of it, just that it happens anyway and two consenting adults engaging in an activity that is otherwise legal, shouldn’t be the government’s business if they want to exchange money. As long as every high street isn’t filled with brothels and gangsters and pimps are still illegal so they don’t exploit women.

The Green policy on drugs is all drugs, I can’t see a reasonable situation where heroin and crack cocaine is legal.

Immigration is something I disagree with a number of people on this forum on. Our current policy and the numbers involved is totally absurd. It needs to come down and significantly.

The nuclear deterrent is an absolute must on every level. We are entering a period where the US is no longer a reliable ally, NATO is as globally weak as it’s ever been and we have significant foes in Russia that want to do us harm. Polanski’s view of winding down the deterrent is very naive and raises suspicions.

 

[The Norfolk Blue]

I just don’t like their current rhetoric and types of people the new Greens have attracted when they were a party I used to admire.

They’ll cope I’m sure.

 

[philfodenswristsock]

Some interesting stuff here.

 

[west didsblue]

I’m unlikely to vote Green, but I am in favour of sending less people to prison, legalising pot, and a ‘relaxed’ immigration policy (shocked surprise). Prostitution is already legal. It’s a no on banning landlords and I would favour a European based nuclear deterrent with no US involvement. Previously, I favoured winding down the deterrent and rebuilding our conventional forces. Events have caused me to rethink that idea.

Still can’t take Greens seriously though.

Agree with most of that although I think we should retain a last resort fully independent nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately, although our current deterrent is operationally independent, that independence expires as soon as a missile needs servicing where we’re still totally dependent on the Americans. We need to address this and give ourselves the capability of being fully independent. It will be costly but I think it’s essential now we know that a potentially hostile foreign government can render our deterrent as useless within a couple of years should they so choose.

 

[Ho Chi Man City]

Some interesting stuff here.

Fuck all interesting about it, just a bunch of pricks.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Just a populist like Farage but of a different flavour really. I always admired Caroline Lucas, this Polanski seems ungenuine to me, maybe it's just my subconscious reaction to him sharing a surname with the nonce film director.

 

[philfodenswristsock]

Strange how many people preferred the Lucas iteration of the Greens. Even the 'boutique left' and the right wing nutters (who as a side note, all support private healthcare reform, just so you know!!!) seem to have actually liked her and her version of the Greens... Genuine affection im absolutely certain!!! ... You know the iteration, the version with absolutely no chance of gaining any real power. They were OK with that... But now Polanski could at least have a major say.... NOOOOOO. Interestingly, Lucas and Polanski actually say similar things. Its just he's slick with the coms.

 

[M18CTID]

Spencer’s words weren’t twisted. She quite literally said in response to ‘why are these things [things like the Manchester terrier attack] happening?’, ‘because people like you are dividing people’.



Where the bloke twisted it was trying to say she said he was responsible. But she did say it happens ‘because people like you are diving people’.

The Green Party do want open borders, in every country in the world. It’s in their mission statement as a party. And growing a population through high immigration is antithesis to Green issues.

And even if the Greens did deal with that Alfie bloke, it is these sort of country hating people who are loudly championing and getting involved with the Greens now.

If you think that she seriously meant the Arena terror attack was because of the likes of Goodwin then you need to have a word with yourself.

Re open borders - that’s their long-term goal, yes, but that’s a simplified view as they’re advocating a “fair and humane” managed system in the interim - clearly not open borders.

Oh, and for every Alfie Rees there are more hateful pricks associated with Reform. And funnily enough, I don’t see you or any of the Greens biggest critics on this forum banging on about that.

Just to make it clear, I don’t agree with all their policies - some of them are certainly “out there” so to speak. Plus they have a fair bit of work to do with regards to becoming competent enough to govern the country (that said, some of our recent governments haven’t been particularly competent either) but by and large they’re far less hateful than Reform and for that reason alone give me the Greens over Reform any day of the week.

 

[M18CTID]

They have specifically said they want open borders but it’s not yet practical, that’s on their policy document.

It’ll never be practical and is insane. As is their prison ideas.

Alfie Rees hasn’t been removed from what I can see? At least Reform are immediately sacking their lunatics.

I must’ve missed Sarah Pochin being sacked for her racist comments. Or Lee Anderson for his disgraceful comments about Sadiq Khan. Or Nigel Farage for re-tweeting Andrew Fucking Tate’s lies about the Southport murderer being an asylum seeker who came into the country on a small boat which in turn helped spark off the riots up and down the country.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Just a populist like Farage but of a different flavour really. I always admired Caroline Lucas, this Polanski seems ungenuine to me, maybe it's just my subconscious reaction to him sharing a surname with the nonce film director.

You can't hold that against him, or his proposed cabinet of Buddy Allen, Timmy Savile, Barry Glitter and Jill Cosby.

 

[Ban-jani]

I must’ve missed Sarah Pochin being sacked for her racist comments. Or Lee Anderson for his disgraceful comments about Sadiq Khan. Or Nigel Farage for re-tweeting Andrew Fucking Tate’s lies about the Southport murderer being an asylum seeker who came into the country on a small boat which in turn helped spark off the riots up and down the country.

Sarah Pochin raised a point about advertising disproportionately showing ethnic minorities and underrepresenting white families, her phrasing was poor and it’s an issue I don’t care about, but her argument is statistically correct, an apology for her wording is enough, sacking her would have been very harsh.

I’d argue “death to England” is much worse and the fact he’s still there, says it all really. Aren’t they trying to fucking govern England!?

 

[M18CTID]

Sarah Pochin raised a point about advertising disproportionately showing ethnic minorities and underrepresenting white families, her phrasing was poor and it’s an issue I don’t care about, but her argument is statistically correct, an apology for her wording is enough, sacking her would have been very harsh.

I’d argue “death to England” is much worse and the fact he’s still there, says it all really. Aren’t they trying to fucking govern England!?

I’ve already said he should be removed so I’m not skirting round anything. Why are you giving Pochin a free pass and ignoring my points about Anderson and Farage? Oh, and let’s not forget Reform wheeling out the hateful Lucy Connolly……

 

[Ban-jani]

I’ve already said he should be removed so I’m not skirting round anything. Why are you giving Pochin a free pass and ignoring my points about Anderson and Farage? Oh, and let’s not forget Reform wheeling out the hateful Lucy Connolly……

I don’t know what Anderson said, I’m not giving him a free pass because I just don’t know what he tweeted/spoke about in regards to Khan. I’ll have to go and have a look. I don’t give Farage a free pass generally at all, I don’t expect you to but a quick search on my last 5 posts in reference to him will show you what I think of him. In a sentence I think he’s a grifting, Trump arse kissing, little englander, who is a slimeball only out for his own self promotion.

But just to take it back to the point I was originally making, Reform are and have attracted some right cretins, they have said some despicable things, but they obviously have a line, where they will sack people if they cross it. Whether you and I agree with their line is another point but at least they have one.

“Death to England” not being punished is outrageous and if they don’t sack him, it shows that the Greens are not fit to govern.

 

[M18CTID]

I don’t know what Anderson said, I’m not giving him a free pass because I just don’t know what he tweeted/spoke about in regards to Khan. I’ll have to go and have a look. I don’t give Farage a free pass generally at all, I don’t expect you to but a quick search on my last 5 posts in reference to him will show you what I think of him. In a sentence I think he’s a grifting, Trump arse kissing, little englander, who is a slimeball only out for his own self promotion.

But just to take it back to the point I was originally making, Reform are and have attracted some right cretins, they have said some despicable things, but they obviously have a line, where they will sack people if they cross it. Whether you and I agree with their line is another point but at least they have one.

“Death to England” not being punished is outrageous and if they don’t sack him, it shows that the Greens are not fit to govern.

Fair enough about Farage and I take that back as you have called him out. Anderson should never have said what he said and the fact that he doubled down on it rather than apologise was nothing short of shocking coming from a sitting MP.

To that end, I think Reform’s “line” is totally inconsistent. I suspect they only got rid of Rupert Lowe because Farage saw him as a threat to his leadership and he didn’t like Lowe criticising him.

 

[Ban-jani]

Fair enough about Farage and I take that back as you have called him out. Anderson should never have said what he said and the fact that he doubled down on it rather than apologise was nothing short of shocking coming from a sitting MP.

To that end, I think Reform’s “line” is totally inconsistent. I suspect they only got rid of Rupert Lowe because Farage saw him as a threat to his leadership and he didn’t like Lowe criticising him.

Having now read what Anderson said, I agree with everything you’ve posted there.

 

[oldius]

Reading a peer reviewed Oxford University paper this morning, it appears that the effective tax rate of the billionaire class is staggering:

"In the UK, billionaires face a significant effective tax rate, which is often lower than the headline tax rates. For instance, the effective average tax rate (EATR) for the top 25 wealthiest individuals was reported to be just 3.4% when including capital gains, indicating that many billionaires pay much less than the standard income tax rates.

3.4%...F**k me.
I have no problem with wealth and success - we need it - but pay your fair share. If a nurse average effective tax rate is 37%, then what are we doing?

 

[hilts]

Reading a peer reviewed Oxford University paper this morning, it appears that the effective tax rate of the billionaire class is staggering:

"In the UK, billionaires face a significant effective tax rate, which is often lower than the headline tax rates. For instance, the effective average tax rate (EATR) for the top 25 wealthiest individuals was reported to be just 3.4% when including capital gains, indicating that many billionaires pay much less than the standard income tax rates.

3.4%...F**k me.
I have no problem with wealth and success - we need it - but pay your fair share. If a nurse average effective tax rate is 37%, then what are we doing?

Thank god we have a Labour Party who will sort it any day now.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Reading a peer reviewed Oxford University paper this morning, it appears that the effective tax rate of the billionaire class is staggering:

"In the UK, billionaires face a significant effective tax rate, which is often lower than the headline tax rates. For instance, the effective average tax rate (EATR) for the top 25 wealthiest individuals was reported to be just 3.4% when including capital gains, indicating that many billionaires pay much less than the standard income tax rates.

3.4%...F**k me.
I have no problem with wealth and success - we need it - but pay your fair share. If a nurse average effective tax rate is 37%, then what are we doing?

Billionaires are pretty few and far between (especially these days) - to listen to the far left you’d think there’s a billionaire on every street corner fucking people over ! It’s “billionaires this” and “billionaires that”.
Apparently the UK had 55 in 2024 (US$ billions) according to the Scotsman newspaper - left wing think-tank put the number at 156 but I always suspect data from dedicated activist organisations.
The reason they pay little tax is simple - our taxation system is designed around taxing earnings from employment, property, investments and capital gains. Companies can offset their taxation by investing in their business so a fast growing business pays often zero tax. Billionaires or the very wealthy pay themselves a notional salary (I think Bezos pays himself $80,000pa), they leverage their wealth by borrowing against assets and avoid selling assets which would crystallise CGT liabilities. Unfortunately I can’t speak from personal experience. I do agree with your point about nurses etc. Our taxation levels are ridiculously high but billionaires are not the cause nor the solution.