AIBU - GREEN party - Zack Polanski

Which thread was that? Denying the idiocy of holocaust denial is tantamount TO holocaust denial, and quite shocking.

I must admit to being sympathetic to the Palestinian cause when their products started appearing in shops, although I was beginning to wonder about the amount of pro-Palestinian material around. Then Hamas did what they did. And filmed it. They CELEBRATED it. How can they deny it after they put material on the internet? We are in mad times.

Yep

absolutely grotesque. The Jewish community have asked them to stop and say cowlings how damaging it is to them. They carried on.

Peoples refusal to see how the hatred against Jews today is in EXACT ALIGNMENT with Nazi propoganda is dangerous. On another thread I have been accused of being an Israeli bot because I said Holocaust deniers are idiots and that Michael Jackson is a pedophile (apparently this is Israeli propoganda because he apparently supported Palestine). Hitler told people that Jews tricked people; lied, infiltrated groups and acted in bad faith to make Jews look better. She also said the women who said they were raped by Hamas are liars and that she “likes Hamas”. But that she also likes Jewish people. Reminds me of the lunacy of Polanski

I'm horrified by the Greens in Brighton and Bristol canvassing to stop people buying products from Israel. Literally how the nazis started.

I’m quite worried generally with the standard of debate and discourse. Compare someone like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown with Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson- or Obama with Trump. And as you say, Polanski can’t cut it either. If all our discussions turn into whataboutery, or personal attacks instead of putting forward a counter argument, how do any of us learn anything or work out who to support? When did it get like this, was it Brexit?

I watched him on a channel 4 debate and it was quite scary to see how he has little grasp of economics.

He thinks the way to solve our problems is to borrow billions and emulate Japan which has over 200% debt to GDP ratio (double ours). The economist on the panel explained why this wasn’t the right option for the UK but was ok for Japan (a combination of economic factors including how the debt is structured).

Zach’s response to this was something along the lines of “well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, because you’re part of the broken system”

He couldn’t debate on anything other than a superficial level.

I want to like him I really do. I love a lot off what he says.
I just don’t feel he has a grasp on the economy a PM needs.
Listen to his interview with The Rest is Politics- and their discussion of him afterwards.

Thanks @Ereshkigalangcleg , that’s shocking. So much for being against VAWG 🤦‍♀️

Caroline Lucas as MP was fine.
Green Council was nuts.

If you’re trying to say that government and tax collection WILL always and only do what is easy and never what is right… if you’re trying to say that government will and even should forever target the little people and the vulnerable and will and should watch inequality continue to grow, well then, let them say that. Let the party believing that say so loud and clear. Let them say they will become a nation governing by force against the people. Let them say how much force they will use against us, when and how.

I wonder why they don’t?

(ignoring Britains history incidentally, where the government of the rich for the rich was overturned once before)

The Filton trial that fell through. Zack was pleased the man who battered the policewoman with a sledgehammer in the course of her job wasn’t convicted. Not yet, anyway.

Why is it my responsibility to do the job of the entirety of HMRC and government?? I’ll remind you I’m not voting for the Greens because they said I don’t exist, remember.

They found a way to tax youngsters for being young they can find a way of taxing the only people, increasingly, who hold and hoard all the wealth of the world.

If not, well it won’t matter for long. Nothing will matter once the whole economy finally goes and takes all law and order with it.

I’ve obviously missed this. WTF!?

There is another thread on this but putting aside his TWAW nonsense. How could you vote for someone who congratulates a thug for permanently injuring a police woman and getting away with it?

You couldnt do that here (ie vote Green locally) because our local Green candidate is a bloke in a dress.

Agree. Zack has nothing of any substance to offer. The middle always end up paying whilst the rich get richer and many on benefits become more and more entitled.

How will that 2% be collected? What happens if it raises far less than envisaged or costs the Treasury money? How will the Greens plug the gap?

I don’t think billionaires will leave in droves (although they may, Norway lost money when they increased their wealth taxes a few years ago).

Your posts are very impassioned, much like Polanski’s speeches, but they are lacking in practical detail. Again, much like Polanski. Wealth taxes go down well in speeches because they sound great, what’s not to like? In reality, they are difficult to administer and can have unintended consequences such as raising less revenue than they cost to implement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly

I'm sat here waiting patiently for a decent part to vote for. More choices still means no decent choices.

@NorthXNorthWest no argument from me on your wider point: “Zac isn’t interested in reducing harm. He is drunk on the prospect of the Greens having a real chance of power and chasing votes at the cost of wider society. Like alcohol, the price will be borne by the most vulnerable (users themselves, those harmed by criminality that will still feed supply) their families, friends, colleagues, employers and by LA's already at breaking point with spiraling social care costs.”

You won’t get any disagreement from me on alcohol. But IMO* *legalising all drugs because alcohol causes harm isn’t a solution, It's just adding more pressure to to a society that is already at breaking point. Alcohol abuse has a huge financial and non-financial cost to society, and the fact we can’t keep with up treating that particular legal vice, should ring alarm bells.

Also, all not all drugs are equal. Cannabis, cocaine and opioids may all be 'drugs', but the risks they pose/ the speed of dependency/ gateway to other drugs/ the health damage (developing brains etc) / the cost and duration of treatment, all vary hugely. Pretending they are the same is at best irresponsible and at worse just plain dangerous.

Zac isn’t interested in reducing harm. He is drunk on the prospect of the Greens having a real chance of power and chasing votes at the cost of wider society. Like alcohol, the price will be borne by the most vulnerable (users themselves, those harmed by criminality that will still feed supply) their families, friends, colleagues, employers and by LA's already at breaking point with spiraling social care costs.

Some countries have legalised drugs and have seen benefits but none have succeeded with the infrastructure and resource challenges the UK currently faces. If the money is not there for alcohol it's not going to suddenly become available for drugs.

2% tax on over £10 million is a common formula that’s been suggested.

What ‘unintended consequences’ do you have in mind? Are they any worse than the intended consequences of impoverishing millions over the last 40 years? Of saddling youngsters with a lifelong debt they will never shift and destroying any possibility of them building their own lives and assets? Or of destroying the whole concept of working for a living because it is now not worth trying to work hard if you don’t come from wealth already, just to be chewed up and spat out into a world where you cannot make your own living? Of creating the plagues of drug dealing and prostitution for women which bedevil cities? Of destroying any concept of nationhood and social cohesion? Odd how these ‘unintended’ - or intended, in my belief - consequences just are not weighed in the balance compared to the risk of not being able to build another superyachts for the richest isn’t it? Do you not know how Britain used to work just a few short years ago and how much better off everyone was for it?

If you want plebs to fight a war for you in the future as seems likely you will need to stop abusing them because right now no one knows or values what they might be fighting for. There is nothing in this corrupt land of pre-existing capital for the young to risk their lives for. Look at Finland instead.

The cry is usually that the billionaires will leave. Really. That threat has been used so often it really is becoming a joke. They did not leave in the 1980s nor in Cameron’s time nor will they leave now. The recent multiple reports that they were leaving were proven to have all originated from a wealth firm with .vested interests. If they do they will lose their convenient source of wealth with no work nor consequence. Much of it is in land and assets.

As for other economic policies I do not know or care what the current Green Party claims to espouse. The old Green Party had a raft of interests against globalisation and in favour of supporting small and medium level enterprises. Surely the last few months have underlined that globalism leaves us vulnerable and we need national manufacture and supply chains. Obviously that is not compatible with open borders and the rest of the crap the modern group come out with. The name of their old book was ‘Green Alternatives to Globalisation’ by Michael Woodin and, yes, Caroline Lucas, if you want to look it up.

Can you explain how a wealth tax would work in practice? How would it be implemented and how much would it actually raise? Would there be unintended consequences as a result?

Do the Greens have any other economic policies rather than redistribution?

I haven’t heard anything more than superficial soundbites from Polanski so would be interested in a more thoughtful discussion on the topic.

Well, the drug which costs society the most in terms of emotional and health damage, lawbreaking, vandalism and antisocial behaviour is actually alcohol, so I’m prepared to hear the arguments for legalising other drugs.

But the other points are fair enough.

And legalising ALL drugs?

How much does drugs cost our economy? No amount of tax revenue will compensate for the financial, emotional and social damage caused by drugd. Especially when taken by children.

Do the Greens even care about climate change anymore?

I was a member of the Greens about 12 years ago. I let my membership lapse and have had a few issues with them since:
-They used the phrase “men and non-men” in some party literature 🥴
-A woman I respected a lot, Molly S-C, stood in a marginal Tory/Labour seat and when I pointed out that she would probably be letting the Tory in by splitting the Left vote, she blocked me on Twitter. In the end, the Tory candidate won with a majority that was fewer than the number of votes cast for the Greens. It was important because it was Johnson and Brexit times. You need to defend your choices if you want to be in parliament, not block people for arguing with you (and I wasn’t offensive, nor persistent)
-Their manifesto at the last election was VERY light on detail and very full of what seemed to me to be wishful thinking.
-they have expelled people who don’t toe the line like Emma Bateman, but not just her. Again, fear of debate is not healthy in a political party.

ZP does speak well but i don’t believe him. I think he’s a bit full of BS.