How can people vote Green?

[RobinStrike]

The Greens are no longer the ecology party. They have been taken over by people who want to leave NATO, legalise drugs and don’t recognise women. I understand the attraction of a far left party but surely the original Greens don’t agree with all this.
Plus they expel people for refusing to recognise some members as fairies?
https://labourheartlands.com/the-green-partys-war-on-reality/

I don’t know. I support a social media ban under 16 but only til that point.

@1dayatatime on the councils and their money

This won't apply to all councils but those who have got money - from selling land and so on - they are prevented from putting the proceeds of those gains into regular maintenance. So money raised from a capex project can only go into another project. It's a Westminster rule apparently - though there are apparently certaincircumstances where a road repair can be considered the capital project(just to confuse things even more) but they are rare.

That really needs to be changed. It's one of the reasons why an area with poor roads will suddenly get told they're having a new art Centre and it may well be one that doesn't get visitors. It's completely mad. It's basically a division between capital money and revenue money.

@PurpleLovecats there has been a huge problem with infantilising teenagers for a really long time now. But giving them the vote isn't going to help that. It will mean more people with no work experience voting. And actually people with no life experience. I imagine the reason Starmer was against a social media ban was that he wanted 16-year-olds to vote so he cannot then cut off their source of information

I don't know where I stand on the social media ban - but I don't think it's a good idea for 16-year-olds to vote.

I see relatively few 16/17-year-olds in the workplace now and I think that's a shame but it's difficult to hire them due to safeguarding issues. Also, I'm not sure how many of them would actually want to have a job now. It used to be pretty normal to at least have a Saturday job at that age but not anymore.

I think that the extended adolescence problem is really big societal problem - but that's a whole other thread.

That’s a ridiculous argument. 12 year olds are having sex unlawfully.

16 year olds are not.

Btw this is a really good thread, people calmly hearing lots of different points of view - we don't seem to have a lot of those on here. So this is nice.

someone's going to come along and start shouting and prove me wrong now aren't they? 😂

Anti sematic or anti the actions of the Israeli state?

If you re correct about Zia, one has to wonder why he is still in Reform? clever articulate people tend not to like being used, so whats his motive.....

Polanski seems to be open and genuine (not saying he is, never met him) but thats why he is attracting disillusioned voters, esp from Labour....

...who are finding that pre election ill thought through promises are very difficult to deliver on... or as one Lab back bencher put is "the leadership treat us with contempt, hence why they keep messing up..."

Yes, I think it is a good idea to legalise and regulate heroin and crystal meth. Why on earth does anyone think it's a good idea to put such potentially dangerous drugs into the hands of unregulated criminals, how does that help vulnerable addicts?

I'd like us not to be attacked! But as there are so many threats out there the second best option is to be able to defend ourselves from everyone, including the US.

They tick the box. Because that is their right and preference.

How can people vote Tory or Reform is the question op.

I used to vote Green. I can’t help suspecting that a fair proportion of their support comes from people whom still assume their priority is protecting the environment, but never actually bother to check what they’re really voting for.
A bit like my elderly aunt who votes Labour because she’s always voted Labour, and still thinks they are the party of the working classes.

The final nail in the coffin was finding out their promotional material in Urdu contained completely different pledges from those in English! How duplicitous can you get?

No one is putting any drugs into criminals' hands. Dealers will seek out drugs whether they're legal or not.

The point of keeping drugs illegal (one of the points, at least) is that it helps keep drugs out of the hands of ordinary people - not addicts, but the curious, the young, the bored, dissatisfied, reckless, stupid, rich, unhappy - there's a huge contingent of folks who would be getting high if it weren't so difficult to get hold of stuff, and it didn't carry the risk of getting arrested.

Yeah apart from its crazily easy to get drugs, anything at all.

The amount of drugs available to ordinary people is out of control, there is a little enforcement, all you have to do is claim "for personal use" and you'll escape a criminal prosecution (first offence)

Thats if you ever get caught, highly unlikely.

Whatever ones views on drugs, the current system is not working.

My point was the hypocrisy of people on this thread and that still stands.

There is a debate to be had about decriminalising drugs whether people like this or not. To dismiss this with silly comments like I’d rather my kid has alcohol than the crack pipe is not helpful at all.

A range of different points here:

So firstly it's definitely anti semitism, although I agree it's usually expressed using the code word of "anti Zionism ".

If it truly was about the actions of the Israeli state then we should see greater protests, media interest and political interest in the Sudanese conflict where more civilians were killed in two weeks than in the two years of the Gaza conflict, or the real life concentration camps and real life apartheid segregation of the Uighur people by China or the real life ethnic cleansing of two million ethnic Afghans living in Pakistan and now being forcibly pushed back over the border into Pakistan despite many being born in Pakistan.

The key difference is that there are no Jews involved in these countries. It is this clear distinction which means that yes it is definitely about anti semitism whether conscious or not and relabelled as anti Zionism, rather than the actions of the Israeli State.

Actually half a bottle of wine could give a child alcohol poisoning…and many children can get access to this very easily.

Yes that may be the case but i believe its more to do with the fact that conflicts involving Israel gets in the news a heck of lot more than other conflicts.

Why? because they are an "ally" which we in the West heavily arm.

Look at the long running Ukraine threads? (of which you're a long term contributor) there is no equivalent thread on Sudan etc no Israeli involvement in either.

Perhaps we feel we can alter the outcomes, on Sudan etc there is no such influence.

It's completely unaffordable.

Pensions currently make up around half of the welfare bill. I'm absolutely not saying that older people should just be left to starve but the whole system needs a complete overhaul.

It's always been the way that workers of the current day pay for the current pensioners (though there seems to be a bit of a myth that people have been paying into their "own" pension pot as it were).

As it stands Pensioners are currently taking far more out of the system than they ever paid in and there aren't enough workers currently to support the existing system. Coupled with the fact that Childcare has become so unaffordable in recent years that people aren't having children anymore it's a problem that is only going to get worse as time goes on.

Older people typically vote for their own interests rather than those it actually impacts so the mindset from my generation is "why should we continue funding pensioners and the triple lock when realistically the state pension probably won't even exist by the time we get there. If they won't even care to vote for what's best for us why should we support them?"

As it stands Pensioners are currently taking far more out of the system than they ever paid in

Not all of us. And most of us are still “paying in”. If you’re worried about the state pension not existing by the time you get there, the solution lies in your hands - don’t vote any party into power if they propose abolishing it.

Of course there will be some pensioners that still pay in more than they take but what matters is the average, where the average pensioner will take out more than they have ever put in during their working lives.

As for the state pension not existing in it's current form by the time today's workers come to retirement, of course no political party would ever include a manifesto policy of means testing it and certainly not abolishing it, because they would simply not be elected.

However what really matters is economics and Government finances. Given the pressures on Government finances it is entirely feasible for an incoming Government to say "look we really don't want to means testing or restrict the state pension, but because the previous government left our finances in such a mess that unless you want to see cuts in NHS spending etc then we have no choice but to means test the state pension, plus it's unfair on current working people blah blah ..."

As for the state pension not existing in it's current form by the time today's workers come to retirement, of course no political party would ever include a manifesto policy of means testing it and certainly not abolishing it, because they would simply not be elected.

Not all bad policies are manifesto pledges.

And if any party did that we’ve seen what backbenchers do if their leaders propose electoral suicide.

I’d love to see the statistics that inform the assertion that “the average, where the average pensioner will take out more than they have ever put in during their working lives.” Strangely nobody has ever been able to produce them. Common sense will tell anyone that someone who has paid tax for 40+ years prior to retirement and continues to do so for 20 years post retirement is highly unlikely to take out more than they put in.

Here's the statistics.

Low earners’ lifetime NI contributions ≈ ~30% of the state pension they receive.
Median earners’ contributions ≈ ~60% of their pension income.

https://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/media/avfm5axk/20241127-the-uk-pensions-framework-2024-final.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://workplacejournal.co.uk/2025/03/only-15-know-that-pensioners-get-more-out-of-a-state-pension-than-they-pay-in-study-finds/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

That isn’t what I asked for. I want statistics from hard data, not the results of a YouGov poll.

And if the backbenchers did that they would trigger a Government financial crisis and or a no confidence vote and re election in which they would lose their seats.

So faced with going along with a policy they disagree with and keeping their seat for another 3 or 4 years or taking a principled stand and being an ex MP after only a year, believe me they will back the Government policy.

Clearly they wouldn’t. I give you the recent backbench rebellion against welfare cuts. Any political party that even suggested an attack on pensions would face electoral extinction. You do realise that a minimum of ten years’ notice of any change to the terms of the state pension is now enshrined in law?