Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[Pross]

Yes, best if the Greens just stick to green stuff. Then everyone can dismiss them as peripheral to real politics.
Complicated innit.

I don't think anyone has suggested that. They obviously need policies in all areas and those are likely to be left of centre. However, going full on loony left (which has made Labour unelectable for large parts of my lifetime) and not really having any kind of environmental agenda isn't really going to bring them into the mainstream.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

However, going full on loony left (which has made Labour unelectable for large parts of my lifetime) and not really having any kind of environmental agenda isn't really going to bring them into the mainstream.

You'll need to expand on that a bit.
Which bit of 'full on loony left' are you objecting to?
Is there an environmental policy they're obviously missing?

 

[AndyRM]

You'll need to expand on that a bit.
Which bit of 'full on loony left' are you objecting to?
Is there an environmental policy they're obviously missing?

There isn't a "full on loony left".

 

[Ian H]

Some people still prefer their greens soft and mushy.

 

[First Aspect]

Which of their economic policies do you consider to be far left?

Today I was thinking about the 38% windfall tax on banks for no particular reason other than profit is bad.

But I could have been talking about nationalising the energy companies, the 4 day week or the 10:1 earnings ratio policy.

 

[monkers]

Today I was thinking about the 38% windfall tax on banks for no particular reason other than profit is bad.

But I could have been talking about nationalising the energy companies, the 4 day week or the 10:1 earnings ratio policy.

Thanks for the reply.

From what you say, you sound in favour of the windfall tax. Can you please just confirm this and whether you think this tax is far left?

 

[First Aspect]

Thanks for the reply.

From what you say, you sound in favour of the windfall tax. Can you please just confirm this and whether you think this tax is far left?

I don't think it's sensible, because it is unpredictable and arbitrary. If you think banks and companies that make similar profit levels are undertaxed, the better plan would be to change tax levels, not sting them periodically.

 

[monkers]

I don't think it's sensible, because it is unpredictable and arbitrary. If you think banks and companies that make similar profit levels are undertaxed, the better plan would be to change tax levels, not sting them periodically.

So not far left then I assume in your view.

It's not a flat rate extra tax.

The GP proposal is to apply this to profits over £800 million while tied to interest rates - the periods when bank make the big money on lending.

While interest rates are high, the banks can't help themselves from making huge profits, when rates are low, much less so. The lending banks don't set the base rate - interest rate rises hugely favour them. The intention of the policy is that when interest rates are high, some burden of tax can be shifted from the tax payer, or money is available for improving infrastructure, or some balance of the two.

 

[Ian H]

I don't think it's sensible, because it is unpredictable and arbitrary. If you think banks and companies that make similar profit levels are undertaxed, the better plan would be to change tax levels, not sting them periodically.

It could quite easily be codified and made predictable. On profits above X you pay Y.

 

[First Aspect]

So not far left then I assume in your view.

It's not a flat rate extra tax.

The GP proposal is to apply this to profits over £800 million while tied to interest rates - the periods when bank make the big money on lending.

While interest rates are high, the banks can't help themselves from making huge profits, when rates are low, much less so. The lending banks don't set the base rate - interest rate rises hugely favour them. The intention of the policy is that when interest rates are high, some burden of tax can be shifted from the tax payer, or money is available for improving infrastructure, or some balance of the two.

I get the idea, but generally these taxes aren't proposed by right wing parties. And they sibglenout specific industries.

Why not the defence industry, during periods of global instability? Or drug companies in a pandemic? Or hoteliers during major sporting events?

Actually that last one might be a good idea.

 

[monkers]

I get the idea, but generally these taxes aren't proposed by right wing parties. And they sibglenout specific industries.

Why not the defence industry, during periods of global instability? Or drug companies in a pandemic? Or hoteliers during major sporting events?

Actually that last one might be a good idea.

I feel sure that you'll happily agree that not 'proposed by the right' does not equate to ''loony left''.

 

[First Aspect]

I feel sure that you'll happily agree that not 'proposed by the right' does not equate to ''loony left''.

Perhaps not completely loony. Just a bit too far left.

The 10:1 policy is loony though.

 

[monkers]

Perhaps not completely loony. Just a bit too far left.

The 10:1 policy is loony though.

Let's please not move the goalposts mid discussion. We've left out half the picture. What determines what is left and what is right is determined by the plan for spending or saving the money. Below is what Polanski says. Perhaps we can now go on then to say if the tax raising and spending plan is ''loony left'' or just a bit too far left?


https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...art-of-efforts-to-end-rip-off-britain-409019/

 

[First Aspect]

He may as well say he will give the money to impoverished orphans. It's equally bollocks because it's a general tax pot.

Besides, the banks will fiat charge more to, inter alia, SMEs, to make up the gap in profits.

 

[monkers]

He may as well say he will give the money to impoverished orphans. It's equally bollocks because it's a general tax pot.

Besides, the banks will fiat charge more to, inter alia, SMEs, to make up the gap in profits.

Sorry, I'm not seeing your point - ''impoverished orphans'' - ''bollocks because it's a general tax pot''. There are no hypothecated taxes in the UK that I'm aware of - everything is paid from the general tax pot. There is an amount ring-fenced in law for benefits and pensions, but that's a rabbit hole.