Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[CXRAndy]

Reform down three points, Green up four point according to the poll that you've previously been quoting. Can't think why you didn't choose to post this.

View attachment 10453

See why you favour this. They support having blokes in women's bathrooms

 

[Ianonabike]

They're also not too bothered about vandalism and domestic terrorism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxwv9njvlgo


View: https://x.com/HomoLittlest/status/1976706137262375144


View: https://x.com/PhilJonesy3/status/1976986212264222925

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've lived in present house for 20+ years and it's always been a 110% safe Conservative..... we now have a Green MP.

True, they gained 2 Con seats and one Labour in the last election. Long way to go to turn that into anything meaningful nationally though. A split in the Tory vote might help them out or Tory voters might vote Reform instead of Green.

 

[Psamathe]

True, they gained 2 Con seats and one Labour in the last election. Long way to go to turn that into anything meaningful nationally though. A split in the Tory vote might help them out or Tory voters might vote Reform instead of Green.

I still can't understand how they broke into safe Conservative seat(s). My guess maybe driven by BBC's ongoing very high profile support pushing Reform is that most Conservative votes will be going to Reform. Conservative and Reform share the right wing side of the spectrum whereas Green opposite end. That said maybe the middle ground Conservative voters are not so committed to the right ... hence my use of "guess" (at least until some reputable independent expert reports who I'll just start repeating).

 

[bobzmyunkle]

(Whilst I wouldn't call them "nut jobs") I currently think splitting the left vote could be a benefit.

Not sure what you mean by the 'left vote'?
Sounds like a recipe for reform.

maybe focusing more on what needs to be done than pursuing ideological aims (like Starmer's authoritarianism).

You assume there will be a consensus on 'what needs to be done.' Will that what needs to be done align with your what needs to be done?
Pretty sure last time we had a coalition we got austerity. Was that what needed to be done?

 

[AuroraSaab]

They're also not too bothered about vandalism and domestic terrorism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxwv9njvlgo

The same group vandalised Wes Streetings' offices. Men being told No and consequently proving why women don't want them in their spaces.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/wes-streeting-office-vandalism-trans-activists-b1241166.html

 

[Bromptonaut]

I can't see that many 'one nation' Tory voters going to Green, certainly not as Zack seems to express its policy stance. More likely they'd go to the Lib Dems if voting solely with their policy head.

However our first past the post electoral system where many seats seem as though they might be three or even four way marginals can produce some pretty odd results on small shares of the vote. Trying to work out the best tactical option to (eg) keep Reform out in those seats where they're looking electable will involve some interesting maths.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

, they are economically illiterate

What would economic.literacy look like. Would it involve selling off utilities to foreign owned companies and hedge funds? Would it involve ever increasing privatisation of the NHS?
Calling the Greens economically illiterate without further explanation or comparison to the supposed economically literate parties tells us nothing.

 

[First Aspect]

What would economic.literacy look like. Would it involve selling off utilities to foreign owned companies and hedge funds? Would it involve ever increasing privatisation of the NHS?
Calling the Greens economically illiterate without further explanation or comparison to the supposed economically literate parties tells us nothing.

Stopping private property rentals.

Removing power to create money from banks.

Universal basic income.

Take all private energy companies into public ownership.

Over to you....

 

[Ian H]

Stopping private property rentals.

Removing power to create money from banks.

Universal basic income.

Take all private energy companies into public ownership.

Over to you....

Trials of universal income have been quite successful.
Public utilities should perhaps be publicly owned.
Banks and bank loans might need thinking about.
Private rentals could be rent-controlled initially.

 

[First Aspect]

Trials of universal income have been quite successful.
Public utilities should perhaps be publicly owned.
Banks and bank loans might need thinking about.
Private rentals could be rent-controlled initially.

How do you pay for it.
How do you pay for it.
What do you replace the loss of economic activity with.
How do you pay for it and what do you replace the economic activity with.

In that order.

Wealth tax and carbon tax doesnt quite cut it when all the tax payers have buggered off to somewhere sensible.

Hence, economically illiterate.

 

[Psamathe]

Trials of universal income have been quite successful.
Public utilities should perhaps be publicly owned.
Banks and bank loans might need thinking about.
Private rentals could be rent-controlled initially.

How do you pay for it.
How do you pay for it.
What do you replace the loss of economic activity with.
How do you pay for it and what do you replace the economic activity with.

In that order.

Wealth tax and carbon tax doesnt quite cut it when all the tax payers have buggered off to somewhere sensible.

Hence, economically illiterate.

• Universal Basic Income does not mean an increase in Government costs so doesn't need "paying for".
• Owning public utilities does not mean increased costs (Gov. can borrow much cheaper than failing private companies and no shareholder dividends)
• Thinking does not cost (so "Banks and bank loans might need thinking about" is free)
• Rent controls don't cost taxpayers.
• None of these measures mean lower economic activity so "what do you replace the economic activity with" is not relevant.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Removing power to create money from banks

Banks create money? Next you'll be saying the government print the stuff.
Sounds a bit like a magic money tree.
Or maybe economics is a bit more complicated than some would have us believe. Economic literacy isn't something economists agree on so I doubt we'll reach a consensus on here.

 

[Ian H]

Banks create money? Next you'll be saying the government print the stuff.
Sounds a bit like a magic money tree.
Or maybe economics is a bit more complicated than some would have us believe. Economic literacy isn't something economists agree on so I doubt we'll reach a consensus on here.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/how-is-money-created

 

[First Aspect]

• Universal Basic Income does not mean an increase in Government costs so doesn't need "paying for".
• Owning public utilities does not mean increased costs (Gov. can borrow much cheaper than failing private companies and no shareholder dividends)
• Thinking does not cost (so "Banks and bank loans might need thinking about" is free)
• Rent controls don't cost taxpayers.
• None of these measures mean lower economic activity so "what do you replace the economic activity with" is not relevant.

Rent controls backfire. They've been tried. Rent control either causes housing shortages because private landlords exit the market, or steep upward steps in rent when tenancies change. Or both. See Scotland for a recent example. I don't know what problem it is a solution for.

Who do you think pays for universal basic income, the tooth fairy? It's not the same as minimum wage. Look it up.

Owning public utilities. Sounds nice, but if you don't own them already you need to buy them first. That requires money.

The nonsensical argument to abolish private landlords (quite apart from the contradiction with rent controls) would remove a chunk of the economy. It is clearly very silly.

If banks are not creating money, what is it that they are lending?