National Politics 🟢 The Green Party

[Ian]

Waiting on what the Green Party say as they said they would welcome all refugees
And migrants and nothing about returns

People who don't make successful applications can't work, can't stay. There are rules, the problem we have is austerity, and insufficient resource to deal with the applications.

 

[Ian]

Is it disastrous if our population doesn’t grow? It would seem a strange Green Party policy, population growth?

The issue is too few people of working age to support those of retirement age. The demographic time bomb.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

The issue is too few people of working age to support those of retirement age. The demographic time bomb.

So we add 600,000 per year for 20-40 or so years as a sticking plaster, and then the time bomb becomes even bigger.

 

[holdsteady]

That’s the thing, these people coming in become older, unwell etc and etc and they also need care and looking after. It’s passing the problem on to later generations so we can live better now, it’s not a solution to a problem so much as passing the buck.

Not certain there are enough houses in London and the surrounding south east/east of England commuter areas, the West Midlands and north west, the areas where the bulk of the UKs population lives, to house a growing population either, spare housing in other areas is of no use to people coming to work in the NHS etc in those densely populated areas if it’s no where near where they will be working, so you have to build more and more.

Mass immigration is fine if you live in the countryside away from it and will not be around to see if it becomes a problem later on I suppose, not sure being pro it is always the selfless, caring opinion people think it is.

 

[bazzer9461]

People who don't make successful applications can't work, can't stay. There are rules, the problem we have is austerity, and insufficient resource to deal with the applications.

Don’t think you get my point, from reading between the lines the Greens will welcome all refugees and migrants without any inference to them giving them free passage

 

[LowerSouth]

The issue is too few people of working age to support those of retirement age. The demographic time bomb.

And too few people of working age, actually working .

 

[tonyw]

That’s the thing, these people coming in become older, unwell etc and etc and they also need care and looking after. It’s passing the problem on to later generations so we can live better now, it’s not a solution to a problem so much as passing the buck.

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree, I also don't see an easy solution to this one.

The birth rate in Britain hasn't been above 2 since the early 70s, and hovers a little over 1.5 at the moment. In that time frame, the UK's life expectancy has gone up by about a decade. So the percentage of people over 65 has gone up every census, and that's despite immigration.

Unless you can persuade the British population to start having more babies (tough thing reversing a trend like that, especially in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Italy's fairly right wing government has been trying there in the face of an even worse demographic crisis and decidedly failing), the only solution I can see is that the age at which people get to be unproductive and looked after has to go up. And massively so.....not just a year or two a generation.

Given the choice between selling that to the population and the mass immigration sticking plaster, I can understand why so many successive governments have gone for the latter.

 

[holdsteady]

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree, I also don't see an easy solution to this one.

The birth rate in Britain hasn't been above 2 since the early 70s, and hovers a little over 1.5 at the moment. In that time frame, the UK's life expectancy has gone up by about a decade. So the percentage of people over 65 has gone up every census, and that's despite immigration.

Unless you can persuade the British population to start having more babies (tough thing reversing a trend like that, especially in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Italy's fairly right wing government has been trying there in the face of an even worse demographic crisis and decidedly failing), the only solution I can see is that the age at which people get to be unproductive and looked after has to go up. And massively so.....not just a year or two a generation.

Given the choice between selling that to the population and the mass immigration sticking plaster, I can understand why so many successive governments have gone for the latter.

Add in ai and what work is someone in there late 70s going to be able to do/get? I, if my health allows, don’t mind the idea of working on till then, get bored easy so sitting at home all day is not really for me, but not quite deluded enough to think that I will be retraining as a scaffolder at 70, the roles that the elderly can do at work are going to be fairly limited.

But it’s not really a solution to just keep making that problem bigger further down the road, which is all we are doing with using large scale immigration as a sticking plaster.

 

[tonyw]

Add in ai and what work is someone in there late 70s going to be able to do/get? I, if my health allows, don’t mind the idea of working on till then, get bored easy so sitting at home all day is not really for me, but not quite deluded enough to think that I will be retraining as a scaffolder at 70, the roles that the elderly can do at work are going to be fairly limited.

But it’s not really a solution to just keep making that problem bigger further down the road, which is all we are doing with using large scale immigration as a sticking plaster.

Well the only other solution I got, if the notion is that there's not going to be enough jobs for everyone to do once AI kicks in properly, is Universal Basic Income - and I can't imagine that going down well with most because it would require massive taxation to pay for it, and is an uber-socialist concept.

My point is just that the demographic time bomb is a real and increasingly urgent problem for Europe - you can't look at the data and think any other way. Britain is actually less worse off than a lot of other European countries. We can agree that mass immigration is just a way of kicking that can further down the road, fine. But if you're not going to kick the can down the road, you have to deal with it now - and I've not seen any real suggestions from any major party about how to do that.....probably because none of the solutions would be popular. Sure, you could reform the welfare system to put more pressure on people to work - that might buy you a few years. Increasing productivity in the economy would do as well. But all of these are just sticking plasters as well - they just buy more time, they don't address the fact that (without immigration) the population is shrinking and ageing, and eventually won't be able to pay for itself.

It's one thing to complain about immigration being a bad solution to the problem, but ultimately someone has to come up with an alternative.....or we'll just go the same way that every other great civilization has gone when faced with similar demographic crises (e.g. Rome, Ancient Greece, Ming Dynasty etc. etc.) and ultimately collapse.......

 

[holdsteady]

Well the only other solution I got, if the notion is that there's not going to be enough jobs for everyone to do once AI kicks in properly, is Universal Basic Income - and I can't imagine that going down well with most because it would require massive taxation to pay for it, and is an uber-socialist concept.

My point is just that the demographic time bomb is a real and increasingly urgent problem for Europe - you can't look at the data and think any other way. Britain is actually less worse off than a lot of other European countries. We can agree that mass immigration is just a way of kicking that can further down the road, fine. But if you're not going to kick the can down the road, you have to deal with it now - and I've not seen any real suggestions from any major party about how to do that.....probably because none of the solutions would be popular. Sure, you could reform the welfare system to put more pressure on people to work - that might buy you a few years. Increasing productivity in the economy would do as well. But all of these are just sticking plasters as well - they just buy more time, they don't address the fact that (without immigration) the population is shrinking and ageing, and eventually won't be able to pay for itself.

It's one thing to complain about immigration being a bad solution to the problem, but ultimately someone has to come up with an alternative.....or we'll just go the same way that every other great civilization has gone when faced with similar demographic crises (e.g. Rome, Ancient Greece, Ming Dynasty etc. etc.) and ultimately collapse.......

Well it’s a very short term solution to people not working, as the children of immigrants are more likely to be unemployed, so it’s not actually kicking the can down the road that far.

Not really certain that replacing the population with different people is really a continuation of Britain/the west anyway? It’s a bit triggers broom to pretend it’s the same entity.

We will have to learn to get by without growing the population, that goes for all of the world as well, the earth’s resources are finite so having one particular animal which is incredibly resource hungry continuously growing in number is only going to end in tears anyway. Not got a clue what the solution is though, but hopefully someone much brighter than me is thinking of it.

 

[Basham Wonderland]

Well it’s a very short term solution to people not working, as the children of immigrants are more likely to be unemployed, so it’s not actually kicking the can down the road that far.

Not really certain that replacing the population with different people is really a continuation of Britain/the west anyway? It’s a bit triggers broom to pretend it’s the same entity.

We will have to learn to get by without growing the population, that goes for all of the world as well, the earth’s resources are finite so having one particular animal which is incredibly resource hungry continuously growing in number is only going to end in tears anyway. Not got a clue what the solution is though, but hopefully someone much brighter than me is thinking of it.

The can is also getting bigger and bigger each year as we import more and more people.

Also, because those new arrivals have eroded our social underpinnings and communities, the impact when that massive time bomb does go off will be significant. When we have no economy and our society breaks down, our final crutch should be community. But there won't be any community - just fragmented groups of very different tribes of people. It will be a total mess.

 

[Scotchegg]

Pre-Brexit we had a large number of Europeans who came here to work, pay taxes and contribute to the economy, before taking their savings back to establish themselves in their home countries.

A return to more flexible work visas from within the EU would help control working migrants without any significant downsides - but Tories and Reform won't touch it and Labour appear to weak to go against the media backlash that will follow.

 

[holdsteady]

Pre-Brexit we had a large number of Europeans who came here to work, pay taxes and contribute to the economy, before taking their savings back to establish themselves in their home countries.

A return to more flexible work visas from within the EU would help control working migrants without any significant downsides - but Tories and Reform won't touch it and Labour appear to weak to go against the media backlash that will follow.

I have worked with people who came here to work and set themselves up back home, even Brazilians on Portuguese passports, I have to agree it is probably a better solution than the current situation, both sides gain without the long term problems.

It’s certainly a workable short term solution while we look to get British citizens back into work.

 

[Scotchegg]

The problem is that every trade deal, every migrant deal, or any easing of free movement/working visas is jumped on by Reform, Tories and the majority of media networks with "Brexit Betrayal" headlines.

We need to be mature enough to realise that there are better options available if we work alongside European and/or Global partners that can be achieved without a return to full EU membership.

But politics and media can't cope with nuance, and you would need a strong leader to stand up to this. And I don't think we have many across the entire political spectrum.

To go back to my earlier point on this thread, Zach Polanski is the best of a bad bunch, but with a party currently with zero impact.

 

[LowerSouth]

A bizarre new policy has been agreed at the Green Party conference – to abolish landlords completely.

This is the first conference for the new leader, self-declared ‘eco populist’ Zack Polanski and one of its motions called for the party to “seek the effective abolition of private landlordism”. It was passed with a significant majority amongst activist attendees.

The abolition of landlords was in a package of wider anti-landlord measures including the introduction of rent controls, new taxation on Airbnbs and short lets, and double taxation on empty properties.

Buy to Let mortgages would be banned and councils given first refusal when landlords sell properties, when the property doesn’t meet insulation standards, or when a property has been empty for more than six months.

 

[Peterdev]

The Greens come across as fruitcakes with no costed expenditure.
Zak Polanski…not his original name, had a very privileged upbringing. He’s now preaching to us what she be expected to do in our interests.
I didn’t expect my position as a part landlord to be abolished.
I suppose that comes out of the philipsophy that hates those who work hard and pay taxes. An expectation that those who earn money over a lifetime should have it confiscated and given to those who have contributed little

 

[Twiggy85]

But politics and media can't cope with nuance, and you would need a strong leader to stand up to this. And I don't think we have many across the entire political spectrum.

This is the fundamental failing over the past 30 years, all nuance has gone out the window in favour of simple answer headlines.
The population inverted pyramid has been a known problem for at least 30 years, we have known people are living longer and birth rate is lowering. The fact is there is no simple answer - an ageing population costs more and puts more strain on the welfare state, and is supported by less people. To make it work you need to make unpopular decisions - which no politician over the past 20 years has been prepared to take.

 

[tomoufc]

A bizarre new policy has been agreed at the Green Party conference – to abolish landlords completely.

This is the first conference for the new leader, self-declared ‘eco populist’ Zack Polanski and one of its motions called for the party to “seek the effective abolition of private landlordism”. It was passed with a significant majority amongst activist attendees.

The abolition of landlords was in a package of wider anti-landlord measures including the introduction of rent controls, new taxation on Airbnbs and short lets, and double taxation on empty properties.

Buy to Let mortgages would be banned and councils given first refusal when landlords sell properties, when the property doesn’t meet insulation standards, or when a property has been empty for more than six months.

Excellent policy. Landlords contribute nothing to society.

 

[Carpy]

The Greens come across as fruitcakes with no costed expenditure.
Zak Polanski…not his original name, had a very privileged upbringing. He’s now preaching to us what she be expected to do in our interests.
I didn’t expect my position as a part landlord to be abolished.
I suppose that comes out of the philipsophy that hates those who work hard and pay taxes. An expectation that those who earn money over a lifetime should have it confiscated and given to those who have contributed little

There's a balance to be stuck, but the Greens aren't trying to strike it in my opinion, the rich are insanely rich, and tax policy hasn't really kept pace, but this is a worldwide problem, doing anything more than tinkering around the edges would need to be done in lock-step with other nations.

The Greens talk about how the far right cause division and pit us against the foreigners, but the Greens attempt to pit the poor vs the rich, same gutter politics, just a different group of people.

More generally, we seem to have a problem in this country with success, we look down on it and it's peculiar, we should celebrate it whilst still expecting those who achieve it to do their bit.

 

[tomoufc]

There's a balance to be stuck, but the Greens aren't trying to strike it in my opinion, the rich are insanely rich, and tax policy hasn't really kept pace, but this is a worldwide problem, doing anything more than tinkering around the edges would need to be done in lock-step with other nations.

The Greens talk about how the far right cause division and pit us against the foreigners, but the Greens attempt to pit the poor vs the rich, same gutter politics, just a different group of people.

More generally, we seem to have a problem in this country with success, we look down on it and it's peculiar, we should celebrate it whilst still expecting those who achieve it to do their bit.

This is the difference though: the divide between people based on ethnicity and nationality (for example) is a political construct designed to stop the vast majority of poor people from overthrowing the tiny elite of rich people. It doesn't work the other way around: wealth inequality isn't invented to stop one ethnicity ganging up on another. So while you talk about balance, you're balancing something real on the one hand, with something fantastical on the other.

 

[Carpy]

This is the difference though: the divide between people based on ethnicity and nationality (for example) is a political construct designed to stop the vast majority of poor people from overthrowing the tiny elite of rich people. It doesn't work the other way around: wealth inequality isn't invented to stop one ethnicity ganging up on another. So while you talk about balance, you're balancing something real on the one hand, and something fantastical on the other.

I guess different culture, views, religeon, values, cuisine all don't exist then? That is what makes visiting other countries interesting, it's not exactly like it is at home. It's not a construct people have made up, people in Spain live their lives differently to those in the UK, just as they live their lives different to those in India or Thailand.

 

[tomoufc]

I guess different culture, views, religeon, values, cuisine all don't exist then? That is what makes visiting other countries interesting, it's not exactly like it is at home. It's not a construct people have made up, people in Spain live their lives differently to those in the UK, just as they live their lives different to those in India or Thailand.

Of course not, but it's a construct to imply that these differences are sources of economic inequality. The fact that superficial differences are leveraged to maintain economic inequality: that's real.

 

[Carpy]

Of course not, but it's a construct to imply that these differences are sources of economic inequality. The fact that superficial differences are leveraged to maintain economic inequality: that's real.

No, there are plenty of studies if anyone bothered to look that highlight unskilled and low skilled mass migration as having a detrimental impact on the group already here in low skilled and unskilled jobs, some of that is on wage stagnation but a lot of it is on rent/housing pressure.

And of course, your next argument will be, build more homes, firstly, that isn't very green of the green party, and secondly, that should probably happen prior to inviting millions into the country, just a thought.

I won't convince you, but the Green Party will never be a serious contender with this fella in charge. Caroline Lucas was a thorougly decent person with some admirable and often sound proposals.

 

[tomoufc]

No, there are plenty of studies if anyone bothered to look that highlight unskilled and low skilled mass migration as having a detrimental impact on the group already here in low skilled and unskilled jobs, some of that is on wage stagnation but a lot of it is on rent/housing pressure.

Of course it can have detrimental impacts, but that's a result of political choice. The elites that run this country simultaneously do nothing to ensure that migration, which is a net positive to the economy, benefits everyone, while also blaming migrants themselves for the impacts of their doing so, often using more or less obviously racist language. The generalized racism that this generates helps prevent the poor from taking advantage of their vast superiority of numbers to get rid of the ruling elite. Superficial differences are leveraged to maintain economic inequality, not the other way round.

 

[Lost Marbles]

More generally, we seem to have a problem in this country with success, we look down on it and it's peculiar, we should celebrate it whilst still expecting those who achieve it to do their bit.

I think that's partly true, but what needs to be remembered is that poverty and wealth pass down the generations. You need to be incredibly motivated or lucky to drag yourself out of poverty and similarly, you need to be incredibly feckless or unlucky to squander a privileged upbringing.

The real problem is that once someone has become wealthy (and they may have been wealthy from birth), it is incredibly easy to accumulate more wealth without doing anything apart from letting your financial advisors get on with their job. There are philanthropists out there, but they don't necessarily donate that money where it's needed. The RNLI do great work but they had £138 million cash reserves at the end of 2023. Donkey Sanctuaries have to import donkeys to look after because they have more money than they know what to do with, the donkey no longer being a working animal in this country.

It is pot luck as to which towns and cities happen to have a wealthy benefactor, who may have grown up there and decided to put some of their wealth back in. One famous case at the moment being Michael Sheen in Port Talbot.

I say tax wealth, tax assets. Some people will have to sell up but they will hardly be destitute if they have to sell a £10m mansion and buy a £5m one! If there's then a surplus of mansions, split them up into smaller properties.

 

[tomoufc]

I think that's partly true, but what needs to be remembered is that poverty and wealth pass down the generations. You need to be incredibly motivated or lucky to drag yourself out of poverty and similarly, you need to be incredibly feckless or unlucky to squander a privileged upbringing.

I think much of the problem is how we identify 'success'. We are encouraged to think success means enriching yourself at the expense of others. I teach my child that success is having empathy for others, is using whatever advantages he has to help others, and that happiness comes not from individual gain but from being part of a mutually supportive community. Success is what you can share, not what you can take.

 

[Lost Marbles]

We are encouraged to think success means enriching yourself at the expense of others.

Much like supporting a football club then!

I teach my child that success is having empathy for others, is using whatever advantages he has to help others, and that happiness comes not from individual gain but from being part of a mutually supportive community. Success is what you can share, not what you can take.

Good luck with that. I taught my kid how important it was to be kind and peaceful and now he's rampaging round the house pretending to shoot everything.

 

[Carpy]

We are encouraged to think success means enriching yourself at the expense of others.

No, this is just what the left leaning loons have convinced you of.

Helping others is great, and highly admirable, I've done plenty of it myself and it's highly rewarding, but helping others can only realistically be achieved when your life isn't an utter mess, you have a strong family/friendship unit behind you, a roof over your head and some forms of happiness in your life. To say that can't include things that cost money is just some kind of irrational dream.

Success isn't having multiple millions in the bank, that is not what I am talking about, success is building a career, exploring the world and experiencing new things, for some it will be building a family. Those on the left will still look down on people that earn maybe £100k, I can tell you, most of those people have not taken from others to get where they are, they've worked hard, made good choices, and sure, maybe had a bit of luck too.

 

[Lost Marbles]

I'm finding the above post a bit difficult to respond to. So instead I will tell you about my feelings on the European Union, which I feel correspond to my feelings on wealth disparity.

I met my Polish wife in 2015 and travelled to Eastern Poland for the first time in October that year, so just before the Brexit vote. Huge construction projects were going on, massive roads being built, buildings restored. Her hometown has been transformed in the past decade, it is absolutely fantastic in the centre now, where it was very run down. Every project has a board stating that funding came partly from the EU.

Knowing that some of the money that the UK then paid into the EU was being used to regenerate poorer parts of the continent didn't make me angry. It didn't make me want to leave the EU because we were being "ripped off". It made me feel happy that at least some of my taxes were being used on something worthwhile that was actually improving people's lives. Every time I returned I could see the change in real time.

Meanwhile, in Cornwall, where my Dad grew up, there were similar boards stating EU funded projects. And in County Durham. And inner city Birmingham. And all the other poorer parts of the UK. This was proper levelling up, not just a soundbite to win votes.

I have no problem with people earning big wages. I'm not going to feel jealous that my neighbour has a bigger house and a better car (we don't even have a car). I have a theory that the more you earn (up to a certain point, maybe around the £100k mark), the more your lifestyle shifts upwards and you don't actually end up with any more disposable income than if you were on an average wage. You shop at Waitrose instead of LIDL, you subscribe to every streaming service rather than FreeView, you get a takeaway twice a week rather than once a month. I have seen this first hand with some of my friends.

What I would like targeted is the money tied up in assets and accumulated wealth (not wages or pensions). Some of this needs to be distributed downwards to where it's needed, as the trickle down affect only works with money that is being circulated, not assets tied up in shares or property. I'm not saying it needs to go into people's pockets directly, but used to fund all the things that keep a society together: youth clubs, sporting facilities, public transport, etc...

This is already done to an extent through Council Tax. But the top rate in my village is under £5k a year (I'm unsure if any properties are actually in this band). Owners of multi million pound properties should be paying ten times that per year. If they can't afford it, they should downsize. Possibly there should be some leeway for the elderly (or their family) to pay after they die rather than force them to move. But otherwise, people should downsize. It will be hugely disruptive for them, but no one can say it will be a huge hardship. They will not become homeless.

The housing market may crash. That's fine, it needs to.

 

[tomoufc]

... helping others can only realistically be achieved when your life isn't an utter mess, you have a strong family/friendship unit behind you, a roof over your head and some forms of happiness in your life

In my experience, the most generous people I've met have been some of the poorest, so I'll need to disagree with you there. This is also reflected in research: https://www.independent.co.uk/money...9bn-donated-in-2023-report-says-b2517946.html As to the various thought crimes of 'the left', it really depends who you're talking about. I consider myself a socialist, but don't think that someone earning £100k a year is necessarily that well off, especially of they live in certain parts of the country.