| Polanski on 14:14 - May 3 with 796 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Polanski on 07:13 - May 3 by urbanpenguin |
But a leader of a party isn't the person that creates the rules, this isn't a presidency. This is particularly the case with the Greens, where positions and political opinions come through a slow but genuinely meaningful process within the membership, not just from what Polanski or whoever says. [Post edited 3 May 9:30]
|
But those policies I talked around are literally in their manifesto, whether they are Polankski’s ideas or not - so you are wrong in that regard.
I’m not telling anyone else how to vote, it’s none of my business - people are welcome to vote for him/them if they appeal. I was just setting out a couple of their policies that are flawed, and why they aren’t for me. |  | |  |
| Polanski on 14:56 - May 3 with 727 views | urbanpenguin |
| Polanski on 14:14 - May 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But those policies I talked around are literally in their manifesto, whether they are Polankski’s ideas or not - so you are wrong in that regard.
I’m not telling anyone else how to vote, it’s none of my business - people are welcome to vote for him/them if they appeal. I was just setting out a couple of their policies that are flawed, and why they aren’t for me. |
OK. I will respond to them then
"I did have a chuckle when the Greens proposed more money for dentistry"
People cannot find an NHS dentist. That dentistry went partially privatised has been very bad for dental health and is a model that the likes of Streeting wish to do more widely in the NHS, so to not only push against NHS privatisation but also try to undo some of the damage done previously seems good to me.
"Aiming for 100pc renewables whilst banning nuclear power is similarly daft."
I agree. but that is the position of members at the moment, though many people inside are pushing against and I suspect it will change in due course, just as the previous (Stupid) opposition to HS2 was reversed due to internal activism so that the party's official policy is now pro.
"It’s not possible to build enough energy storage for renewables without huge investment and losing swathes of greenfield land (not a very green policy)."
It is not anti-green (or anti-Green) to strategically use greenbelt land. As a lecturer in landscape architecture, it's a subject that I often read around and an awful lot of greenbelt land is not only garbage but also in exact places close to transport where we need high density, sustainable and well-designed housing. Just as we should also build over golf courses as they are only green landscapes in colour, not environmental quality.
Therefore we’d be reliant on the continental grid when renewables aren’t providing our full need, which would mean price fluctuations.
But, as I said elsewhere, we do not vote for a leader in this country, we vote for local representatives. And everybody in the Green Party can help steer policy, which takes a long time in the process they use but is democratic. This leads to some total cranks and some crank ideas getting aired, but by and large they get squashed through conversation and argument internally. |  | | |
| Polanski on 15:04 - May 3 with 703 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Polanski on 14:56 - May 3 by urbanpenguin |
OK. I will respond to them then
"I did have a chuckle when the Greens proposed more money for dentistry"
People cannot find an NHS dentist. That dentistry went partially privatised has been very bad for dental health and is a model that the likes of Streeting wish to do more widely in the NHS, so to not only push against NHS privatisation but also try to undo some of the damage done previously seems good to me.
"Aiming for 100pc renewables whilst banning nuclear power is similarly daft."
I agree. but that is the position of members at the moment, though many people inside are pushing against and I suspect it will change in due course, just as the previous (Stupid) opposition to HS2 was reversed due to internal activism so that the party's official policy is now pro.
"It’s not possible to build enough energy storage for renewables without huge investment and losing swathes of greenfield land (not a very green policy)."
It is not anti-green (or anti-Green) to strategically use greenbelt land. As a lecturer in landscape architecture, it's a subject that I often read around and an awful lot of greenbelt land is not only garbage but also in exact places close to transport where we need high density, sustainable and well-designed housing. Just as we should also build over golf courses as they are only green landscapes in colour, not environmental quality.
Therefore we’d be reliant on the continental grid when renewables aren’t providing our full need, which would mean price fluctuations.
But, as I said elsewhere, we do not vote for a leader in this country, we vote for local representatives. And everybody in the Green Party can help steer policy, which takes a long time in the process they use but is democratic. This leads to some total cranks and some crank ideas getting aired, but by and large they get squashed through conversation and argument internally. |
The dentistry one was clearly tongue in cheek…
So largely you agree the energy policy makes little sense. And that’s without addressing my concerns around defence - I don’t want to see large chunks of public money spent on funding weaponry but we need to support our allies and unfortunately human nature means there will be always bad actors who’ll take advantage of ‘weakness’
But you don’t have to spend your Sunday trying to sway me, I simply don’t think they are a serious option. Just giving my two penneth. Enjoy another great KM success. Uppa Towen | | | |
| Polanski on 12:37 - May 5 with 498 views | bartyg |
| Polanski on 14:10 - May 3 by GlasgowBlue |
But Polanski doesn't have a clue whether they overstepped the line. He's not qualified to make that judgement.
The attacker had a backpack & had just committed a terrorist act and he was still holding the knife. Officers had no way of knowing whether he had other weapons on his person or explosives in backpack. They only had non-lethal devices which they had already discharged. If I was in the area with my family then I would be grateful to the Police for using whatever mean necessary to disarm somebody who may well have detonated an explosive device. I'm sure you would feel the same if your family were in the vicinity.
Under that situation they were morally and legally entitled to shoot the suspect in the head had they been armed. In any other country he would have been shot before he hit the ground.
Getting fed up with people siding with terrorists over the Police, who put their lives on the line for us every single day. |
Has he been charged with terrorism offences? |  |
| |
| Polanski on 12:44 - May 5 with 473 views | baxterbasics |
So interesting that Kemi is top of that rating. Once again it's the tarnished Conservative brand that's the issue, not the leader. |  |
| |
| Polanski on 12:48 - May 5 with 450 views | Swansea_Blue |
Leader loses popularity after coordinated hostile and at times antisemitic media campaign against him? I’m shocked.
Although it was a bit politically naive even if fundamentally he’s right (the police need to be accountable). |  |
| |
| Polanski on 12:51 - May 5 with 433 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Polanski on 12:37 - May 5 by bartyg |
Has he been charged with terrorism offences? |
"Police declared the attack a terrorist incident and said a counterterrorism probe remains ongoing". |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Polanski on 12:52 - May 5 with 429 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Polanski on 12:48 - May 5 by Swansea_Blue |
Leader loses popularity after coordinated hostile and at times antisemitic media campaign against him? I’m shocked.
Although it was a bit politically naive even if fundamentally he’s right (the police need to be accountable). |
Speaking of antisemitism.
| |
| |
| Polanski on 13:30 - May 5 with 344 views | HotShotHamish |
| Polanski on 19:10 - May 1 by Swansea_Blue |
He’s the only leader who acknowledges the current financial model adopted by all western nations is failing us and leading to greater inequality. So he represents the only real case for change. He’s an advocate of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)*, so the polar opposite of Chancellors like Osborne and Reeves with their austerity and fiscal rules that have retarded growth and hammered public services resulting in shed loads of bad stuff we complain about all the time (from bin collections, to lack of school funding, NHS waiting lists, no access to GPs/dentists, potholes, etc.).
He does need to get a handle on the antisemitism cases within his party though, as that could sink him just as he’s getting started. He’s also got to translate the relatively easy populist language and left-leaning economic arguments (e.g. nationalisation) he uses into something acceptable to the mainstream. Despite the fact that privatisation and the current economic model has failed most of us (unless you’re a multi-millionaire/billionaire) I doubt the public are ready, even though it’s perfectly normal in other European countries who have better services.
*MMT does accurately describe how money is created and removed through taxation, but whether the institutions of the financial system are ready to acknowledge that and change is another matter entirely. |
Claiming the current economic model has failed most of us is patently untrue, unless you only meet poeple with the same views as yourself.
The huge expansion of the so-called Middle Class af the Thatcher years is the most tranformative thing that has happenend economically for a century.
The gap between the most rich and the most poor is huge but that overlooks the fact that large numbers of people are now in the middle.
There are far less at the bottom of the economic spectrum than ever before, far more at the top, but more importantly, far more in the middle.
You have chosen to ignore this to push your own narrative.
There is a reason that no serious country has ever tried the economic model favoured by Polanski. | | | |
| Polanski on 13:45 - May 5 with 303 views | DJR |
| Polanski on 13:30 - May 5 by HotShotHamish |
Claiming the current economic model has failed most of us is patently untrue, unless you only meet poeple with the same views as yourself.
The huge expansion of the so-called Middle Class af the Thatcher years is the most tranformative thing that has happenend economically for a century.
The gap between the most rich and the most poor is huge but that overlooks the fact that large numbers of people are now in the middle.
There are far less at the bottom of the economic spectrum than ever before, far more at the top, but more importantly, far more in the middle.
You have chosen to ignore this to push your own narrative.
There is a reason that no serious country has ever tried the economic model favoured by Polanski. |
Aren't things like Brexit and the rise of Reform and the Greens proof that things are not as rosy as you portray?
And whilst what you say may be true for those who are older, things look pretty bleak for many who are younger.
Indeed, I am sure I have heard it said that the current younger generation may be the first to end up being poorer overall than their parents.
At the end of the day, wages have barely increased in real terms since 2008, and job prospects for young people are grim, and that is before AI fully kicks in.
And in the US, Trump is a result of a system there which has not worked for the average American for a pretty long time [Post edited 5 May 13:48]
|  | | |
| Polanski on 13:51 - May 5 with 284 views | DJR |
| Polanski on 12:52 - May 5 by GlasgowBlue |
Speaking of antisemitism.
|
It deserves to be called out but the video is maybe a bit too subtle to hit home in an era where attention spans are limited. | | | |
| Polanski on 13:55 - May 5 with 259 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Polanski on 13:30 - May 5 by HotShotHamish |
Claiming the current economic model has failed most of us is patently untrue, unless you only meet poeple with the same views as yourself.
The huge expansion of the so-called Middle Class af the Thatcher years is the most tranformative thing that has happenend economically for a century.
The gap between the most rich and the most poor is huge but that overlooks the fact that large numbers of people are now in the middle.
There are far less at the bottom of the economic spectrum than ever before, far more at the top, but more importantly, far more in the middle.
You have chosen to ignore this to push your own narrative.
There is a reason that no serious country has ever tried the economic model favoured by Polanski. |
Well really it’s not too much different from what we did post GFC, printing our own money, albeit going directly to government spending. The downside of course is it’s led to virtually zero real terms wage growth given they are effectively devaluing your money by increasing supply. You can see this in Japan whereby they often underwrite their own debt but their economy has flatlined for years.
For me however, the real threat is that having effectively ‘unlimited’ money supply would devalue Sterling and therefore make imports (crucial to the UK) more expensive. The Yen has reduced in purchasing power fairly consistently. There are also questions whether it would be compatible with ceding control of monetary policy to the ECB (as well as debt ceiling rules) should we wish to rejoin the EU. For those reasons economists are split on it, and why even ‘progressive economies in Europe haven’t implemented it - by all means have the conversations and analysis, but let’s not pretend this is just a placebo that banks are preventing - there are serious risks. Would also add that well managed economies like Germany and Denmark have much lower levels of debt, our position is a result of deindustrialisation, and successive governments (of all colours) using tax bribes for elections.
The comments around deliberately defaulting on our debt though is the stuff of banana republics. | | | |
| Polanski on 13:59 - May 5 with 242 views | DJR |
More in Common are a strange organisation because I always think they have an agenda (often pro-EU) when it comes to polling and the like.
The poll you highlight comes from the following.
https://www.moreincommon.org.u
If you look at the poll on that link, the Greens are at 13% which is lower than polls from other organisations, but previous polls by them appear to have put the Greens not really much higher.
Polling at 13%, I suppose all it could take is more people who were never going to vote for them deciding Polanksi is doing a bad job (or even having heard of him), so it is not clear to me the significance of this finding, given the 13% vote represents an increase from 12% in the last poll.
Putting it another way, I am not sure recent controversy around Polanski is likely to prevent many people who would have voted Green from voting Green. [Post edited 5 May 14:12]
| | | |
| Polanski on 23:43 - May 5 with 72 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Polanski on 12:44 - May 5 by baxterbasics |
So interesting that Kemi is top of that rating. Once again it's the tarnished Conservative brand that's the issue, not the leader. |
If you think she is a good leader then good on you but wow |  | | |
| Polanski on 23:52 - May 5 with 62 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Polanski on 13:59 - May 5 by DJR |
More in Common are a strange organisation because I always think they have an agenda (often pro-EU) when it comes to polling and the like.
The poll you highlight comes from the following.
https://www.moreincommon.org.u
If you look at the poll on that link, the Greens are at 13% which is lower than polls from other organisations, but previous polls by them appear to have put the Greens not really much higher.
Polling at 13%, I suppose all it could take is more people who were never going to vote for them deciding Polanksi is doing a bad job (or even having heard of him), so it is not clear to me the significance of this finding, given the 13% vote represents an increase from 12% in the last poll.
Putting it another way, I am not sure recent controversy around Polanski is likely to prevent many people who would have voted Green from voting Green. [Post edited 5 May 14:12]
|
The media/establishment want the Greens strangled at birth.
If people think Polanski is the real danger when we have the likes of Farage, Lowe, Yusuf, Jenerick etc then they are swallowing the establishment smearing. As are many on here | | | |
| Polanski on 01:34 - May 6 with 16 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Polanski on 23:52 - May 5 by reusersfreekicks |
The media/establishment want the Greens strangled at birth.
If people think Polanski is the real danger when we have the likes of Farage, Lowe, Yusuf, Jenerick etc then they are swallowing the establishment smearing. As are many on here |
Smearing? Even Caroline Lucas is joining in the smearing then.
. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
