The Leader of the Green Party daily Politics

[Triggaaar]

It is relevant as it shows where the Green Party intends to get money from which is what everyone seems to be dismissing the Green Party for.

The idea wouldn't work, so people will continue to ridicule them.

It is not like any one else is suggesting anything other than autistry thus allowing the richer to get richer and the poorer to get poorer is it?

I agree that the main parties should be doing more to come up with ways of taxing companies like Amazon. But the Green parties ideas are so ill-thought that it's embarrassing.

 

[ifightbears]

The idea wouldn't work, so people will continue to ridicule them.

I agree that the main parties should be doing more to come up with ways of taxing companies like Amazon. But the Green parties ideas are so ill-thought that it's embarrassing.

The 'main parties' have put it extremely low on their priority list it appears, does this not frustrate you?

 

[Triggaaar]

The 'main parties' have put it extremely low on their priority list it appears, does this not frustrate you?

Yes, very much. Rich companies and individuals are evading tax and it makes me sick. If all the Green party manage to do is draw attention to the fact that the public want change, then that is a start and I thank them for it. But they need economists and tax consultants to help them put forward a solution, because it's really bloody complicated. Their policies appear to be so ill-thought that it distracts from the popular ideas they have.

 

[Buzzer]

75% top-rate is not how the proposed Robin Hood Tax would work.

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/everything-you-need-to-know

Err...yes it is. The difference is that instead of punitive taxing of individuals, it's taxing the financial industry. And the very nature of the companies that it taxes - all it will do is push companies out of UK taxation altogether and it would decimate our finance industry. We'd lose our status as the European centre for finance. It's EXACTLY comparable to what is happening in France with high-wealth individuals.

And according to that blurb you linked to, the Robin Hood tax COULD raise up to £250bn globally. That's globally. What would be the UK share of that? Even if we took a wildly optimistic fifth that would leave £70bn a year (£120bn - £50bn) that the Greens would need to raise EVERY year to pay for this £72 pw benefits for everyone.

....and that's assuming that Mustafa's figure of £160bn already paid in benefits is directly translatable into this £280bn a year figure that the Greens would saddle us with.

 

[Machiavelli]

My goodness. You can't see anything wrong with a recession? Err...rising unemployment, lower tax receipts, more people trapped in benefits, more house repossessions, greater strain on the welfare state....

Sorry matey but I'm completely gobsmacked with your comment. Have you not thought this through at all?

You ought to do a bit of swotting up on climate change Buzzer.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree very worrying. Do a course in the University of Life for a few years and i think you will find that the Greens are not the answer.

Where is this on offer? Do you teach on this? How much does it cost? What's the curriculum?

 

[beorhthelm]

[...]
You can easily look up all that stuff, I got most from my uni library when I had to do an assignment on climate change.

im pretty sure all those points (save the populatoin) are contentious, based on estimates extroplated out from small scale studies and full of inaccuracy.

 

[Machiavelli]

im pretty sure all those points (save the populatoin) are contentious, based on estimates extroplated out from small scale studies and full of inaccuracy.

It's comments like this that makes me sail past your posts. You're in denial.

 

[ifightbears]

Yes, very much. Rich companies and individuals are evading tax and it makes me sick. If all the Green party manage to do is draw attention to the fact that the public want change, then that is a start and I thank them for it. But they need economists and tax consultants to help them put forward a solution, because it's really bloody complicated. Their policies appear to be so ill-thought that it distracts from the popular ideas they have.

Green Party have a economics professor as a South West MEP. Molly Scott Cato, and is their economics spokeswoman This sound qualified enough? But your right, the Green Party does need more economists to come forward and suggest more sustainable ideas that support circular economy. Something that the so called educated politicians have so quickly dismissed...possibly because it is beyond their short term, blinkered, money making, selfish dreams. Fortunately the recent surge in interest in the Green Party is highlighting these problems and actively pursuing solutions.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's comments like this that makes me sail past your posts. You're in denial.

thats ok, you can live on with whatever view you want. the footies about to be on and i cant be bothered to check the fact but at least have of them look like claims that have been debunked by scientist carrying out follow up research. of the top, the ice caps one cant be right because the south pole is expanding. maybe thats an error and matthew meant north pole, but as it stands the point is false. environmental science is full of holes as they simply havent the breadth and depth of research - how can they, cant measeure everything over the planet - yet make claims as if the sampling is perfect and the models are perfect. in economics, its said that if you ask 10 economists for a opinon you'll get 12. environment has at least as many if not more inputs and outcomes, yet talk in absolutes, and ignore empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[Machiavelli]

thats ok, you can live on with whatever view you want. the footies about to be on and i cant be bothered to check the fact but at least have of them look like claims that have been debunked by scientist carrying out follow up research. of the top, the ice caps one cant be right because the south pole is expanding. maybe thats an error and matthew meant north pole, but as it stands the point is false. environmental science is full of holes as they simply havent the breadth and depth of research - how can they, cant measeure everything over the planet - yet make claims as if the sampling is perfect and the models are perfect. in economics, its said that if you ask 10 economists for a opinon you'll get 12. environment has at least as many if not more inputs and outcomes, yet talk in absolutes, and ignore empirical evidence to the contrary.

You talk as though you're a climatologist, oceanographer, glaciologist, physicist, etc. But you're not. Here's what that lot say: the climate is changing, it's down to emissions due to pumping carbon into the atmosphere; the growth is c0.7 Celsius so far; it's projected to rise; we're still pumping higher levels of carbon into the atmosphere; there's the possibility of tipping points.
They can say all these things because no issue has been studied by so many scientists. I trust them on all of these things, and think you're talking tosh.

 

[Colossal Squid]

It is tragic for all of us that the only realistic democratic option on the "left" is the Green Party. I empathise with the Green Party, I hope they do well, but I do agree with the theme of this thread that the way they represent socialism is incomplete or unworkable.

Could it be that it's simply impossible for the proletariat to be represented in democracy anymore? I fear for the future, as economic inequality is spiralling out of control, and if it continues like it is it will ultimately kill the economy.

The tragedy is that the wealth is there, it's just in the wrong places & the only party trying to address this is the Green Party, who appear to be poorly run with no genuine expectations to gain any kind of power as reflected in their unconvincing policies.

Spot on.

The bigots on the right are spoiled for choice with the Tories, UKIP and BNP all representing their interesting to various degrees. Whereas those of us on the GENUINE left have but ONE realistic party to pick from, and they're not going to win more than two seats max in the forthcoming election.

I think we do need radical change in this country as we've just spent too long letting financial institutions run riot and take us all down the swanny when they go to shit, but unfortunately some of the radical ideas the Green Party stand for are just that bit too extreme for right now.

Still, there's a very good chance we'll see a Labour/SNP coalition running the country from May, and that will wind up the righties no end so with an absence of real Green power being anywhere likely in the near future, I'll take it as the best of a bad bunch of potential outcomes at the next general election.

 

[Machiavelli]

Spot on.

The bigots on the right are spoiled for choice with the Tories, UKIP and BNP all representing their interesting to various degrees. Whereas those of us on the GENUINE left have but ONE realistic party to pick from, and they're not going to win more than two seats max in the forthcoming election.

I think we do need radical change in this country as we've just spent too long letting financial institutions run riot and take us all down the swanny when they go to shit, but unfortunately some of the radical ideas the Green Party stand for are just that bit too extreme for right now.

Still, there's a very good chance we'll see a Labour/SNP coalition running the country from May, and that will wind up the righties no end so with an absence of real Green power being anywhere likely in the near future, I'll take it as the best of a bad bunch of potential outcomes at the next general election.

Someone else speaking some sense on here.

 

[beorhthelm]

They can say all these things because no issue has been studied by so many scientists. I trust them on all of these things, and think you're talking tosh.

yes, and often those scientists make studies that correct or contradict the previous studies. those are what im basing my point of view on, not random noise from people saying it isnt happening at all. just when has temperatures risen 0.7 since? because you can take a different time period and find its risen a greater or lesser amount. if we take 1998 as our benchmark temperatures have risen 0.05c. but thats not quite on message. i recall the claims that by now it should have risen 2c. not 0.2, 2 whole degrees. the feedback loops havent occured, warming has stalled. the predictions have failed and in normal science that would require a revision of the theory, because its been found to be flawed.

 

[Buzzer]

Someone else speaking some sense on here.

Did you watch the interview though? Car crash doesn't begin to describe it. Bennett was awful, it was one of the worst performances of a party leader of any party in an interview I've ever seen. There wasn't a single thing she can take away from that as a positive, every single issue raised by Andrew Neil made the Greens look like they haven't a clue about the real world.

 

[Machiavelli]

yes, and often those scientists make studies that correct or contradict the previous studies. those are what im basing my point of view on, not random noise from people saying it isnt happening at all. just when has temperatures risen 0.7 since? because you can take a different time period and find its risen a greater or lesser amount. if we take 1998 as our benchmark temperatures have risen 0.05c. but thats not quite on message. i recall the claims that by now it should have risen 2c. not 0.2, 2 whole degrees. the feedback loops havent occured, warming has stalled. the predictions have failed and in normal science that would require a revision of the theory, because its been found to be flawed.

Wow. You're a philosopher of science as well. Apologies for missing that one out from the previous list.

 

[beorhthelm]

Wow. You're a philosopher of science as well. Apologies for missing that one out from the previous list.

play the man and not the ball, no attempt to refute I see. who's in denial again?

 

[Machiavelli]

Did you watch the interview though? Car crash doesn't begin to describe it. Bennett was awful, it was one of the worst performances of a party leader of any party in an interview I've ever seen. There wasn't a single thing she can take away from that as a positive, every single issue raised by Andrew Neil made the Greens look like they haven't a clue about the real world.

I didn't, and agree that she and several policies will get shown up at this level. They've got a better grasp of the real world on climate change though. And that looks as though it will prove to be the key issue of the century. And this may just throw a spanner into your earlier claim that capitalism will be with us for hundreds of years. That said, I agree with you on both the adaptability and resilience of capitalism, not to mention its delivery of growth.
Most of the questions indicated are the usual tough-guy questions a flagrant proponent of the right like Neil would ask though.

 

[Buzzer]

Here you go. A word of warning, it's not for the squeamish

 

[Charles 'Charley' Charles]

Here you go. A word of warning, it's not for the squeamish

Ouch, that's not pretty.