Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[Psamathe]

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.

You mean rent controls that have been tried have failed. Much will depend on what those controls are and they have no been specified.

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

Universal Basic Income is a big restructuring of our tax system and net costs or net savings will depend on what levels of UBI and tax are set at what bands. Again not specified.

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

We can buy a lot of public utilities at virtually no cost. eg Rail Nationalisation costing how much? Thames Water worth how much? (not accepting Thames Water's own valuation of themselves)


But as I pointed out, PSS is taken from passed conference motions as well as loads of other inputs. The democratic nature of the Green Party makes it easy for off-the-wall ideas to get passed but that they do does not make that party policy. similarly unlike other parties the ideas of the leader sdo not set party policy.

 

[First Aspect]

Well if your policies aren't well specified, it makes the unworkable ones easy to defend doesn't it. Another one from the populist playbook.

 

[Psamathe]

I think the Greens have said that nobody will be worse off under their universal income scheme but you are quite right, those with say a severely disabled child would ordinarily lose out.

I think a lot would depend on the details of the UBI implemented. At the moment the discussion is about the general principle rather than detail. My own thoughts on UBI would be that is would replace the majority of pensions, benefits, etc. but should also recognise that there are special cases where an individual's circumstances mean higher costs eg in the case of disability.

Also "worse off" is a very open and thus meaningless phrase. Everybody is assuming it means "Financially worse off" but that is a much narrower interpretation than words used. But even that aspect much depends on the details rather than the general principle being discussed at the moment.

 

[Psamathe]

Well if your policies aren't well specified, it makes the unworkable ones easy to defend doesn't it. Another one from the populist playbook.

Quite reasonable to say eg "we are in favour of the principle of <x>". Always start with the general approach then over time consider and specify and adjust ever more detail. Only sensible way to do things.

 

[First Aspect]

Quite reasonable to say eg "we are in favour of the principle of <x>". Always start with the general approach then over time consider and specify and adjust ever more detail. Only sensible way to do things.

I think a free universal income is a good policy. £16k a year seems reasonable, but in order to cover the £640 Billion annual costs, we'd need to make some changes elsewhere. We propose to start by imposing a flat rate of tax of £16k a year.

 

[CXRAndy]

No party has a manifesto that says men can not wear dresses, skirts, or kilts, or that woman can not wear trousers, shirts or ties.

I didn't say that

I said men in dresses who think they are women.

No matter what a person wears, has a piece of paper or believes changes the fact they are the sex they are at conception

You are born a male you are always a male

 

[First Aspect]

I didn't say that

I said men in dresses who think they are women.

No matter what a person wears, has a piece of paper or believes changes the fact they are the sex they are at conception

You are born a male you are always a male

Why does it bother you so much?

 

[monkers]

I didn't say that

I said men in dresses who think they are women.

No matter what a person wears, has a piece of paper or believes changes the fact they are the sex they are at conception

You are born a male you are always a male

Exactly, you said it. Polanski didn't. It's just your unnatural obsession that you feel you must exhibit on every thread - or so it seems.

 

[CXRAndy]

Why does it bother you so much?

Why are you so apathetic to the situation

 

[CXRAndy]

Exactly, you said it. Polanski didn't. It's just your unnatural obsession that you feel you must exhibit on every thread - or so it seems.

Its not unnatural.

What's unnatural is men thinking they are real females.

Very apt word

 

[Xipe Totec]

Why are you so apathetic to the situation

Genuinely - what is it you're so frightened of?

I appreciate there are a tiny, tiny proportion of out trans folk compared to the broader population, so many people - including you, I'm sure - have likely never knowingly seen one in real life, never mind actually knowing any in person.

But they're not scary. They won't hurt you. They won't stop you being 'a real man', whatever you think that is.

So why do they terrify you so much?

 

[C R]

Genuinely - what is it you're so frightened of?

I appreciate there are a tiny, tiny proportion of out trans folk compared to the broader population, so many people - including you, I'm sure - have likely never knowingly seen one in real life, never mind actually knowing any in person.

But they're not scary. They won't hurt you. They won't stop you being 'a real man', whatever you think that is.

So why do they terrify you so much?

Have you watched American Beauty? Do you remember the neighbour and why he shot Kevin Spacey's character at the end?

 

[CXRAndy]

Im not frightened, Im doing my little bit, not to facilitate the fantasy ideology that men can be women and therefore can use women's spaces or enter women's sport

 

[Xipe Totec]

Have you watched American Beauty? Do you remember the neighbour and why he shot Kevin Spacey's character at the end?

I have - but not for many, many years. Probably deserves a rewatch - Spacey is an incredible actor, despite being a highly problematic human being, to put it kindly.

Im not frightened, Im doing my little bit, not to facilitate the fantasy ideology that men can be women and therefore can use women's spaces or enter women's sport

You've never met a trans person but the fact they exist terrifies you in ways you can neither understand nor express.

I suspect that if you were able or willing to co-operate with somebody qualified, to examine & analyse all these dreadful emotions which you externalise as anger & hate whenever you think about people who don't conform to traditional, socially-mandated gender roles, I'm confident it would turn out to be your problem, and not theirs.

The first step to change is acceptance.

 

[monkers]

Genuinely - what is it you're so frightened of?

I appreciate there are a tiny, tiny proportion of out trans folk compared to the broader population, so many people - including you, I'm sure - have likely never knowingly seen one in real life, never mind actually knowing any in person.

But they're not scary. They won't hurt you. They won't stop you being 'a real man', whatever you think that is.

So why do they terrify you so much?

A friend (cisgender woman) at work showed me something on her phone a week or so ago on a women's forum.

A woman went into a supermarket, and while there decided to use the toilet. There she met a woman who was a trans woman. Somewhat fascinated she struck up a conversation with her.

She said nobody had their sense of their own sex diminished, neither saw the other in any state of undress, no privacy invaded, no dignity lost. She said the person was clearly well-educated and well-spoken. She then surprised herself by asking the trans woman if she would like a coffee, not usually being so bold as to ask a stranger. So they had a coffee together, and she enjoyed the conversation with the person being open to her questions.

On the way home, she considered whether she should tell her husband about the experience. She knew that his first question would be, ''did he have a penis''? Followed by ''did you see it?'' Then followed by the usual male fragile ego question, ''but not as big as mine, right''? She decided that he would see the encounter as an affront to his dignity, which under challenge would be reframed to him saying that his role is to protect his wife, even though he never goes with her to the supermarket because he might miss something on TV.

She completely understood why men like her husband choose to think of trans women as a danger - it's the opportunity to stick out their chest, puff up and pretend to be the supreme protector, even against hypothetical threats.