The Green Party

beehive_bob said:
Polanski not doing himself any favours with his interview on GMB right now. Bit of a car crash to be honest.
Click to expand...

He's naive and I don't agree with some of their policy direction but that was an incredibly hostile and patronising approach by Yvette Cooper's husband and Susanna Reed. Interesting approach compared to how the other populist party is dealt with.

That said I just found it whilst flicking channels and that was the first live interview on GMB I've seen in years, so I suppose it's possible they treat everyone like that??
 
threespires said:
He's naive and I don't agree with some of their policy direction but that was an incredibly hostile and patronising approach by Yvette Cooper's husband and Susanna Reed. Interesting approach compared to how they deal with the other populist party.
Click to expand...
I thought Polanski evaded perfectly reasonable policy-related questions from Ed Balls...seemed Polanski was fine when asked to set out his main ideas towards the end but really struggled when put on the spot with questions. Thought Polanski accusing Balls of being a Labour politician..which was obviously incorrect... and therefore biased against him was a bit of a low blow too. A shame as I'd like the party to do well given what else is currently on offer!
 
Rory Bluelow said:
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.
Click to expand...
What we are doing as an economy is prioritising the 1% and it's so that successive governments can post good growth figures and give hugs to their mates and lobbyists. If the economy grows by 0.1% this year then government gives itself a pat on the back. Does the government ask how that translates into people's pockets? Of course not. I am no socialist but the wealth distribution model at the very least is broken.

The whole economy is now geared towards globalist corporatism and unless you work in a global corporate company then you are not part of that economy. You're instead part of a secondary economy which is in many places just about managing or more than likely teetering on the edge. Not a single person in government gives a shit about this secondary economy because it makes no difference to the economic figures.

That secondary economy is the kind that can only afford 2% payrises when inflation is +4%, not because of greed but because the company simply goes bust otherwise. Meanwhile you have companies like Tesco also paying people 2% payrises whilst heaping of misery on shoppers and their suppliers through maximum prices and minimum costs. Tesco then makes its £3bn profit through inflicted misery, it shares that with the 1% and we just accept it.

The greatest jobs in the north were always in manufacturing but all of that is gone, replaced by foreign companies outside of our jurisdiction. Our own car industry will be destroyed by China within the decade by loss-making Chinese state backed companies. Who is pushing back on that? Nobody, because Starmer wants to protect that 0.1% growth with inward investment coming elsewhere via China. The average person's view is just now irrelevant.

I don't believe that further direct taxation is the answer because the government will just burn it on a bonfire and ultimately that money doesn't go into people's pockets. We don't need more people on benefits, we just need to get people working in good jobs where companies pay them properly. What we really need is the abolishment of excess corporate greed and a return to locally rich industries. I don't know how we get there though, it's probably too late.
 
Last edited:
beehive_bob said:
I thought Polanski evaded perfectly reasonable policy-related questions from Ed Balls...seemed Polanski was fine when asked to set out his main ideas towards the end but really struggled when put on the spot with questions. Thought Polanski accusing Balls of being a Labour politician..which was obviously incorrect... and therefore biased against him was a bit of a low blow too. A shame as I'd like the party to do well given what else is currently on offer!
Click to expand...

Tbh I wasn't really paying proper attention until the tone went downhill so I might rewatch and see if he's the architect of his own downfall at the start. Personally i've always thought it odd that no one bats an eyelid at the fact the husband of the current foreign secretary gets to conduct political interviews as a TV anchor but that's hardly the biggest issue in journalism these days. As I said I think Polanski's approach can be naive but I suppose my real point was as a populist he is open to that tone/line of attack but it's typically not how the other populist party gets dealt with.
 
threespires said:
He's naive and I don't agree with some of their policy direction but that was an incredibly hostile and patronising approach by Yvette Cooper's husband and Susanna Reed. Interesting approach compared to how the other populist party is dealt with.

That said I just found it whilst flicking channels and that was the first live interview on GMB I've seen in years, so I suppose it's possible they treat everyone like that??
Click to expand...
Ed Balls isn't just "Yvette Cooper's husband", he's a former economist, university professor, government minister and shadow chancellor.

He's entitled to challenge the guests on his show.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
Ed Balls isn't just "Yvette Cooper's husband", he's a former economist, university professor, government minister and shadow chancellor.

He's entitled to challenge the guests on his show.
Click to expand...

I know and I was being slightly fatuous which as a bloke on the internet I have the luxury of, unlike Polanski who was naive.

Personally I think it's valid to have someone like Balls as an expert or colour analyst or whatever they call them but I'd prefer my anchors to be from a more clearly neutral journalistic background because fundamentally I don't think someone of his background and situation can ultimately be wholly objective.

Nonetheless did you not think the tone was quite different from how most politicians are dealt with? I wasn't really paying attention initially, it was only the tone that made me look up. I don't normally watch GMB so it might be that's the tone adopted with everyone but I doubt it.
 
threespires said:
I know and I was being slightly fatuous which as a bloke on the internet I have the luxury of, unlike Polanski who was naive.

Personally I think it's valid to have someone like Balls as an expert or colour analyst or whatever they call them but I'd prefer my anchors to be from a more clearly neutral journalistic background because fundamentally I don't think someone of his background and situation can ultimately be wholly objective.

Nonetheless did you not think the tone was quite different from how most politicians are dealt with? I wasn't really paying attention initially, it was only the tone that made me look up. I don't normally watch GMB so it might be that's the tone adopted with everyone but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
They regularly go after politicians for the clicks and viral clips. It wasn’t out the ordinary tbh
 
threespires said:
I know and I was being slightly fatuous which as a bloke on the internet I have the luxury of, unlike Polanski who was naive.

Personally I think it's valid to have someone like Balls as an expert or colour analyst or whatever they call them but I'd prefer my anchors to be from a more clearly neutral journalistic background because fundamentally I don't think someone of his background and situation can ultimately be wholly objective.

Nonetheless did you not think the tone was quite different from how most politicians are dealt with? I wasn't really paying attention initially, it was only the tone that made me look up. I don't normally watch GMB so it might be that's the tone adopted with everyone but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
I didn't watch it,

I do agree that they should take a neutral approach though and if Balls was being party partisan rather than objective but strong then that's a fair criticism.

I listen to the podcast he does with George Osborne regularly and to both of their credit they are both very fair and objective.

I think populists need to be held to account and I include Polanski in that. He might not be "nasty" in the way the right wing populists are but it's the same thing - dumbing down of complex issues to make their version of an unrealistic nonsense utopia easy to sell in sound bites to a naive electorate. They are snake oil salesmen and anyone who gives them a hard time in questioning is doing the right thing.
 



HG7BdvJaUAAiI_d





It's funny watching politicians and journalists losing their shit over what she said.
 
beehive_bob said:
I thought Polanski evaded perfectly reasonable policy-related questions from Ed Balls...seemed Polanski was fine when asked to set out his main ideas towards the end but really struggled when put on the spot with questions.
Click to expand...
Basically Polanski was fine talking about policy but refused to engage with Ed the Ball's policy related attempted gotchas. Maybe it's Balls who needs to up his game here and ask perfectly reasonable, dare I say forensic, questions about actual policy rather than this nonsense.


beehive_bob said:
Thought Polanski accusing Balls of being a Labour politician..which was obviously incorrect... and therefore biased against him was a bit of a low blow too. A shame as I'd like the party to do well given what else is currently on offer!
Click to expand...

I initially thought a prefix like former or ex would have helped but on reflection I think not doing that and saying 'politician' was deliberate. He is accusing him of bias but if your line of questions is a series of gotchas instead of serious questioning that is down to him being not only partisan but shit at his job.

Ed just wanted to fast forward to the bigger tits stuff .... rarely, if ever, feel sympathy for his missus ... but

 
Don Karleone said:



HG7BdvJaUAAiI_d





It's funny watching politicians and journalists losing their shit over what she said.
Click to expand...

I criticise them enough but she’s actually spot on here. I’ve seen some arguments that state “well they’re down there working sometimes 18 hours straight”, and? Don’t drink then.
 
Don Karleone said:



HG7BdvJaUAAiI_d





It's funny watching politicians and journalists losing their shit over what she said.
Click to expand...

Not a Fan of her or definitely not the Greens but she’s 100% correct on this -it’s a joke running the Country is treated like this
 
hilts said:
But but he's a former economist:-)
Click to expand...
Ed has quite a CV when it comes to former selves. Fancy dress, '2nd home' shenanigans, celebrity 'centrist' dad dancing along with the economic big brain stuff.

He also has a podcast. The austerity chancellor and the austerity lite shadow chancellor from the austerity period get together and politely agree to disagree occasionally .... yet posters not only tune in but admit it and consider themselves informed by it!

Also a former Petie enthusiast ... a lot of em about.


 
Postman Pep said:
Basically Polanski was fine talking about policy but refused to engage with Ed the Ball's policy related attempted gotchas. Maybe it's Balls who needs to up his game here and ask perfectly reasonable, dare I say forensic, questions about actual policy rather than this nonsense.




I initially thought a prefix like former or ex would have helped but on reflection I think not doing that and saying 'politician' was deliberate. He is accusing him of bias but if your line of questions is a series of gotchas instead of serious questioning that is down to him being not only partisan but shit at his job.

Ed just wanted to fast forward to the bigger tits stuff .... rarely, if ever, feel sympathy for his missus ... but

Click to expand...


Sounded just like Farage, goes after the media and bias as a way to not answer any questions. Populists are all the same.

The guy was a former hypnotist who convinced women he could make their breasts bigger by it. An absolute loon with the gift of the gab.

If he was far right he'd be called a nutter and there would be calls for him to be sacked over his past. But because he calls out Israel he gets a free pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top