Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[First Aspect]

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.

That's rather my point.

 

[Dorset Boy]

"Banks" is quite a big label.
Do the retail banks really make much more profit from lending if the base rate is 1% or 4%? They would work on a pretty fixed margin whatever the base rate. Those are the banks that small businesses deal with.
The ones that make big profits are those "banks" that trade in the markets.

 

[First Aspect]

"Banks" is quite a big label.
Do the retail banks really make much more profit from lending if the base rate is 1% or 4%? They would work on a pretty fixed margin whatever the base rate. Those are the banks that small businesses deal with.
The ones that make big profits are those "banks" that trade in the markets.

Yes, in a rise like a rocket, drop like a feather sort of a way.

 

[Psamathe]

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.

"Banks" is quite a big label.
Do the retail banks really make much more profit from lending if the base rate is 1% or 4%? They would work on a pretty fixed margin whatever the base rate. Those are the banks that small businesses deal with.
The ones that make big profits are those "banks" that trade in the markets.

I think there is a valid case for a windfall tax on the Government interest payments as as an unintended consequence of the Quantitative Easing ie not part of normal banking operations or bank business decisions ie effectively a treasury subsidy to the commercial banks.

When the Lib Dems proposed such a policy is was qualified to this bank income profits and time limited (as the QE unintended consequences are time limited).

Unfortunately details like that are beyond the understanding of Polanski (remembering that after being elected Green Leader, when interviewed by Rory Stewart & Alistair Campbell Polanski didn't even understand the difference between "debt" and "deficit"). So Polanski has only looked at the bottom line profits and assumed the banks are ripping off customers and sees them as an easy target. So to me Polanski's proposal is daft whereas I think there is a case for a windfall tax on profits from unintended consequences.

Ironically and maybe an indication of where the Green's have moved to, when the Lib Dems proposed their specific bank windfall tax the funds raised were to be spent on an Energy Security bank (providing loads to householders to improve their energy security and thus reduce bills as well as investing in renewable energies reducing and helping move to Net Zero. Yet the the Polanski Party wants to provide the money to SMEs reducing their NI.

 

[monkers]

Unfortunately details like that are beyond the understanding of Polanski (remembering that after being elected Green Leader, when interviewed by Rory Stewart & Alistair Campbell Polanski didn't even understand the difference between "debt" and "deficit"). So Polanski has only looked at the bottom line profits and assumed the banks are ripping off customers and sees them as an easy target. So to me Polanski's proposal is daft whereas I think there is a case for a windfall tax on profits from unintended consequences.

That just isn't true. He may have momentarily used the wrong word - something that all people all do. Did Gordon Brown really believe that he ''had saved the world''? No. Did Starmer really express concern about ''the sausages''? No. What happened in that interview was Rory not accepting anything other than his old world Tory protected view about a functioning economy - which history should teach us has been a disaster.

What is coming across in the sum of your recent posts on this is that you resent Polanski because he has contributed to the party in terms of electoral success. You'd rather have a leader you like than one that advances the party. It's a view you are entitled to hold, but to me it looks odd.

Polanski's position is the position of Green Party policy. That is, that there needs to be a means of protecting people especially those made more vulnerable by interest rate shocks and the cruel effects of it on their household incomes. It is a matter of fact that when banks lend money, they create it by simply entering the amount of the loan on their balance sheet. Interest rates are set by the bank of England. Mortgages rates are mostly variable. This means that lending banks get a lift in their profits with every increase in lending rate. A change in the rate from 2% to 4% is not a 2% increase in profit, but a 100% increase. Yes they are already obliged to pay tax on that amount - but here's the thing - what did they have to do to earn it? Answer - nothing - it's tantamount to a gift of taxpayers earnings for no effort.

Under these circumstances, the banks can afford to pay more tax. To treat tax on an unexpected gift to a corporate company as theft is a nonsense, they are still being boosted by the rate rise.

These days in the age of very high house prices, people have very big mortgages just to get on the ladder. They need help, and the Green Party is setting out a viable means of help.

 

[briantrumpet]

Starting to wonder if the Greens are slipping towards Corbyn territory. This doesn't feel like Green policies are at the top of her agenda.

View attachment 16867

This is a good piece on why stuff like this matters

https://simonpearson1.substack.com/p/the-left-that-talks-to-itself

That is why a small Green Party victory statement is worth more attention than it might initially seem to deserve. Not because one activist represents the left, but because the language represents a recognisable political tendency. It is a politics highly accomplished at naming identities, expressing solidarity and identifying enemies, yet increasingly uncertain about how to describe the economic relations connecting people who otherwise have little in common.

The right is trying to fill that absence with nation and ethnicity. It tells workers that their enemy arrived on a small boat rather than sitting on the board of the company employing them or owning the house in which they live. That story is powerful because it converts economic insecurity into a visible enemy. It cannot be defeated by producing a different list of enemies and a more virtuous collection of identities.

The left needs to recover the harder ambition that once defined it: taking people divided by culture, race, sex, nationality and countless other experiences and building a common politics around material interests without pretending those differences do not exist. That requires organisation rather than recognition, explanation rather than denunciation and a serious account of ownership and power. A politics that cannot tell millions of people who work for a living where they fit into its picture of society should not be surprised when somebody else does.

 

[Ian H]

Starting to wonder if the Greens are slipping towards Corbyn territory. This doesn't feel like Green policies are at the top of her agenda.

View attachment 16867

That just sounds like slightly juvenile politics to me. Not sure why you'd drag Corbyn into it (in a dog-whistle kind of way).

 

[UglyWithaSidePart]

Enough is enough, cancelled my Green Party membership today, they've gone batshit.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Was it anything in particular that was the last straw?

 

[UglyWithaSidePart]

Was it anything in particular that was the last straw?

Cumulative really, but the tazer thing just really irks me. It's a highly effective way of dealing with people who don't want to be arrested, next step up is actual guns, for that reason it's mental to take it away.

 

[Psamathe]

That just sounds like slightly juvenile politics to me. Not sure why you'd drag Corbyn into it (in a dog-whistle kind of way).

I can see the aspect that Polanski has moved the Green Party into stances consistent with Corbyn's apparent views, no longer predominantly "Green".
I agree about the New Green Party being "juvenile politics" (I'd leave out the "slightly") more like a pre-"O-level" school debating society. And I used to be a Party member, voted for them in quite a few elections (General and local) but not recent Council elections).

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And
The Greens would also aim for the "closure of all prisons through systemic obsolescence" if the motion passes.

Although I think that is an aim in the same way that the Tories say they aim to cut taxation for the proles.

Anyhow it's a proposal not a policy at the moment, I believe. Hopefully members with a bit more experience of the real world will prevail.

 

[Psamathe]

Maybe one day Polanski will say something about the environment? Maybe that Climate Change is not ideal? I won't be holding my breath waiting for that day ...

 

[Beebo]

It is a bit too idealistic to imagine that criminals will stop doing naughty things once society becomes more egalitarian, so we can abolish prisons and stop using tazers.

It’s possible to argue against ICE type law enforcement without going to some idealistic extreme which will never materialise.

 

[Ian H]

I agree about the New Green Party being "juvenile politics" (I'd leave out the "slightly") more like a pre-"O-level" school debating society.

I was only referring to the quoted post. It wasn't a general comment.